Its already implemented for ground vehicles. Try to shoot with ASU-57 or SPRUD/Concept 3 with turret pointing to the side. Gun barrel goes quite off the target after first shot due to recoil in regards to vehicle weight.
Well, no.
Things are supposed to be modelled as accurately as possible, and the BR adjusted for their performance. Their performance isn’t adjusted to fit them into a given BR.
And that is fine, because it could then be lowered in BR. It happens to vehicles all the time, look at what gaijin terms the “chellenger 3”, it’s a complete mess of a vehicle which has had several nerfs and a corresponding drop in BR over time.
The game’s entire sctick is accurately modelled vehicles, throwing that out because you enjoy a particular vehicle isn’t viable.
Ok, now you’re just ranting.
I’m sick of CAS nerfs being constantly demanded by the same clique of people, who no matter what takes place, always find something else to bitch about. Why not nerf your ability to complain instead? Or better yet, buff a counter and expect people to swat down the Yak themselves!
Again, because vehicles are supposed to be modelled as accurately as possible. That’s the entire thing this game is based on. Accurate vehicles and BR adjustments to accomodate those changes. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp despite your seeming desire to have any advantage at any cost.
Right now, the Yak-9K and Yak-9UT are about the only genuinely fun cannon CAS in-game precisely because they don’t have insane recoil. Every other platform is a flying brick, further neutered by rudder bricking making it very difficult to fine-adjust your aim, and those also have hefty gun recoil. Surprise, surprise - nobody in their right mind plays them in Ground RB currently for the combination of all those reasons.
Any why should the yak-9k be any different? It’s how it was in reality (an innacurate, flying brick). Why is this one special?
If nobody ends up using the vehicle if you model it “accurately,” then what’s the point? That sounds like wasted effort on the devs’ part. The Yak-9K was buried in a folder for years and you rarely saw it prior to the addition of the APHE belt. The Yak-9UT common advice was “yeah go ahead and skip that one, it’s got (then-4.3) Yak-9U performance at 5.7 fighting superprop H-stangs and Griffon Spits.” I only played both due to at one time in the past being determined to spade every prop.
So? You seem to hell bent on preserving a broken vehicle which defies the laws of physics all so you can kill tanks in ground battles without any effort. Screw the guys on the ground huh, as long as you get your ufo with magically low recoil.
I do agree that the AD 4 should also have his br be higher in ground rb but when you say “what a joke” well i think you’re a bit wrong.
The thing is that the AD 4 is about it’s loadout, it’s secondary weapons where the Yak-9K is already his cannon so the spawn points aren’t higher.
Also the AD 4 is 6.0 and you also have to consider that we are talking about Ground RB and not Air RB because I’m pretty sure that it’s not the AD-4’s that’s gonna annoy you at that BR so it’s not the same thing, and if you’re not happy about the BR being put higher then just don’t take the Yak-9.
And even in 5.7 the Yak-9K will probably still be good and not as OP because I’ve seen people use it in 6.7 and do well with it.
It doesn’t matter. If recoil is implemented to one game asset it should be also implemented in other game assets regardless to aiming difficulty.
Maybe in arcade but other game modes no. Whatever could be simulated should be made as close to reality as possible. Random malfunctions excluded because those are just that, random.
No! They need to remove its fictional APHE shell or move it up a few BRs! Limiting how many planes there are still allows some sweat to capture the point, get 1 kill, J out and then get in his Yak-9K and fuck up my entire team!
1 Like
Well, I’ve seen it happen. Either way, it’s not an excuse for keeping a broken vehicle in the game.
Because it’s the only currently fun one, and because it’s a refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the usual “grab any fighter with at least one 500kg bomb” that is normally standard for Ground RB lineups.
Ah, we get to the crux of the matter. You like it so you want it to stay in the broken state. There are many vehicles I enjoyed which were nerfed in some way. Do you think the merkava’s enjoyed having their roof armour “corrected” so they’re far more vulnerable to LMUR’s? Do you think the challenger 3 players enjoyed having their LWS removed and a crippling engine horsepower nerf?
Thus instead of nerfing the Yak, why not make purely air-to-air armed fighter aircraft cheaper to spawn? Why not give non-radar SPAAGs a short-range lead marker based on the Rangefinding crew skill? That would “solve” the Yak without nerfing the Yak, and also “solve” every other potential problem CAS vehicle in the entire pre-radar era.
Because, and I cannot say this any more clearly, thats not how the game functions. Creating new game mechanics to compensate for a vehicle being utterly broken is absurd. Fix it’s damage model, fix its flight model, fix it’s absurd lack of recoil, (possibly, not sure on this one) remove the APHE round with it’s questionable existence. Your arguments that it should stay this way because you like killing tanks with ease is silly.
1 Like
You are mixing vehicle controls and weapon characteristics. Vehicle controls are made like that because of the game but if its evidently that recoil can be rather accurately simulated it should be done for all game assets not just for ground vehicles.
But it wont be useless. It just wont be brainded easy to use. Yak-9K would still kill lots of ground stuff but you would actually have to plan your approach as you have to do with other planes with high calibre guns because you could not do rapid fire accurately.
I don’t see it as broken given how easily a player using a fighter with more than one brain cell screaming “headon” is all it takes to swat it down.
Its flight model is a work of fantasy, so is its damage model.
I’m not going to bother quoting the rest of your mutterings, as you’re just asking for power creep, making personal attacks etc.
You like your broken vehicle because its easy and screw everyone else who is trying to enjoy the game. You can come up with “well they should implement x mechanic”, or “give early spaa lead indicators” but you’re just describing power creep and a lot of work just to keep your toy in the game.
Again, because you’re clearly not getting it.
-
Vehicles are modelled as accurately as possible (in theory, there are some broken stuff which will hopefully get fixed one day)
-
Vehicles BR is adjusted based on their earnings in game.
-
Ammunition available to vehicles can be adjusted as required.
That’s it. Vehicles aren’t artifically buffed or nerfed to make them fit into a BR bracket (with the possible exception of ammunuition, and even then the ammunition must have existed and been used on that vehicle).
Why would be useless? Plane has great flight characteristics on low to mid altitudes. The only real opponents in current BR are Spitfires/Seafires and Japanese planes. All others Yak can handle quite well. The only difference would be is Yak could not do more than one kill in one pass which is now possible due to rapid fire accuracy. If they keep all like this it will definately go even higher in BR and then will be useless due to beter SPAA and better armored targets.
You don’t suppose there are some major differences between… a propeller WW2 Soviet aircraft and… an A-10 Warthog?
1 Like
What I take offense to is the general pattern of logic applied by folk like yourself. Assuming a recoil nerf actually happened, would you then stop complaining about CAS in general, or would you then start complaining about whatever draws your attention next until that too is nerfed, and then change the bitching target again?
No need for the hostility.
I take offence to people trying to keep broken vehicles unfixed as they enjoy them. Hey, lets just give the aim-9L ICCRM because that would be more fun. Lets give the FGR2 500% more engine power, that would be fun too. While we’re at it, lets give the FV4005 a 3 second reload and no recoil just for shits and giggles. Your argument is absurd.
Just bcause your vehicle is the one benefitting is no excuse for keeping it in a broken state.
Much of the vehicles I once enjoyed in primarily Air RB were neutered due to complaints from people using your “nerf first” logic in Ground RB. I want to see the roots of that mentality ripped out by adjusting the mechanics and adding in new counters/making existing counters more everpresent so folk like you no longer have an excuse to complain in the first place.
Again, and I’m not sure how many more times I can say this, vehicles are supposed to modelled as accurately as possible and their BR adjusted based on their performance. It sounds like you enjoy abusing broken vehicles, which is quite sad tbh.
And I see corrected vehicles.
Not quite - I enjoy variety in gameplay. For many years the default CAS of choice regardless of nation was and very much still is [insert fighter with 500kg bomb], which only America and Britain have in large numbers (likewise with the scores of US/UK planes in the Chinese and French trees).
Yes? It’s era appropriate. You want laser guided bombs in ww2 brackets or something?
Germany has only a handful of props with bombs that size, and of those only one (K-4) is not a total brick. Italy has all of two unique planes (SM.92 and Re-2005 s0) with bombs of that size, besides the P-47D they got as copy-paste. Japan is still fucked even after many years, with the only bombs bigger than 250kg firecrackers being on dedicated bombers that are swatted down by any decent fighter (B7A2, P1Y1, and all the Ki-49/Ki-67/G4M1 types). Sweden has all of one unique relevant prop fighter with a big bomb (A21A-3). Russia did not have bigger than 250kg bombs on any tech tree fighter. But many of these trees have quite a few big-gun cannon CAS, yet current gameplay mechanics prevent that from being particularly effective. This leads to a massive general imbalance between which side has US & UK on it and which does not in many instances.
So play another tree. No nation is entitled to a capability.
This imbalance was not always so serious - prior to a stealth update in 1.59, all bombsight-equipped bombers had a 3rd person bombing cross on the ground. The likes of most of those nations which existed back then could thus achieve better accuracy with bomb drops from things like Pe-2s, Do-217s, even SM.79s, in exchange for being more easily shot down.
So an utterly inaccurate feature was removed. That’s a good thing.
I see it as far healthier for the game long-term to add/buff counters to “problem” vehicles as the go-to measure, with nerfs only as a last resort after everything else fails.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I want stuff to be modelled as accurately as possible, you seem to want broken stuff leaving in game and more features added to counter them. What happens when it goes the other way? Do we get anti-feature features? It’s power creep. Again, vehicles should be modelled as accurately as possible and their BR’s adjusted.
1 Like
Hello gents, I did a little research on the subject and found the following essay by Aleksandr E Nudelman, one of the designers of the NS-45 gun.
As you can see below, the only projectile converted to the short casing for aerial use was the 1065g OT-033 HEF-T.
Do with this information what you will, I just like throwing kerosene on fires.
https://ukr.bulletpicker.com/pdf/Пушки для боевых самолетов.pdf
Page (Russian)
Page (English)
5 Likes
Yep, it’s good candidate for an event vehicle. Work on the 57 mm gun continued postwar, was dropped, and then picked up again in the 70s or 80s for Su-25 iirc.
2 Likes
That is the 45mm cartridge UBR-243, for the BR-240 APHEBC projectile. This is fired from guns like the 45mm 20-K on several Russian light tanks.
The NS-45 in WarThunder fires a completely different APHE projectile, being lighter, with a higher muzzle velocity, and having a sharp nose rather than a blunt one according to slope effects. In real life the cartridge between the NS-45 and the 20-K gun is completely different as well, as the NS-45’s is much shorter due to being modified from the NS-37.
This document is irrelevant to the NS-45.
3 Likes
Under the 6000 rpm rate yes. Open a history book before spouting random things you deem as “knowledge”
Even then it required the trigger press to be decently long.
When flying anti air, you know how many millions of .50 cal rounds missed? Yeah that’s self explanatory, less rpm. Less likely to hit your target when trying to hit a plane my guy.
So should ME163 pilots have to be on meth?
Why does Mostly Russian Diesel explode in tanks and not other countries?
How come Sweden doesn’t fight T-62s at rank 1?
That’s a wholeeee can of worms I could open all day.