You are seriously sleeping on the Fw 190, same rockets as the 110 with less convergence so all you have to do is account for drop now. It thus also has the same anti-infantry capibilities as the P-38.
You are cutting half of my argument out of context to make it as weak as possible before arguing against it, that is the definition of strawmanning.
I never said they were ineffective against infantry, but no amount of skill can make up for the fact that you have less explosive mass than the Bf 110.
Well 50 cals have destroyed me with single bursts too so what? Plane combat is inconsistent. Also the 37mm can shred planes faster than the MK108 in my experience but even then itĀ“s inconsistent.
DoesnĀ“t feel that much better in my experience and you only get one shot with them so high risk high reward. Never seen anyone do it but then again theoratically possible.
No IĀ“m litteraly using your logic and using it to argue for something else. The basis of your arguement is flawed and IĀ“ve already proven that.
Sure you can, you just need patience and spot enemy movement.
What if Infantry is in buildings? Or spread out across the front and tank is greyzone camping or out of range of your Infantry? You people always argue with theoretics. Do you guys even play the game? Or do we even play the same game?
What you experience doesnāt matter, what matters it it can be as effective in the right hands. If you canāt use something, doesnāt mean it is useless.
By cutting out the context that makes the argument work? Sure, that is totally how logic functions.
Tell me, how does spotting an enemy increase the the stat in the game that controls the explosive mass of the M8 rocket, if you can explain how that works, I will eat my shoe.
Not even, 50 cals can rip wings off and set engines pretty easy depending on gun layout and whatever makes the damage model actually work. IĀ“ve had times when a Allied planes tail was sucking up 10+ 37mm rounds . IĀ“ve said again and again and again plane combat is inconsistent, argueing wich gun is better doesnĀ“t make sense.
We already have the M10 which fills the open top tank destroyer that can one shot tigers from the front role tough. Hellcat, while cool, would be a bit redundant imo.
Yeah ok IĀ“m done. YouĀ“ve used the same arguemeant like 5 times already. It doesnĀ“t make any more sense the more you repeat it. Just stop, you out of material we get it. Take the L if you canĀ“t come up with anything better.
ThereĀ“s no point in argueing with you anymore. TheCoreofyourargumentisflawed. IĀ“vedebunkeditalready.
Honestly I canĀ“t believe someone could be this stupid. Ifyouchooseyourtargetsskillfullyit`sjustasgoodastheBF110rocketsagainsttanks.
Every argument you keep bringing up. IĀ“ve debunked. Every new one you come up with is a 5 IQ take. Just stop it. Take the L. You canĀ“t win this argument going like this. At the very best your opinion on how balancing is supposed to be done is different.
M18 is faster than M10 so that could be an upgrade in that regard. Armor is weaker but the M10 armor isnĀ“t that good anyway. A better choice would be the M36 with itĀ“s 90mm gun but the first 40 M36s did not make it overseas until September 1944. But then again the first Chaffees only reached Europe in November 1944 so DF handwaving may be used.
No, because in the hands of a good player, the Puma wonāt be the tank they preform the best in. It will be either the Tiger or Panther.
If you think that is the core of the argument, I donāt know what to say except maybe consider taking a basic reading comprehension class.
Except you havenāt, you have only addressed portions of of the argument cut out of context to make them weaker.
Skill can help you when you have to correct for drop and convergence like for the WFR, but no amount of skill can increase the total potential killing power of your ordinance, that number is hard coded into the game. Sure you can get better, but in the hands of tow equally skilled players, the 110 will always outperform the P-38 in CAS just because it has more. Think of it like this: at the end of the day no amount of skill will let you have the same effect as a Tigerās HE using a Stuartās gun. Itās simple math, if you can even do that.
You have debunked nothing, you simply just rant about something you have no idea what you are talking about without looking at any of the numbers involved. Everything you have said draws from your experience and nothing else which frankly is irrelevant. Balancing should be done on somethings maximum potential, otherwise we end up with situations like War Thunder where the best vehicles that are overplayed are constantly buffed because the majority of the players are retarded with them, and then good players curb stomp. Considering anything but the maximum potential for balancing will result is something similar happening, therefore it is the only thing that should be considered.
DoesnĀ“t that mean that the Ju188 would be better for a skilled player then? ItĀ“s the best CAS Axis has.
Right back ya
ThatĀ“s such a massive cope. You must be living in a different reality. Then summarize what you want to say in a single sentence and IĀ“ll debunk it for the 6th 7th or 8th time I donĀ“t even know.
Was never my argument but that the damage a BF110 can do with itĀ“s rockets against Infantry can be matched by a P-38. If anything youĀ“re constantly misrepresenting my arguments to debunk easier. I should be the ones whoĀ“s mad because you keep wasting my time argueing in circles.
I would argue being able to kill tanks much easier makes it better at CAS because tanks are force multipliers wich need to be dealt with quickly. You donĀ“t need Planes to kill infantry. Me and my rifle can do it too. The Ju188 outperforms the BF110 in killing power and it can defend itself well if the AI with the autocannon can land itĀ“s shots.
ThatĀ“s an example that favours your opinion. You didnĀ“t debunk my example with this. You just refused to look at my example and made up one that favours your viewpoint. Wich funny enough doesnĀ“t use the P-38 and BF110 but tanks wich are irrelevant to the conversation lmao.
YouĀ“re making it sound like M8 rockets canĀ“t kill infantry at all wich is wrong so please stop trying to make it look like that.
IĀ“m looking at the how both vehicles function in the actual game rather than solely at itĀ“s statistics. Because like I mentioned it doesnĀ“t matter if a BF110 could destroy tanks if it doesnĀ“t do it as well and consistently as the P-38? You never adress how they actually perform ingame and hide behind what they theoratically could. Instead you repeat the same argument over and over again.
My experience ingame is worth far more because
Normandy is my most played campaign and IĀ“m pretty high level on both factions
I adress how they perform in the hands of the average player wich is 99,9% of people youĀ“ll be playing because I want to balance things on how the average player uses it rather than a sweaty Esport player for example.
Well this isnĀ“t War Thunder. The gameplay, balance and unlock system works compleately different.
But thatĀ“s the thing, have you ever played even a single round where a single player was nailing the BF110 rockets on porpuse consistently? ThatĀ“s another point where your argument falls apart because if nobody ever reaches that maximum potential itĀ“s not a problem. If itĀ“s not a problem why change it? You always argue with theoretics and never at the actual gameplay. Both rockets do something wich the other is worse in but both could fulfill both functions. I just think M8 rockets can kill infantry easier than WrG 21 can kill tanks.
At the end of the day IĀ“m not even sure what youĀ“re so fanatically arguing over? The Ju188 is a better CAS plane and still the Allies do better at CAS. They can have 2 CAS planes at the same time and are more adaptable in general.
If you canĀ“t answer the important questions straight up and just dance around them and repeat your talking points IĀ“m not sure why you even bother. The only argumeant youĀ“re winning is the one inside your head and not with me since I donĀ“t share your views.
ItĀ“s like you think youĀ“re smart, but the way the average match goes contradicts what youĀ“re saying. ItĀ“s always technically this in theory that but never what actually happens in the game, how an aveage player not the 1% of the 1% of the 1% play the game.
Like thereĀ“s a very small chance that if you fly in a plane you might die in a plane crash and thus you never want to fly in planes. But thereĀ“s only, I donĀ“t know, 1 plane crash in 100000000 succesfull flights. Statistically insignificant then but you vehemendly insist that flying planes is deadly because technically it could happen anytime. ThatĀ“s how you come across.
Yes, when have I said anything that would run contrary to this statement?
No, this is my argument as to why the Bf 110 is better than the P-38, please do try and understand. This is also the crux of my argument if you havenāt figured it out by now.
Tanks are less relevant to the game as a whole, tanks cannot cap or hold points. Yes they are a force multiplier, but being able to just deny an enemy push will always be more useful than knocking out a tank. Yes the Ju 188 can do it better, but the Bf 110 can do it quite well on itās own.
I have never said that, and you are underestimating the Stuartās HE. With some skill, you can get good splashes with it just like with the M8s, however you will never be able to match the Tigers HE with the Stuartās HE and you will never be able to match the blast radius of a WFR with that of an M8, period.
I repeat these points because they are true. It doesnāt matter how well your average player will preform because if something has the potential to be powerful, the someone will abuse it and make it not fun for anyone else.
And? Iām maxed in Normandy on both sides, and it is also my most played campaign with it taking about just under 50% of my total playtime.
Also, as I stated earlier, it doesnāt matter how well the average player preforms, all it takes is one person to realize how powerful something is to ruin it for everyone else. That is why you have to balanced based on skill ceiling and total potential instead of player experience.
The principle still stands. All it takes is one player.
Yes I have played a game like that, I know a few people who can hit tanks consistently because of practice. I have seen how powerful the 110 can actually be in the hands of competent players, and thus I mark it as such.
Speak for yourself, you think this is the first time I have heard the exact same arguments you have vomited onto your keyboard? Iāve done this dance before, you arnāt the first, you wonāt be the last but frankly you were the least interesting of them all, the rest at least willing to discuss in good faith and not pull underhanded tactics then claim victory when they couldnāt understand why I kept repeating the crux of my argument. As to why I keep arguing, itās because if someone does not, then all you will hear is the BS you are talking and thus create an echo chamber which might encourage the devs to do something stupid. It doesnāt matter how the average match goes, if a single player realizes that they can outperform everyone by doing something, he will ruin it for everyone. Thus, I advocate for balanced based on the highest theoretical level.
Really would prefer they didnāt add vehicles like the T29 especially in the tech tree. Thereās a plethora of vehicles the allies had that were capable of dealing with the Tiger and Panther in the Normandy Campaign. I think the M36 would be a great option. The 90mm gun would be good and balanced top tier weapon to bring to the table
I disagree thereās too many premiums as is. Kinda tired of vehicles being locked behind paywalls. I think the progression system needs to be reworked to be less linear give players more freedom and ability to use what they want but thatās a topic for another day.