Limiting elevation of AA to ballance it against infantry is like removing HE from tanks to ballance them against infantry.
It works but it’s shit.
It’s a solution that is lazy AF and instead of solving the issue it removes the game content.
lol what? the tank’s role in enlisted is to kill infantry and act as a distraction while hurting enemy tanks. AA is for shooting planes. there’s already so many ways to farm infantry, AA should not be another. it’s not ‘removing content’ it’s balancing broken stuff.
‘noo why did DF nerf everyone being able to call in arty at the same time, that’s removing game content’
see how retarded this line of thought is now?
3 Likes
Most good AA guns had a shield for a reason, also the real issue with AA guns was the damage model, If AT guns and tank guns could had destroyed or disable them with w reasonably well placed shot then they would be ok.
Also every army used such AA guns against infantry because they were very effective at taking or pinning down infantry units.
Hell they even used AA guns against tanks, like the soviets in Stalingrad or very famously the German 88mm flack which was the only thing Germans had to kill t34s and kvs effectively for a time, until new tank variants and the tiger where introduced.
1 Like
The biggest problem with realism here is that you have a pedestal that appears out of thin air in a matter of seconds and doesn’t take up a realistic amount of space.
Really one improvement is to give them the actual trailer they would be mounted to so they don’t fit in the ridiculous tight spaces that they do right now.cl
Could also lengthen the reload time and allow us to manually trigger reloads. That would make them stay effective against planes (planes usually aren’t in view so you have time to reload) but be more annoying to use against infantry.
1 Like
I do not see this game as a realistic one, by far, nor do I think that the devs want a realistic shooter. But shieldless or crippled bullet Sponge AA guns are not good for everyone, I would rather have an AA gun that can serve it’s intended uses but that isn’t extremely resistant to damage for no good reason. Than a crippled AA gun that can suck a full AT rifle mag without been disabled.
At least by keeping things accurate in function without them been exactly realistic, we can have the sort of game enlisted intends to be.
Then why the realism argument?
If you’re fine without realism lock the elevation too high for infantry.
Accuracy and realism are not exactly the same thing, you can have good representations of weapon systems and not have them been completely realistic, for example in damage mechanics and such. Enlisted does this all the time with mgs that get over heated way to easily.
Nah that is kind of lame and planes would exploit it with low altitude bombardments anyways. Over all is a bad change. What doesn’t make sense is how an AA gun can take so much damage without braking. Therefore I think that making AA guns as vulnerable as they should be would be a good way to reduce their power
it doesn’t need to be locked very high to be impractical to shoot at infantry, and very low angle bombing is very hard to do accurately, especially when there are hills and buildings in the way to hamper your approach or block bombs.
this is far from a arcade shooter
i would rather it be a squad then a buildable
You hope that the anti-aircraft gun can have the same killing ability and firmness to infantry as in reality, but you don’t care about the unrealistic problem that it can be built in a few seconds. Why? Because you’re going to slaughter infantry with it.
well it has a use against infantry, yet if we add the spawn conditions to gear in the game then nothing makes sense, like you can get a full trench out of your prisión pocket in seconds, and also you can bring tanks in less than a minute aside of full squads of infantry out of a tiny house.
while AA guns were too string the reason was never its fire power but its ability to tank many hits of weapons that should disable it fairly fast in one or two hits, what I am saying is that instead of removing the weapons ability to work less bring it back to the realm of the mortals, and allow AT weapons, tanks and even grenades damage it. that is just the most logical first step, but crippling the gun to uselessness or removing its ability to fight anything other than a gun that is going to crash his plane anyways is just not good, as it adds nothing to the game it only removes what it already is there.
1 Like
It should be weakened if it can still be built so easily. For the sake of balance, the significance of anti-aircraft guns should only be air-to-air. Things against infantry should be handed over to machine gun bunkers. For tanks, you have anti-tank guns.For games, balance is more important than authenticity.such as the killing range of rifle grenades and bombers, as well as tank guns and explosive charges,they are all weakened.Anti-aircraft guns should also be modified now. Engineers already have three kinds of building fortifications to deal with different situations, so there shouldn’t be one fortification that can do all the tasks, otherwise no one would like to build other fortifications.And there will be the same problem as before. Anti-aircraft guns can deal with airplanes and infantry. It’s too powerful.Although it has been weakened now, the method of weakening is not correct.
The anti-aircraft guns are supposed to catch planes, but they’re not doing that It’s better to destroy anti-aircraft guns quickly or eliminate shields
Therefore, it is reasonable to delete the AA cannon shield. We do not need to be too realistic
AA should stay away from the line of fire to fight against aircraft, rather than become a machine gun bunker for anti personnel. It even does more and better than HMG
Unfortunately, Flak38 has many versions without a gun shield. Deleting its gun shield is not against the reality
That’s good
In addition, the number of anti-aircraft gun teams should be limited as much as that of tanks
Anti aircraft gun is not common in a troop, especially Flak38
honestly, it would be better to give AA to engineer 2 and MG nest to engineer 1, the nest costs more, has a limitation on turning, takes longer to build and can be used basically for infantry only so why consider it better than a infantry destroyer capable of dealing with planes and capable of aiming almost anywhere?
That would be the ones not meant to be near the front line, the whole point of adding a shield to the gun was to give it some protection near the front lines.