Artillery man was one of the most common positions in ww2 and yet it is almost nonexistent from the game, as a construct (anti-tank), Anti-air (construct-Limited to light caliber) or as a call in for radio, i love radio men if i could i would be in a committed relationship with the class, but one it does not belong in every squad radio are not WW2’s cell phone, two just like bombers it deserves an in game representation, you would have the perfect anti everything weapon, just like with tanks you would have special ammo for planes, tanks and soldiers,
now feel free to dog pile me with how it would be to op
yes because point click calling art striker as a radio operator is so much better, and because mortar men are so popular i mean i see them ever twenty squads or less.
That said, I think you have a valid point to some degree!
Though I don’t think the larger artillery being manned by players would work unless we had significantly larger map sizes.
However, I very much think that there needs to be a physical representation of the artillery that is being fired to hit the targeted location.
What I have suggested in the past is to have locations that the artillery is fired from that can be targeted and destroyed by enemy aircraft to put a stop to artillery strikes.
What you are saying though is giving me another idea on top of that.
Modified suggestion:
When using a radio operator, you mark the target location for artillery.
Once chosen, the camera switches to the view of an artillery squad located outside of the standard map. You still have to be the one to fire the artillery guns themselves. If you get good with them, you could potentially be more accurate and effective than what the current ones are now, or if you aren’t so good with it, less effective.
Your troops in the main area would hold their position and the AI would take over while you were in the artillery mode.
Additionally, this leaves massive muzzle flash that planes can see and therefore target, leading into my other suggestion.
It would perhaps add more of a skill based aspect to radio operators, and help balance them out as a whole!
Ok I’ll share my 2 cents here:
Artillery as a whole new squad ain’t a good idea.
What is your base for that? How do you aim?
Me personally I could live with another kind of artillery call:
Less frequent, higher radius. The current state of artillery is a bit odd.
Enlisted is a realistic war game, but it is not a simulator that recreates the entire battlefield. The “battlefield” represented in the game is mainly front-line infantry battles. Aircraft and tanks appear, but their realistic engagement ranges and altitudes are not reproduced in-game. It is a rare case in military history for just two aircraft to continue operating at a low altitude of less than 1 km on average, and in most maps tanks are forced to engage in close combat with less than their original performance.
So, after all, what the game is trying to depict is infantry combat. Airplanes and tanks act as important gimmicks, but they are supporting characters in the story. Adding new units should follow this code.
Playable artillery equipped with mortars and self-propelled artillery have already appeared in the game, but all of them are designed to be used relatively close to the front lines to fit the game design. This is a correct attempt.
I don’t think the idea of deploying artillery units far from the front line and firing heavy artillery unilaterally to the rear doesn’t suit the game design. If you want to play such games, you should play sandbox games or simulators that recreate battlefields on a larger scale. For example, WT, ArmA, and various strategy games.
If Enlisted decides to introduce larger battlefields as a new game mode in the future, the idea of artillery units would be a good idea. In that case, the playable area would need to be many times larger than it is now, and the number of players would also need to increase. Each round will take at least an hour. It will be completely a simulator.
Anyway, I don’t think a playable artillery unit fits the current game design.
I think you shouldn’t use text to make suggestions next time, otherwise you will get a lot of replies also with texts. Then you get stuck in endless textual debates.
I think you should use video and playback. Then tell everyone, I want this.
because enlisted is so accurate,
The portable type (Flamethrower) carried on the backs of ground troops, had a range of about 45 yards (41 metres) and enough fuel for about 10 seconds of continuous “firing.” Larger and heavier units installed in tank turrets could reach out more than 100 yards (90 metres) and carried enough fuel for about 60 seconds of fire.
i am talking about an artillery gun made for enlisted as “accurate” as every other enlisted weapon.
To be honest, I have always thought that the radio squad should have its own structure (the one that we usually destroy with a bomb would be the basis of the idea) to be able to request more powerful attacks but that require such a high recharge time that you have You have to be sure that you are going to give a good order or it will be a useless use
In my opinion, the current state of artillery is so EASY for people to use (as how it is “aimed”), the fact it can be done in a moment’s notice (one simple radio call) AND has such a massive effect, that it seems to blow everything else out of the water on effeciency.
Especially in comparison to the mortar squad for example:
Mortars require players constant attention to operate
Mortars must have access to the open sky, whereas radio operators can make the call from inside a bunker
Mortars have an extremely smaller effect/ blast radius
-Mortars must be in range, which is both a minimum and a maximum range
Mortars feed off of ammo boxes, whereas artillery is simply time-based
Due to the small effective radius of the mortars and the precision required, it is almost mandatory to have someone spotting for you
So extremely few people use mortars, and instead opt to use radio operators with artillery.
Now, on my suggestion,
This would look something like this:
When you go to the view of the artillery operators, you have guns 1-5.
Your mark that you made with the radio operator places a mark that acts similar to how mortars are sighted with pings.
All 5 guns have the option of “general fire” or “precise fire”.
By selecting “general fire” the shot doesn’t need to be aimed thoroughly, but has a chance to be less accurate, hitting even a bit outside of what the current “artillery zone” size would be
By selecting “precise fire” it zooms closer to the marker and the player dials in the exact distance and how far to the left or right of the center mark they wish to fire. These shells will come within close proximity to where they were aimed if not dead on.
When done aiming, each gun will fire 2 rounds in quick succession. Giving it a similar duration to what it is now.
Overall, this will help with multiple issues.
It helps to reduce the spam of artillery strikes by reducing the ease or by choosing general fire, the shells are less accurate.
It makes more skilled players and teamwork more lucrative as shells can be dialed in more precisely.
It makes it more likely to be used for precision strikes as well (good for tanks and such) rather than just generalized bombardment.
I disagree that Artillery should be it’s own separate squad. It makes sense that Artillery is Radio operated because artillery would be sitting way way way way far away from the map. That’s why soldiers carried Radios so they could call in support. And the Radio Op needs to have a purpose so he is the support class
I’ve suggested that like bombing runs, when you call in artillery an artillery battery will spawn far away from the map and it gives your planes a little time to take it out before it fires
Point is I think it’s fine as is.
And the image you posted is an AA gun which can certainly be added as an Engineer construct. And I’ve suggested Infantry Support Guns as an Engineer buildable as an HE equivalent to an AT Gun
