Recoil is a likely fudge factor in the same way reload speed on tanks is being used. I would rather have a vehicle be actually fun to use in all game modes with artificially reduced recoil than be technically realistic and utterly worthless in every single game mode.
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.
It frankly will be almost useless. Unless of course the BR is adjusted back to 4.0 at the exact same moment the recoil nerf is applied, which basically never happens to any vehicle.
In theory, but not in practice. All those other big gun planes never get used for very good reason, not just by me, but by damn near everybody. You occasionally see a B-3 Duck but that’s about it, and it’s rare to see those get kills.
I would rather see artificial buffs occasionally applied if it means more variety in gameplay and what is encountered.
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.
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?
For most people I see complaining about CAS on this forum, it’s always the latter. That mentality is what I have a problem with. You are never satisfied, and never stop to look at the bigger picture of what that “nerf first” mentality leaves behind for everybody else.
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.
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.
I am looking at the bigger picture of CAS, actually. No matter what gets nerfed, folk like you will always find something new to bitch about. Thus instead of continuing to listen to said complaining in a futile, losing battle, it is far more effective to go after the underlying game mechanics which give your complaining legitimacy, undermine that legitimacy, and watch as your continued attempts to complain then cave in on themselves forever more.
How you do that is you make the counters to [insert whatever “problem CAS” exists] so everpresent, effective, and easy to learn that folk like you no longer can come up with a justifiable reason to complain in the first place.
I am aware of this - however, there comes a point where true realism ceases to be fun from a gameplay perspective. War Thunder is not a pure simulator, it is a game at the end of the day. Realism makes sense to a point, but only to a point.
After having seen a lot of changes take place in the more than a decade I have spent playing this game, what matters to me more than true realism is ensuring as much of the game’s content is actually fun and enjoyable to use as possible. Right now the majority of cannon CAS save for the Yak-9K/UT are “realistically modeled” but so temperamental to use that nobody in their right mind bothers picking them up. A situation like that wastes the effort by the devs to model and add the plane in the first place. Which is how both 45mm Yaks were prior to addition of the APHE rounds.
I’ve seen the CAS debate be driven over the 10+ years I have played this game by complaints like yours. All I see is a big pile of wrecked vehicles most folk don’t bother playing anymore because of it.
Cannon CAS already has to play in a manner that makes it far easier to intercept with both fighters and SPAAGs than bomb or rocket CAS. You have to fly straight at a target in a straight line and not go too fast or you lawn-dart. That alone puts it at a severe disadvantage immediately. And then you want to see even on the occasions when the stars align and you have clear skies for the gun to randomly spray everywhere? That’s just needlessly frustrating.
I have no comment on the likes of high tier missile stuff or high tier jets as I play neither. The FV4005 should hull break anything it hits not covered by ERA (it almost ripped the turret off of a Conqueror used as a target in testing).
The time to have “fixed” it was when it was still 4.0. As soon as its BR adjusted upward, the opportunity has passed.
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).
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.
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.
Cannon CAS meanwhile really started getting butchered in 1.57. At the time the Horton 229 got dropped from 8.0 to 7.0, people went a little apeshit with it, and instead of raising the BR back up again, the guns were nerfed into the ground, thereby punishing every other plane happening to use those guns all because of one plane getting spammed a bit. It took way longer for the first radar SPAAG to show up and serve as actual good counters to planes like the Horton 229.
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.
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
What’s the point of “correcting” a vehicle if then nobody bothers playing it after the “correction”? It just undermines the entire point of the developers bothering to add it in the first place.
No.
I play all trees, FYI. Is it wrong to want all of them to be enjoyable and relatively balanced experiences?
And look at the harm it did, which we’re still feeling echoes of today.
We don’t disagree quite as much as you state here.
Provided the change increasing realism is also good for gameplay, I too support changes based on realistic modeling of a vehicle. But when realism and gameplay clash, I usually favor the latter, because at the end of the day, it’s still a game, not a diehard simulator.
Depends. The proposed short-range lead indicators are meant as compensation for the inherent advantages planes get due to RB camera and mouse controls, thus there would not need to be any further “anti-feature features” added in response in this case.
I see the Yak as the symptom of a larger problem, and most people focusing excessively on that symptom while leaving the root causes of the problem buried or ignored. Nerfing the Yak would be a painkiller that might last all of 2 weeks (if that, I’ve seen it as short as one day) before you & others congregate on whatever next catches your frustration.
And BRs either rarely or never adjust immediately when the change happens reducing their capability. No, instead they usually rot for 1-5 years before finally accruing enough statistics to be moved down, or the old nerf is carefully and quietly walked back upwards in defiance of “realism” because it’s a game at the end of the day.
A good example of cannon CAS where this happened was the Me-262A-1/U4. For some reason it started getting spammed. People whined. It got slapped with a similar recoil accuracy nerf to what you propose for the Yaks in this thread. People stopped using the plane much, if at all, and those who did were not particularly effective. Que more complaining to un-nerf it because it was functionally irrelevant, and eventually the recoil nerf was removed. All while the underlying problems of how CAS and its counters mechanically operate were left untouched. People could still rush caps in [insert fast tank of choice] and get that Pulkzerstorer before anyone would think to field a counter, and the best counter (a fighter) was still locked behind the same SP paywall the Pulkzerstorer was. SPAAG were mostly ineffective against it due to how fast it was.
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)
4 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.
1 Like
Though by looking into it a bit, the 57mm in question for the Yak is not the ZiS-2/4/4M like was installed on the Tu-2 experimentally. Thus it’d be most likely foldered under the Yak-9UT if tech tree.
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.
2 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.
Me: straps every single mini gun onto my A-1H, 12 bombs, and can hold the trigger for 10 secs before I’m at stall speed
What are you talking about?
Why does Mostly Russian Diesel explode in tanks and not other countries?
I don’t know? Do you have a data-mine or source saying russian diesel explodes more? What’s far more likely is the russian tanks have internal fuel tanks, whereas most western tanks will survive an external fuel tank hit, the russian ones will not due to the practice of keeping the fuel inside the tank.
How come Sweden doesn’t fight T-62s at rank 1?
Because that’s not how the game works