The New Patch Destroyed Air Game play

145791034

Comments

  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Reading all of the comments (not trying them myself, since they did NOT fix the netcode and there is a game that has ping based matchmaking) it is pretty clear BF can no longer be called BF.
    It no longer is a combined arms game, it has become just another infantry only game with twitch infantry gameplay.

    Vehicles are not even close to fun, are far too weak, have trash attrition and have far too strong and easy counters, there is NO reason to use a vehicle anymore.

    The few remaing "hardcore lite" liking players will be happy, but that what made BF different from other games is no longer there.
  • Terminator000001
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    olavafar wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Don't think you got it. AA was primarily buffed against fighters.

    Weakening the fighters is the path to the dark side.
    Weak fighters leads to strong bombers.
    Strong bombers leads to infinite farming.
    Infinite farming leads to suffering.

    This is the answer we were looking for.

    This update is primary a punishment to fighters, which were hardly a threat to ground units. I exclude the missiles of the VB, which were a bug that actually had to be instantly hotfixed as soon as a solution was available. Bombers will still harass infantry and tanks. They will just do it on a higher altitude now. While their main counter are now vulnerable than ever.

    If bombers wouldn't have been in this game in the first place, we probably would've been spared of this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from the one extreme to the other. Bombers simply don't belong to the game. They can't be balanced.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    olavafar wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Don't think you got it. AA was primarily buffed against fighters.

    Weakening the fighters is the path to the dark side.
    Weak fighters leads to strong bombers.
    Strong bombers leads to infinite farming.
    Infinite farming leads to suffering.

    This is the answer we were looking for.

    This update is primary a punishment to fighters, which were hardly a threat to ground units. I exclude the missiles of the VB, which were a bug that actually had to be instantly hotfixed as soon as a solution was available. Bombers will still harass infantry and tanks. They will just do it on a higher altitude now. While their main counter are now vulnerable than ever.

    If bombers wouldn't have been in this game in the first place, we probably would've been spared of this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from the one extreme to the other. Bombers simply don't belong to the game. They can't be balanced.
    Fighters were/are insane OP against bombers, take no skill at all.
    And were close to impossible to counter from the ground, unless you are an insane bad fighter pilot/already damaged by an enemy fighter.

    The buff against fighters (that have strong ground killing weapons in their spec tree too) was a thing that should have been in the game from the beginning, the fighters were/are insane OP.

    Bombers are the planes that need to be in a combined arms game, they are slow and very easy to take down and can kill anything and make a difference in a battle when not countered.
    There are no fighters needed to easy take down a bomber, there are more than enough easy and strong counters.

    Fighters are annoying (far too weak against ground troops) easy mode planes that are far too fast and hard to take down from the ground, they can't be balanced (although this patch seems to do a good job).
  • Imadis64
    141 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I find play is MUCH more fun with the new balance between air and ground. 

    Getting 2 skilled pilots on one team could determine the outcome for 64 players. . . NOT ANYMORE!
  • Imadis64
    141 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member


    I don't agree, BF used to be a game that allowed people to be a jack of all trades or specialise at a role like tanking, and it used to be fun. You are always going to get people complaining, but now in games like bfv, you have a huge majority that dislike even playing a vehicle not because they are all infantry focused, it's because the experience sucks and dice keep trying to force crap on us we don't want or need. 

    I used to love mastering just tanks in each BF game, but all that took a major downfall since Bf1, joke is, it's easier in this game to troll players in tanks and rack up easy kill streaks and stupidly high k/d's, but it's such a dull affair which is why like in bf1, I left.

    The game's not fun, and as soon as you start playing something else, a decent game, you soon remember and miss what BF used to bring, thousands of hours of joy no matter what you did. This games a pale shadow of what games like bf3 were. (IF) what you write is accurate, then I think it's a true shame. 

    Everyone I used to know, who used to love BF, loved the fact you had fantastic tankers, pilots or infantry, it didn't matter if they played each role. In fact, it was great to come across legendary level tankers, pilots or squads of infantry. That's what players like myself used to aspire to be.  
    I disagree with how tanks are. I luv 'em. Just gotta be a little cautious is all.
  • Hawxxeye
    7554 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN said:
    olavafar wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Don't think you got it. AA was primarily buffed against fighters.

    Weakening the fighters is the path to the dark side.
    Weak fighters leads to strong bombers.
    Strong bombers leads to infinite farming.
    Infinite farming leads to suffering.

    This is the answer we were looking for.

    This update is primary a punishment to fighters, which were hardly a threat to ground units. I exclude the missiles of the VB, which were a bug that actually had to be instantly hotfixed as soon as a solution was available. Bombers will still harass infantry and tanks. They will just do it on a higher altitude now. While their main counter are now vulnerable than ever.

    If bombers wouldn't have been in this game in the first place, we probably would've been spared of this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from the one extreme to the other. Bombers simply don't belong to the game. They can't be balanced.
    Fighters were/are insane OP against bombers, take no skill at all.
    And were close to impossible to counter from the ground, unless you are an insane bad fighter pilot/already damaged by an enemy fighter.

    The buff against fighters (that have strong ground killing weapons in their spec tree too) was a thing that should have been in the game from the beginning, the fighters were/are insane OP.

    Bombers are the planes that need to be in a combined arms game, they are slow and very easy to take down and can kill anything and make a difference in a battle when not countered.
    There are no fighters needed to easy take down a bomber, there are more than enough easy and strong counters.

    Fighters are annoying (far too weak against ground troops) easy mode planes that are far too fast and hard to take down from the ground, they can't be balanced (although this patch seems to do a good job).
    To be honest the bombers in BF1/BFV get boring really quick especially considering you are almost blindly bombing in BFV.
    I wish they had taken the authenticity down a few notches at had included that firestorm helicopter  as some sort of an attack helicopter instead of these boring carpet bombers.
    The helicopter would had been such an easy target for the FF too if one decided to do something about it.
  • Terminator000001
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Fighters were/are insane OP against bombers, take no skill at all.
    And were close to impossible to counter from the ground, unless you are an insane bad fighter pilot/already damaged by an enemy fighter.

    The buff against fighters (that have strong ground killing weapons in their spec tree too) was a thing that should have been in the game from the beginning, the fighters were/are insane OP.

    Bombers are the planes that need to be in a combined arms game, they are slow and very easy to take down and can kill anything and make a difference in a battle when not countered.
    There are no fighters needed to easy take down a bomber, there are more than enough easy and strong counters.

    Fighters are annoying (far too weak against ground troops) easy mode planes that are far too fast and hard to take down from the ground, they can't be balanced (although this patch seems to do a good job).

    Stuka and Mosquito can do the very same like heavy bombers can, just without the capability of nuking the entire map. If those would've been balanced better, we wouldn't need bombers at all. Fighter planes are the natural enemy of them. So it's only logical that they are the major threat to bombers. And it's not like that bombers can't defend themselves from fighters.
  • DingoKillr
    4298 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    olavafar wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Don't think you got it. AA was primarily buffed against fighters.

    Weakening the fighters is the path to the dark side.
    Weak fighters leads to strong bombers.
    Strong bombers leads to infinite farming.
    Infinite farming leads to suffering.

    This is the answer we were looking for.

    This update is primary a punishment to fighters, which were hardly a threat to ground units. I exclude the missiles of the VB, which were a bug that actually had to be instantly hotfixed as soon as a solution was available. Bombers will still harass infantry and tanks. They will just do it on a higher altitude now. While their main counter are now vulnerable than ever.

    If bombers wouldn't have been in this game in the first place, we probably would've been spared of this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from the one extreme to the other. Bombers simply don't belong to the game. They can't be balanced.

    Hardly a threat did you not play the pacific maps at all? It is not just 1 fighter variant that has been the problem. No way should a fighter tank damage against AA.

    No, if bombers had not been in the game 1) A bunch of babies would have endless whinged about no bombers.
    2) Air v Ground would have still been a problem. Just look at this thread how pilots are whinging about OHK but happily call tankers babies for doing the same thing.
    3) Bombers could be better balanced, my guess they wanted an easy mode for flying.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Fighters were/are insane OP against bombers, take no skill at all.
    And were close to impossible to counter from the ground, unless you are an insane bad fighter pilot/already damaged by an enemy fighter.

    The buff against fighters (that have strong ground killing weapons in their spec tree too) was a thing that should have been in the game from the beginning, the fighters were/are insane OP.

    Bombers are the planes that need to be in a combined arms game, they are slow and very easy to take down and can kill anything and make a difference in a battle when not countered.
    There are no fighters needed to easy take down a bomber, there are more than enough easy and strong counters.

    Fighters are annoying (far too weak against ground troops) easy mode planes that are far too fast and hard to take down from the ground, they can't be balanced (although this patch seems to do a good job).

    Stuka and Mosquito can do the very same like heavy bombers can, just without the capability of nuking the entire map. If those would've been balanced better, we wouldn't need bombers at all. Fighter planes are the natural enemy of them. So it's only logical that they are the major threat to bombers. And it's not like that bombers can't defend themselves from fighters.
    Look in other AA topic: high risk/high damage is the way it should be, like a heavy bomber.
    Fast, easy to turn planes with very heavy bombs/rockets, that can fly straight into an AA is very poor balanced.

    BTW, Stuka and Mosquito are also called and designed as bombers and not fighters ...

    Fighters are useless (only 1 task at which they are insane OP and not combined arms) easy mode planes that should be removed.
  • Terminator000001
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    As I said, if Stuka and Mosquito would've been balanced properly, heavy bombers wouldn't be needed at all. They can do everything that they can minus being that ridiculously overpowered.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    As I said, if Stuka and Mosquito would've been balanced properly, heavy bombers wouldn't be needed at all. They can do everything that they can minus being that ridiculously overpowered.
    You talked about BOMBERS, not HEAVY bombers ...

    Stuka and Mosquito ARE bombers ... and far too fast and easy to turn and too hard to take down from the ground BEFORE the last patch.

    There should only be slow and very large planes (heavy bombers) that are easy to take down, but ALSO can do serious damage (which they can not do right now)
  • Terminator000001
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    When I talk about bombers, I'm usually speaking of JU-88 and Blenheim. Stuka and Mosquito are considered ground attack planes for this game logic.

    And no, there should not be only slow planes. Even BF1 proved how bombers "could" in a co-existance with fighters and ground attack planes. But for this game, all hope is los what belongs to bombers. They have no place in this game.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3862 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 14
    Planes in The Pacific literally make The Pacific a bad experience. I didn't see any one hitting of planes when I played and I play with FF exclusively. Any buff to AA is welcome because planes was running rampant in The Pacific.

    Outrage should be that The Pacific planes can still one hit Tanks.

    The most Vocal are the Pilots in this game not being able to go 100-0 in Matches anymore. Planes was never balanced against Infantry and Tanks and the Nerf to the FF last time was utterly confusing as The Pacific planes was so OP. So if the FF is buffed then great but I played all day and didn't one shot any plane in The Pacific unless that plane was damaged.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    When I talk about bombers, I'm usually speaking of JU-88 and Blenheim. Stuka and Mosquito are considered ground attack planes for this game logic.

    And no, there should not be only slow planes. Even BF1 proved how bombers "could" in a co-existance with fighters and ground attack planes. But for this game, all hope is los what belongs to bombers. They have no place in this game.
    The Stuka and Mosquito in BF V are considered BOMBERS, that is why they have big bombs ...
    Ground attack planes have smaller and weaker bombs or only machineguns to attack infantry (like the F4U Corsair)

    And they are far too fast and easy to turn in combination with the power of their bomb(s).
    They are even more powerful than heavy bombers and easier to bomb with, which is ridiculous.

    Bombers in BF1 were a lot better balanced against fighters, fighters in BF V are far too OP against bombers and were too fast and easy to turn for AA, but that is finally fixed.
    Fighters should be removed completely (or nerfed into the ground), they are just annoying, have only 1 task and are far too easy to use.

    They don't fit the paper rock scissors combined arms thought behind BF.
  • Terminator000001
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, I see that you only think about your own advantage by still rampaging in your bomber and kill infantry. 🦆
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah, I see that you only think about your own advantage by still rampaging in your bomber and kill infantry. 🦆
    Read again: I want combined arms with high risk (so easy to counter by everything, because of size and slow speed) and high damage vehicles.

    You are only thinking about your own advantage: fast easy to turn planes that can fly straight into AA and do far too much damage for the very low risk and have only other planes as counter.
  • Scipi_Vincere
    17 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    TL;DR (for those of you who don't like to read para's)

    Here's the thing....

    In BF1 before the llya bomber was introduced, players we're infuriated with the original bomber constantly conducting strafe runs while stationary AA packed a little punch taking them out regardless assistance from other pilots. Thus, DICE patched to where stationary AA received a *slight* dmg buff to balance it out. Well, that didn't last long until the BF1 pilots rushed to the forums and complained about how strong AA is against planes and yes, the buff did warrant the AA was perfect to counter high flying bombers. Well, DICE decided not only to nerf the AA dmg but to introduce the llya bomber, 100x more deadly as the pilots can fly even HIGHER and just spam dropping bombs ALL. DAY. LONG. Well, this time, the AA got a slight range buff to counter the high flying bomber. So, for 2 years it was back and forth with pilots and AA buff/nerfs until we got what we got currently for BF1 which kinda works out still in 2020.

    BF4...oh boy. Don't get me started. Little Birds and Apache Attack Helo's...the MEGA amount of counters to these helo's have are ridiculous and they are very mobile especially the Little Bird. I can't count on my fingers and toes how many times I've encountered a Little Bird or variants of attack helo's I've came across that just go well over 100+ kills in matches. Why? They take little to no damage and when they do, they are too quick to flee the scene and be out of range of stingers or what not, plus, their counter measures take little time to regen for use anyway. Shoot 3-5 rounds of stingers at a Little Bird or Attack Helo, you'll be dead before you can even get a clean shot off weather you're in range or not. Use RPG's and "hope" you get a clean hit to disable main rudders or tail rudder to get another clean shot in and yes I have 1 shotted Little Birds up close. Even in 2020, go play BF4 and you will see the absurd amount of Little Bird sweats just farming kills over 100+. It's pretty sick, makes me not even want to play BF4 just for that reason.

    BFV...THIS game has the WORST back and forth buff / nerf to planes and AA in HISTORY of BF. In the beginning of BFV, ground AA was pretty decent in taking out air. Well, didn't take long (no surprise in BF anyway...) for pilots to run to DICE and complain they don't have Air Superiority due to AA being to strong. Well, the AA nerf came and the pilot rejoiced for many many many months to come with JU-88 bombs before ground AA received a slight buff against planes like the JU-888 (especially on Fjell). JU-88 also took it's share of a *cough* nerf too. Nevertheless, bombers and planes still continued their reign in the air. Japanese and American planes were introduced for Chapter 5 and they can 1 shot tanks w/ 500 lb bombs or 2 Rockets from JPN and US planes. Well, to mobile and stationary AA that did not set well AT ALL. Then DICE introduced the Fliegerfaust was and ground AA infantry we're extremely happy that finally DICE presumably balanced the AA vs Air War....wellllll, not exactly,  Again, Veteran and New pilots rushed to the forums knocking at DICE's door to nerf the 1 shot Fliegerfaust. And not only did they nerf it, they kept the stationary AA untouched (sigh). So, not only was the Fliegerfaust and AA nerf'd to oblivion regardless if people say "just have more ppl equip Fliegerfasut durrr…" That's not the principal of the matter. So, pilots can still 1 shot tanks with 500 lb bombs all day or 2x Rockets to a tank and that's *balanced* to them? Yea, no, there's NO justification to where Pilots CAN 1 shot tanks and ANY ground AA can't 1 shot planes. Oh boo-hoo, you can no longer get 60+ kills in a match with 5+ kills in your kill feed at a time now since DICE patched a 20% increased dmg to Ground AA and possible "stealth buffed" the Fliegerfasut to 1 shot planes. Well, pilots have been ruining the battlefield too long 1 shotting E V E R Y T H I N G. So, now you're back here complaining you don't have Air Superiority for over 4 months without a buff to any AA? Wow, life must be hard for you now.

    Extremely good pilots will know now when and where to strike tanks and infantry when they are the most vulnerable. God forbid *good* pilots need to think about their next move if they are not shot down by 10 Stationary AA Rounds (and yes, I've counted the times a planes was hit by AA and it took EXACTLY 10 hits to destroy them) or a couple of players wielding Fliegerfasut. Noob pilots, well, sorry, practice on the range before going into Multiplayer and get shot down easily because your situational awareness is not up to par. So, who are the majority of the complainers? The novice boot camp pilot who just finished the campaign and took a few spins in the practice range? Or the extreme MAVRICK and VIPER duo in BFV who aren't afraid of Stationary or Mobile AA that can still rack up 60 or 70+ kills a match while staring death in the face laughing at AA. My consensus is going to be the Novice to Intermediate pilot who cant for the life of them dodge wrenches that's being thrown at them but want to rack up their k/d farming skill. My bad for *possibly* 1 shotting you when you can 1 shot tanks with 500 lb bombs or 2x Rocket a tank. Balance...gee, what a concept. Funny how that works sometimes. You pilots still have a higher chance of multiple kills and high k/d farming, it's just now you have to be more cautious and knowing the map topography where Stationary AA turrets are. However, mobile AA is the main thing you need to worry about, aka Fliegerfaust.

    Can't say it better. I have to agree that this is the worst battlefield franchise when it comes to balance between AA and Air. I did not play BF1, so I cannot comment on that. I had some success with fighters post 6.6 patch, but it also depends on the map. On twisted steel, I used the terrain and trees to my advantage, however of all the pilots out there on that game, I was the only one who consistently stayed alive. Ended up with 28-3. But the rest of noob or avg pilots just get whacked by AA all the time. God forbid Narvik or Aras or any of the open map, there is no point to take bombers and fighters. You just get blown out of the skies. The key is to use the terrain where the SAA will have difficulty in acquiring you. Then again, I am top 6% KPM on fighters, and top .4% on kills, I can adjust my strategies. But playing on a map where its full on AA, especially where they are good at aiming. Its unplayable now! As much as the plane creates chaos and damage on ground, they are not completely determinant to the overall victory of the team. It will help, but they are not that essential.

    My question is, why is it so hard for DICE to get this balance right after release? its been two years? The original release is fine with the AA damage... all they need is to nerf the JU88. This release the MAA on certain trees is actually very deadly, but they are lesser of a problem than the SAA. It seems that with this series, either the balance nerf or buff is too much on on one direction. The last patch, the VB and Mosq has an godly rocket (I refused to use it, only use it once to test), which could tear any tank and infantry apart. Then they fix that, which is great! but again, they buff the AA too much this time.

    I feel bad for new players who tries to grab a plane and learn to fly. 
  • Terminator000001
    1001 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Read again: I want combined arms with high risk (so easy to counter by everything, because of size and slow speed) and high damage vehicles.

    You are only thinking about your own advantage: fast easy to turn planes that can fly straight into AA and do far too much damage for the very low risk and have only other planes as counter.

    Stuka and Mosquito can do exactly what you demand. Bombers are unnecessary for that.

    And I don't think on my own advantage. I care for a healthy balance. My fighter planes are 100% suited for dogfight and don't have any A2G capabilities. At best I can pick some infantry with the MGs. But that requires aim and skill instead of blindly throwing bombs from high altitude to a flag that is currently captured by the enemy team.
    You don't understand planes at all. You only see the big tanks bird that drops his big load on the infantry. And you're not able to do a constructive conversation, since you're turning words around when someone criticize your stupid view of balancing.

    You proved enough you're not worth to talk about balance.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Read again: I want combined arms with high risk (so easy to counter by everything, because of size and slow speed) and high damage vehicles.

    You are only thinking about your own advantage: fast easy to turn planes that can fly straight into AA and do far too much damage for the very low risk and have only other planes as counter.

    Stuka and Mosquito can do exactly what you demand. Bombers are unnecessary for that.

    And I don't think on my own advantage. I care for a healthy balance. My fighter planes are 100% suited for dogfight and don't have any A2G capabilities. At best I can pick some infantry with the MGs. But that requires aim and skill instead of blindly throwing bombs from high altitude to a flag that is currently captured by the enemy team.
    You don't understand planes at all. You only see the big tanks bird that drops his big load on the infantry. And you're not able to do a constructive conversation, since you're turning words around when someone criticize your stupid view of balancing.

    You proved enough you're not worth to talk about balance.
    You clearly want fast and easy to turn vehicles that can ONLY be take down by an other plane.
    You want easy mode destroying bombers.

    Stuka and Mosquito ARE bombers, so it is logical they can do what bombers can do, because they ARE bombers.
    But they were far too fast and easy to turn and  had close to no risk from fighters and AA and they could do lots of damage, they finally balanced that.
    Stuka and Mosquito even have better bombs/lower risk ratio than heavy bombers, it is easy to get double the kills with those compared to with heavy bombers.

    It should ALWAYS be high risk, high damage and everything being capable of killing each other.
    Fighters do NOT match that criteria and should not be in BF.

    You clearly don't understand planes or balance and only want easy mode planes without risk.

    You getting personal and starting namecalling makes that very clear.
  • bigfootl
    13 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:
    bigfootl said:

    Obviously, those players whom complained about planes are the ones that do not fly planes on the regular basis or never fly at all. Do those players have any idea that it needs an excellent SA to be able to fly well and stay alive?
    For the longest of time the planes could attack a stationary AA head on and win. I have flown with the pacific planes in particular quite a lot and even 2 AAs could be taken out with a sneak attack.
    .
    I am not saying that the situation of the new patch is ideal. especially in terms of the reach of those AAs. But not even the heaviest plane should tank an AA and come out on top or the AAs have no point.


    My points is why should a dumb fire weapons be so OP? it requires zero skill at all. All it takes is "get in" or "equip" the weapons, then aim and fire at will. without even the need to reload (MAA).

    All players must be wary of their surroundings, and not simply ask for buff of their fav weapons because they suck at it. How many decent pilots actually asked for buff on the planes prior to the recent patch?

    Those players whom got took out by those pilots did not have any SA and teamwork at all. Also personally, I think that only the top 1% of the pilots can counter two MAA at the same time.
    Quite simply, they know how and where to maneuver their planes around (there are tactics involve).
Sign In or Register to comment.