Despite my earlier post I do agree that Normandy is the only campaign I think they’d be fine if they did happen to get added.
1 Like
It’s just strange that spaa are added in the campaign with the weakest air threat… In Pacific planes are slow, poorly armed, have meh bombs…
4 Likes
You don’t even need flak to kill them either
I and my friends reliably kill them with small arms
4 Likes
that’s only the seagull with the others being too fast for it
1 Like
what you say has no substance tho, you say they should not be added because they would be “abused” to fight infantry, yet you did not provide any information on how this would be the case.
Again, how would an AA vehicle be stronger than a real tank? by that logic the Panzer II and the T60 in Moscow would be a first pick because they have AA like auto canons. Whats your point? “Aircraft needs to be dealt with only by also playing planes”, because thats how it is? how is that even a valid point?
tbh i dont see SPAA useful in normandy. normandy maps are cluttered with stuff making vehicle gameplay chore (if you are not gray zone camping ). so gameplay would either consist SPAA going to front killing infantry just to be killed by enemy tanks, or staying far in the back (out of sight of enemy tanks) to kill planes, but you can already do that with AA guns.
1 Like
You dont know what u want, look at warthunder, there is AA, but no way to deal with this horrible cas spam, what destroys every tank battle.
1 Like
I don’t think the solution is to add AA VEHICLES. I think the solution is to add an improved AA “structure” that can shoot down bombers easier. Tanks have their own uses, they shouldn’t be focused on eliminating aircraft.
we already got moving AA in the Pacific, the Allied: M13 AA Half-Track, and Axis: Ta Se. If they implement more self-propelled AA in the other campaigns, (Moscow) Allies: GAZ AAA (4M) and (DShk) Axis: Flak Panzer 1 and Flak Panzer 38. (Normandy) Allies: M13, M15, and M16. Axis: Wirbelwind and Ostwind. and similar stuff for the other campaigns. what would help the balanced with the older campaigns is put in the self-propelled AA that was being used at that campaign time frame during the war. for example, don’t put a Wirbelwind or Ostwind in Moscow cause it would be a death sentence for tanks on the soviets.
1 Like
I play practically exclusively armor whenever possible. Normandy can indeed be difficult for armor to navigate at times however with dedication of time I’ve become quite accustomed to it.
However in Normandy more than any other campaign I find that air power is the biggest threat to vehicles and Infantry alike. I believe Normandy is the best place for SPAA to be integrated because it has the targets available to fulfill it’s roll.
2 Likes
Normandy is a clean road compared to berlin
1 Like
well if you are only looking at number of targets, then yes. but if only goal is to kill planes, then engineers with AA gun do a better job. like i said you will have 2 extreme scenarios, either SPAA will go kill infantry and be exposed to enemy tanks and snipers(e.g. die often), or they will be behind cover and just shoot planes (and will mostly do worse job than current AA gun cause lower caliber/less guns depending on SPAA).
also they will be nightmare to balance cause if you dont add too much overheat they will be OP against infantry and if you add too much overheat they will be useless against planes.
also forgot… considering current damage models of SPAA they can also be broken… i can imagine tiger with its 88 gun shooting at some US SPAA just for it to do almost no damage cause to destroy vehicle you need to kill the crew, even though vehicle in RL would be turned to paste after hit from it.
10 years later.
Winde were not used. The Sdkfz with flak would make sense.
2 Likes
this again, folks, can someone pls finally start telling HOW they will be OP against infantry? what would make them better than HE shells from a tank gun?
All of you keep saying the same thing but I dont believe any of you are even trying to imagine it.
Because you can pump out a near constant stream of rounds or snipe people one shot at a time cross map at a much faster rate than an actual cannon
Woah what do you mean a minigun is better at mowing down infantry than a 4m AOE that can fire every 7 seconds?!?!?!?!?!
2 Likes
Planes are not tanky, those AA guns do a ridiculous amount of damage with just one hit , especially the AA 50 cal’s.
The 50 cal’s in the pacific are way better at killing Japanese tanks than the Japanese tanks are at Killing the Flack track’s as well.
With an actual AA gun, it’s very easy to shot down Planes in game, most people don’t do it because they don’t have the patience for it.
1 Like
I disagree, the fact that engineer built AA is stationary and leaves the troops completely exposed is its primary disadvantage. SPAAs offer alot more versatility and the ability to maneuver playing a more active role in the game.
I believe you’re overthinking it. SPAA are extremely vulnerable to essentially all enemy armor and AT options. You might be overestimating how much damage these things can actually cause at medium to close range. No weirdly done overheating features necessary.
Infact having more vulnerable light armor vehicles on the battlefield might also increase the viability of light armor and recon vehicles such as M5 and Puma which as of right now are heavily outclassed by the bigger heavily armored vehicles.
I can assure that the Tigers 88 specifically would never have this problem. If you ever saw this issue it would be with guns like the 50mm L60.
2 Likes
@GeneralBrus The issues that I have here are in 2 parts:
- That tanks have the opportunity to move into positions where it is more difficult to be killed by aircraft.
- Putting in SPAAs would often lead to even more issues with greyzone camping.
-
Tanks usually aren’t required to be out in the middle of the field to be effective. In many cases you can make use of buildings or tree cover to protect you from aircraft. Even being right between buildings can make it more difficult for aircraft to hit you. If you are in a location that you intend to stay and act as a turret essentially, have teammates put up some sandbags around you. This way its significantly harder for the aircraft to kill you unless their aim is dead on.
-
Unfortunately, adding SPAA would cause more people to take that option then sit in the greyzone and snipe with it. Pacific has SPAA and thats the only thing I ever see them do with it. Some campaigns have areas that NEED tank support to help push objectives. That won’t happen if there are SPAAs sitting in the back instead.
Leave the AA up to the engineers. Let tanks focus on being the “armored division” to help infantry push up.
only if you build them in exposed positions. and you will not be better with SPAA in those situations either cause they will be exposed to infantry and tank fire. and it is pretty easy to build AA in covered position to take down planes. only versatility they offer is infantry killing potential.
ffs you have german tanks MG-s overheat after few seconds cause they needed to nerf them. you have m13 and ta-se overheat cause they needed to nerf their infantry killing potential. and they even left overheat mechanic for AA that made them much worse at killing planes (think it was planned as original nerf to infantry killing potential, but left it even after they included angle nerf).
i wouldnt agree with this. yes they are vulnerable to all fire, but only way to kill them is to kill their crew. there is no ammo rack for easy kills.
only by adding equipment based MM can you fix this issue. people will almost always use heaviest tanks available.