Ahh, I see.
But it still makes little difference imho.
Because this should still apply.
There should always be reasons why one would prefer to take something other than a p47. And those reasons should not be artificial restrictions.
Itâs a game, not master thesis. Wiki is good enough for our purposes.
Iâd even say itâs an overkill in comparison to some magic that is happening with some equipment.
Well, I am not the one who base his nerf suggestions on âhistoricalâ facts.
I just thought itâs funny he was presenting Wikipedia as an reliable source. Especially about nitpick thing like this one.
1 Like
Well, on paper youâre right, however as Adam pointed out, there are already some fighter + attacker combo that are just as effective (or almost) as a double attacker situation.
I literally cant believe how allied crybabies cant stop whining about the only good German plane for its BR. GET A LIFE!
AxIs IsNât SuPpOsEd To HaVe AiR aDvAnTaGe!
1 Like
Itâs funny because BR1 planes will compete against BR2 and BR3 planes in most matches anyway. So itâs not like the plane is somewhat broken.
1 Like
Thats true. Should we be letting it continue? Or bring back into line, clearly defining attacker and fighter? Just curious of your opinion.
Donât always want to cut or increase something just because it has outstanding advantages.
All camps have unique characteristics
Shouldnât weaken them or give the enemy something like that
Learn how to use your strengths instead of crying about them
Does the fact that the German army has three main types of tigers also need to be revised?
Those damn 88 cannons can destroy everything about capitalism and communism
They shouldnât get such a powerful main gun and so many models
Will the Japanese and German automatic weapons be too powerful?
Should they be reduced to M2 Carbine damage?
Or do you want to cry like a crybaby and need T20?
Tokyo Arsenal, which should not exist, and STG, which has the highest usage rate, both need to be weakened.
Make them as weak as Thomson
The Germans and the Soviet Union had the best anti-tank equipment
Should they also be weakened?
Let them only have the armor penetration data of the M9 rocket launcher
This is just a repetition of jealousy and crying
Not helpful to the environment
Well, thatâs not what I am talking about. I donât mind if one faction would have better tanks overall and the other faction better CAS.
But itâs definitely unhealthy for the game, if only one specific vehicle is overused on its BR. Creating meta of one single weapon/vehicle is just dull and boring. And is obvious, that P-47 is currently way above anything that US has.
So it needs to be slightly nerfed. For example it should lose its bomb. And some other plane options for US should be made more interesting. We need better variety. Not meta of one single weapon/weapon which is obviously more potent than any other option.
Otherwise it will end up like this:
1 Like
Eh, I guess that as always itâs a matter of pros and cons.
Planes who perform well both as fighters and attackers will keep being playersâ favourites, regardless of how they are labelled.
If we strip âfightersâ of any meaningful CAS ability, the whole class may end up almost forgotten, because fightersâ guns canât deal with tanks, so everyone would rather bring an attacker to be ready in that case. (Let alone the gigantic can of worms that would be removing important features from premium units.)
Meanwhile, among attackers, there would still be clear preference towards models that can ground pound effectively, while still having decent guns and agility to pack a punch air-to-air (think of Bf110s, Beaufighter, A20, IL-10).
Tank players and CAS haters would be happier because there would be overall less threats from the air, but at the cost of reducing most or all fighters to marginal filler content, and seeing even less variety of planes used in battle.
1 Like
Itâs not only about potential to destroy tanks. Bombs and rockets are way more effective against infantry than MGs and cannons. (With exception of German 20mm/30mm with pretty decent explosive fillers). Meaning, they canât even clear the objective.
Fighters without potential to deal with infantry and tanks in significant manner are just very situational. And basically their only goal is to target 2 players of opposed team at best. (Because sometimes enemies donât have to use plane at all).
Not even mentioning, any plane = less bodies on battlefield/objective.
Taking pure fighter is basically never a good option. They do not have place in current enlisted. And for majority of times, theyâre just burden to their own team. Especially since they are potentially blocking plane slot for a plane with bomb/rocket load out.
Plus for a player limited to only 4-10 slots each, you can always take something better than a fighter plane. Always.
3 Likes
oh Iâm not saying fighters shouldnât have bombs/rockets. completely the opposite. I think they âallâ should have something, bombs or rockets.
I just think they can have a smaller payload than attackers. Multiple 50/60kgs at low BR is quite effective. Moving on into 250KGs at BR 3 and up. (I think premium exceptions is probably okay)
1 Like
that would limit new players ability to deal with tanks which already is pathetic.
I guess my thoughts would be that the attackers are supposed to be the easy go to class to deal with ground targets, where as a fighter would need to be more precise/deliberate because they are better at air combat.
I donât think everything needs an âI win buttonââŚcall me old fashioned. but thatâs okay. just discussing.
1 Like
Thatâs kinda logical.
Faster and more nimble planes that are potent in air to air combat shouldnât be as strong against ground targets.
But you donât need seperate class for it. Why players shouldnât have option to risk and take two planes that ar basically easy targets in air, but very deadly against ground targets?
You really do not need this artificial limitation.
It somewhat works like that for ground vehicles as well. You can either take infantry support tank (Pz III N for example), or tank thats more prioritized against other ground vehicles (dicker max for example) or even balanced and completely versatile (Pz IV J).
It worth the notice this isnât always the case because of very poor MM/BR policy which makes some options basically worthless. But they can be fixed and properly balanced. It just depends on DFâs competence.
You donât need 3 seperate classes for these tanks.
1 Like
In order to sort out doubts, I think that it could perhaps be a reasonable step to run a (CLEARLY ANNOUNCED) limited time experiment where the fighter / attacker restriction is turned off, only the 2 planes at once limit remain, and see how it turns out.
3 Likes
well they are considering testing turning the gray zone off. This would be another good test.
there is no need to test that, just play some train escort and you will see the problem with it.
1 Like
Although I donât mind train escort (unlike a lot of people), I agree that enemies far behind your own spawn can become a problem there, despite spawn protection.
1 Like