Camping tanks

Iirc you cant call arty in greyzone and yeah sure waste time with mortar.
And drive forward since smoke is mostly not goof anyway.

Just shoot into smoke and everyone is dead anyway.

Only works with people having tools to do so.

A) Not all tanks have smoke shells (in fact its mostly only Western Allied ones).
And also… if you have enemy tank on sight ehh shoot him? Because I guess he will eventually shoot you.

Partly works because in game, most tanks are not dumbies, have a player crew and area usnt always flat and empty.

8 tank kills and dozents of infantry kills and it wasnt even a Tiger or Panther but a Panzer IV H. Got killed by suicide P-38.

It was effective because you seem to suck hard.

Thanks to the fact that I threw smoke grenades at the enemy, he did not notice that one engineer is still alive. Well used smoke helps you, badly used it hinders both parties.

The last ones that are triple drop.

There is no point staying in a plane longer than the time it takes to kill the 1 tank, otherwise you are a detriment to your team.

You seem to have missed the point of my post and of this topic.

The Original Poster, @ anonymebagueteCZ seems to have posted this topic because he has trouble dealing with enemy tanks in the “grey zone”. Moreover he appears to be a new player, so any help veteran players can offer him is useful for him. That help might not be useful for you, you however are not the one that has posted this topic.

To help @ anonymebagueteCZ combat enemy tanks in the “grey zone” my post gives him tips how to deal with enemy vehicles in the “grey zone”.

From your reply you come across as a very negative and defeatist person and your reply more or less implies that you seem to think that enemy tanks in the “grey zone” cannot be dealt with. That is not true. Enemy tanks in the “grey zone” can be dealt with in a multitude of ways in Enlisted, your negative and defeatist attitude and reply does not help @ anonymebagueteCZ at all and gives the impression that all is hopeless when confronting an enemy tank in the “grey zone”.

Nothing could be further from the truth in this matter however.

For the benefit of @ anonymebagueteCZ I will respond to your comments.

You cannot call artillery in in the “grey zone” and neither do you have to or should you for it to block the line of sight of an enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”.

The key thing here is to block the line of sight of the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”. For that it is best to NOT actually call in a smoke artillery fire mission ON the exact position of the enemy vehicle. What you need to do is lay the smoke artillery screen BETWEEN the enemy vehicle and the objective.

That also means to NOT lay the smoke screen on the objective itself. If you lay the smoke screen on the objective the enemy vehicle will still be able to have a useful line of sight left, right and in front of the objective. If you lay it BETWEEN the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” and the objective you will deprive him of any useful line of sight and all he can do is fire blindly into the smoke screen. This greatly limits the effectiveness of the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”.

If you do it that way then it does not even matter if the enemy vehicle slightly changes position in the “grey zone” because the artillery smoke screen will still blocks his line of sight.

The same holds true for a mortar smoke screen. It is best to NOT actually lay the smoke screen ON the objective or on the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” but instead lay it between the enemy “grey zone” and the objective. Not only to block the line of sight of an enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” but because of another benefit this has.

I have noticed in-game that for some reason many players on the enemy team often seem to think that a smoke screen between their “grey zone” and the objective is helpful to them and I have noticed on many maps that the enemy team will move through a smokescreen that I laid between their entry points in their “grey zone” and the objective. Funnily enough mortar smoke shells also seem to be able to kill enemy soldiers. Many enemy players seem to think that such a smoke screen is “friendly” to them and will help them reach the objective. As a result of which enemy infantry more often than not runs to the objective through the smoke screen that I laid with a mortar. This allows for a little trap that often enemy players will fall into. First you use your mortar to lay a smoke screen between their “grey zone” and the objective, this has the dual benefit that it can also block the line of sight of any enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”. Then once all smoke shells have been fired from your mortar you switch to High Explosive (HE) shells. More often than not the enemy players are by then running through your mortar smoke screen and then when your HE mortars shells start to drop in your smoke screen you can rack up quite a number of kills. It does not always work, but it works more often than not.

The key here is to NOT drop the smoke on the objective and/or an enemy vehicle but to use it as described above.

Another moment when mortars usually are quite deadly is immediately after an objective has been captured. The defending team then usually has been wiped out and is concentrated on the next objective. When you fire HE mortars shells on the next objective immediately after the capture of an objective than more often than not you can get at least 14+ kills on the defending team. Mortars are quite useful if you know/learn how to use them.

I assume “goof” means good.

Again: if you lay a smoke screen BETWEEN the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” and the objective it does not matter if the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” changes his position slightly. His line of sight will then still be blocked. IF he chooses to leave the “grey zone” then the problem that the Original Poster of this topic described will have been solved: the enemy vehicle will then no longer be in the “grey zone”.

This was your remark about infantry smoke hand grenades. For the infantry smoke hand grenades the same applies as for the artillery smoke screen and the mortar smoke screen. That is: do NOT lay smoke ON an enemy unit or ON the objective. Instead lay it BETWEEN the objective and the main line of advance of the enemy and/or the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”.

Again: if you lay the smoke screen BETWEEN the objective and the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”, then the enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” will only be able to blind fire, he might get lucky by doing so but his effectiveness will still be reduced.

With that remark you referred to the “tools” friendly aircraft, tanks and anti-tank guns.

Human players as a rule of thumb in Enlisted have these “tools” available in EVERY match, at least two of the three. So this solution is always applicable, or “works” as you call it, if you know how to use these “tools” effectively.

If the enemy vehicle is marked by you, and your side deploys tanks/aircraft/anti-tank guns and deploys and uses them effectively they can then all combat an enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”.

In practically EVERY match your side will have access to aircraft and tanks. It is very rare that one side in a match only consists of human players that DO NOT YET have access to and/or not deploy/use aircraft/tanks. Human players that know how to use tanks/aircraft effectively can use them to combat an enemy vehicle in the “grey zone” if you mark it for them. And countering enemy vehicles in the “grey zone” is what this topic is about.

The only “tool” which is not always available in matches are anti-tank guns since these have to be unlocked in an engineer squad. But again: by now it is rare to play a match where at least one human player has not unlocked anti-tank guns in an engineer squad.

From what I have seen in matches most human players simply either do not deploy anti-tank guns, deploy them badly or have not (yet) learned how to use them effectively. Human players that know how to use anti-tank guns effectively have success with them.

A total of six “tools” were mentioned by me in my post. If your tank has smoke shells, you can use them as described to counter an enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”. If not then the other mentioned “tools” are available instead to effectively combat an enemy vehicle in the “grey zone”.

If your Sherman tank armed with a 75 mm gun tries to combat a Tiger from the front in his “grey zone”, then your Sherman will have little chance to destroy that Tiger from the front. Instead you can indirectly counter that enemy Tiger in his “grey zone” with tank gun smoke shells by taking a position on his flank in a spot which is not within the line of sight of the enemy Tiger, but which allows you to fire tank gun smoke shells to block the line of sight of the Tiger to the objective. You can then still use your Sherman against other targets of opportunity in between firing the tank gun smoke shells.

By firing tank gun smoke shells between the enemy Tiger in the “grey zone” and the objective you deprive that Tiger of a line of sight, and if you deploy your Sherman outside his line of sight the Tiger can then also not fire at your Sherman.

Again: you do not have to FRONTALLY FACE an enemy tank in the “grey zone” to blind it with smoke. What you can do is mark the spot on the map where the tank is at, and then position your tank on the FLANK of the line of sight of the Tiger. Make sure to position your tank so that it is NOT within line of sight of the Tiger. You only need to be able to fire tank gun smoke shells at a spot on the map where your smoke shells will block the line of sight of the Tiger to the objective.

You seem to have missed the point. The training room is there, among other things, to learn how to use the tools provided.

The Original Poster, @ anonymebagueteCZ wrote the following:

Yes it can be difficult but learning how to use aircraft to destroy enemy tanks is what the training room is for. The training room is a tool provided to learn how to use aircraft ordnance effectively against enemy vehicles.

When a player selects his aircraft in the training room he will enter the map with his aircraft lined up perfectly with enemy target vehicles. A player can then use his aircraft in the training room to attack the nearest enemy vehicle by flying towards it in a straight line and using the aircraft ordnance (bombs/rockets etc.) against the nearest enemy vehicle.

In that way a player can learn:

  1. When to release the ordnance.
  2. Where to aim the ordnance.
  3. How to properly release the ordnance to damage/destroy an enemy vehicle.

After attacking the FIRST enemy vehicle the player can then crash his aircraft, by flying it into the ground and then immediately pick the same aircraft to again get it back in the training room lined up perfectly with the enemy vehicle. In that way a player can constantly keep attacking the enemy vehicles again and again without lining up an approach and without wasting time flying around. So a player can in this manner focus on constantly attacking with the aircraft in the training room until he has learned how to master the art of using aircraft ordnance effectively to damage/destroy enemy vehicles.

As to enemy players constantly evading aircraft ordnance: I have yet to see any enemy vehicle in Enlisted that is able to constantly outrun aircraft ordnance when dropped by a skilled friendly pilot.

To make matters worse for vehicles in Enlisted, even if you position your tank in a narrow street between large multi-storied buildings covering your flanks and rear ANY near miss by aircraft ordnance on the opposite side of any of the buildings will still damage/destroy the tank. This of course is silly and not authentic, but that is how it is in Enlisted. This is especially the case when facing an enemy P-47 Thunderbolt fighter-bomber in Enlisted. Which is one of the reasons I have stopped using tanks on the German side in Normandy in PC Enlisted.

Your anecdotal “evidence” is no evidence at all.

In Normandy Enlisted on the PC, which is the example that I gave, more often than not German vehicles will be massacred by allied fighter-bombers. That is my experience in practically every match on Normandy Enlisted on the PC.

My advice to the Original Poster, @ anonymebagueteCZ was and is therefore to simply play on the German side in Normandy Enlisted on the PC and stay in the “grey zone” and see what happens next. By doing that he can experience first hand how skilled players will counter a German vehicle in the “grey zone”.

I recently had a match on the XBOX Enlisted on an alternate account in Berlin where I had over 350 kills. That is anecdotal “evidence” which is no evidence at all, it is a fluke. On Berlin XBOX Enlisted I recently had two matches in which I could do what I want without being countered. Matches like that do not count, they are the exception not the rule.

In one of those matches on XBOX Berlin I used a heavy machine gun to absolutely massacre the enemy without the enemy even trying to counter my heavy machine gun. In another one of those matches on XBOX Berlin I used a Panther G to absolutely massacre the enemy again without the enemy even trying to counter my Panther. In both of those matches the enemy did not deploy aircraft, tanks, anti-tank guns, Panzerfaust, artillery, mortars, smoke, sniper rifles etc. Those kind of matches are the exception, not the rule.

My experience on PC Enlisted is that, especially on Normandy maps and especially on the German side, tanks normally do not last long. Especially in Normandy in PC Enlisted the allied aircraft can easily destroy any German tank anywhere on the map, they do not even have to hit it, any near miss by bombs/rockets will destroy it.

Most effective is the P-47 fighter-bomber, the P-38 fighter-bomber is also quite effective however in the hands of a skilled pilot. Some of the most one-sided matches in Enlisted are where there are two skilled allied P-47 pilots which are not countered by the German side. The Il-2 is also very effective in this role in Enlisted, especially if unopposed.

lol.

Actually the match I was referring to was quite fun and it took place quite a while back. It was on the beach map in Normandy. I had positioned my Tiger on the hill on the right, as seen from the German entry position, between the bunker and brick shed. From that area the Tiger has a clear line of sight over the whole beach and with its 88 mm gun and its machine guns it can massacre the enemy on the beach. After destroying some tanks, mostly Stuarts, and a good amount of infantry, an enemy Sherman entered the map and immediately fired smoke shells between my Tiger and the beach, blocking my line of sight.

Another allied player kept hitting my Tiger with rifle fire to mark it and then another Sherman appeared, also hidden behind smoke. The two Shermans kept firing at my marked Tiger through the smoke and the rifle fire kept marking my Tiger. Backing up and changing position was not helpful either because the smoke shells kept coming no matter what position I took. The Shermans made sure to never run out of smoke shells by staying near their ammo resupply point.

The fun level increased when an enemy P-38 fighter-bomber with rockets appeared which joined in with rocket attacks on my Tiger. Luckily for me the P-38 pilot was not very skilled. Later on an enemy anti-tank gun was deployed on the roof of a bunker on the left, but I could not spot this due to the smoke blocking my line of sight. It could fire at me though through the smoke because of the rifle rifle marking my Tiger.

In the end I did take out one of the Shermans through the smoke because it was marked by friendly troops and I then fired at it through the smoke and destroyed it. I managed to evade getting destroyed by the P-38 by driving forward and back, but the Tiger was damaged by the P-38. The P-38 pilot was not very skilled however and he later crashed his aircraft after an attack run. The other Sherman and the anti-tank gun were destroyed by someone else later on in the match and then the smoke problem was over, but by then most of the objectives had been captured by the allies.

It was a fun match. I have never since experienced two enemy tanks using tank gun smoke shells like that in a match, making it a memorable experience.

1 Like

Nice video, well done and so true.

You gave tips. I say tips sucks for various reasons. I dont know how this not related?

Easy. Use planes like anyone else.

Tips suck mostly except for planes.

So the enemy cant see their own walking path? That will help I guess.
Also say between and not in front of them.

But laying it in the enemy zone will surely better help I guess.

[

Not really. Same applies to smoke screen as tanks since most Enlisted maps are full of choke points.

Yeah And people dont use radios and mortars because they are mostly waste of time and people prefer to destroy something which gives points, makes fun and is usually quickly compared to chain smoking with useless radio and mortar squads and troll Steven Segeal tankers for five minutes + because they refuse to move.

Yeah Around 30-40% are bots though.

And actually the sole logical solution.

Dunno man. You apparently always see mortars and radios even though most people dont so I guess everything is possible whenever you play.

Not all tanks have smoke shells so this err “tip” doesnt even apply to certain tanks and even campaigns/ factions.

IF is the onee issue (and the other that its totally useless)

Basically only plane.

Most people wont uise the Sherman for long anyway and if you have a Jumbo, the Tiger and Panther partly also have fun time to pen you since the Jumbo is a weirdo.
It would be more effective to just shoot the barrel and tracks than shooting smoke shells and expect the Germans to be retards to the point you wonder how they managed to get a Tiger.

Yeah, at this point your enemies are retarded.

Again. Just grab a stupid P-38 since you already unlocked it if you own a Sherman. Really, this whole smoke crap is so stupid I wonder what kind of morons you keep playing against.

The training room does not include crews (which is how you mostly kill tanks).

Why? must say its actually pretty easy in Normandy at least and suicide bombing aint that hard unlike relying on the enemy to be brain-damaged toddlers.

So are yours so wtf do you want now?

Because apparently your team and you are morons because it seems like none of you had the idea to build a AA gun or use a plane as well…
But why not jsut use smoke against them? Maybe they are as stupid as your team?

Anecdotes…
How
emperor-palpatine-ironic
But to be fair, without your stupid anecdotes, your text would be probably 75% shorter.

No way?!? And I thought the Allies use it because of fun?

Who could have guessed that no oppossition makes one side strong?

Dunno man. You are the one who keeps dying because of planes and never thought of the idea of using a AA gun, a fighter or at least using a machine gun against them.

emperor-palpatine-ironic
If its so good, then why dont you see them more?

Reality is… the market decides and the Enlisted players give a crap of smoke screen tips and use planes and better tanks otherwise just wait until they get it. Even grey zone suiciding with TNT or PIAT seems to be more beloved than stupid smoke.

The best tactic is the one with the least effort and the best outcome.
Plane/ Tank bomb bomb tank = Tank destroyed + Exp + Now you can farm inf/ More exp to earn
Tank/ Radio/ Mortar smoke smoke tank = Tank is not destroyed and adapts + Zero exp + Wasted squads + Wasted Time

1 Like

Funny anecdote, I got very tired at a passive team I had once a long time ago when the T-28 was new and I was leveling it.

Got out of tank with the bots, captured the objective losing only one bot and got back to the tank, repeated it one more time on the next objective before someone destroyed the T-28 while I was capturing the 3rd objective on Monastery.

Still captured the 4th objective (the walls) with that squad before it got wiped.

Ah good old times with only T-28 and Panzer IV tennis.

1 Like

And let this be the conclusion.

lol.

You might have deluded yourself into thinking that you have posted clever “replies” or even “refuted” something. Alas for you the contrary is the case: all your “replies” to me in this topic so far have achieved is clearly display your inadequacy.

I could easily disect your entire “reply” in detail and point out the many fallacies in your reply in detail, but quite frankly your obvious and demonstrated deficiency in argumentative skills make any further reply to them a waste of time and energy.

The small selection above of quotes from your replies to me in this topic makes all this quite clear.

Your “replies” to me in this topic so far have been a motley collection of the following:

1.) Ad hominem logical fallacy.
2.) Contextomy fallacy, also known as the fallacy of quoting out of context.
3.) Straw Man fallacy.
4.) Argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”), a fallacious argument, also known as consensus gentium (Latin for “agreement of the people”).

Ad 1.)
Ad hominem logical fallacy (Ad hominem being Latin for “to the person”) is a category of argumentative strategies that involve criticizing an opponent’s character, motive, background, experience, intelligence and/or other personal attributes instead of their argument’s content. Also known as Argumentum ad hominem (Latin for "argument directed to the man)”. The ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the discussion and used primarily as a diversion tactic, either to unjustifiably shift the burden of proof to someone else in the discussion or to change the topic. Trying to change the topic in such a manner is also called a red herring, which is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. The Ad hominem attack involves the faulty premise that an attack against the source of an argument necessarily constitutes a successful refutation of that argument.

Ad 2.)
Contextomy fallacy, also known as the fallacy of quoting out of context, is done by removing a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Ad 3.)
A Straw Man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

Ad 4.)
Argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”), being a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good by claiming or suggesting that the majority thinks so. An alternative name for this is Consensus gentium (Latin for “agreement of the people”) fallacy. The inverse argument, that something that is unpopular must be flawed, is also a form of this fallacy. The Argumentum ad populum fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the ‘justification’ of a belief and its ‘widespread acceptance’ by a given group of people.

“***”

The most common types of insults in Ad hominem (personal) attacks are:

1.) “Uselessness” insults that focus precisely on highlighting the supposed worthlessness of the person. Its goal is to undermine his worth by making him feel worthless, incapable, or insignificant. This is to detract from the value and merit of the insulted person.

2.) “Stupidity” insults. Since intelligence is a very precious value in most cultures, it is not surprising that many insults focus on this characteristic. Labeling a person and/or their remarks and experience as stupid, dumb, retarded, moronic, infantile and/or ignorant is an attempt to devalue his or her ideas and erase them intellectually.

3.) “Peculiarity” insults. Another type of insult focuses on the most peculiar characteristics and/or opinions of people, mainly those that are perceived as too far from the “norm”. In that case, an attempt is to make look the person as not deserving attention or respect for being different or having a different opinion compared to an imagined, perceived or claimed “majority” of other “people”. This is closely related to the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, also called the Consensus gentium fallacy.

“***”

Remember: When a person stops arguing the facts and starts making Ad hominem (personal) attacks, that is a clear sign that this person has lost argument. This is a well known fact in the art of debate. When a person resorts to insulting language this clearly demonstrates their immaturity and a lack of arguments.

“***”

Your “replies” to me in this topic, as evident by my quotes of you above, are a motley collection and treasure trove of ALL of the above, and as such not constructive and therefore not further worth my time.

On the plus side, you and your “replies” present an entertaining example and case study for a psychiatrist.

How on earth is that helpful to the topic at hand?

How on earth will a comment like that help the Original Poster @ anonymebagueteCZ deal with an enemy tank in the “grey zone”?

This topic mind you, was started by @ anonymebagueteCZ

He appears to be a new player to Enlisted and seems to find dealing with enemy vehicles in the “grey zone” a challenge.

Maybe you wrote your statement that I quoted above because you feel the need to come to the aid of a forum buddy whom is found wanting. Whatever reason you had for it, it is not helpful to the topic at hand.

And it is also not true.

In the human world a small number of people are the deciders, never the “masses”. The majority, the “herd”, the “market” does not decide anything, they are instead simply followers that consume something that is offered to them, not everything that is offered to them but always at least something that is offered to them.

The deciders in this game are the owners of Enlisted, they decide what direction Enlisted development will be taken in.

For example the deciders have decided to implement a spade and digging in Enlisted.

Few people in Enlisted use a spade and rarely are foxholes/ditches dug in the Enlisted, in my experience. And yet spades exist in Enlisted and foxholes/ditches are dug in Enlisted even if it is done by a tiny minority of the human players. If you dig a hole in Enlisted and place your rally point in a dug hole it will usually survive an artillery strike, at least on many Normandy maps in Enlisted. The hole and rally point will then often also not be found by the enemy if smartly positioned. Few people in Enlisted seem to know this and few people make use of it, that does not make it any less useful, real and available.

Even if you do not use a spade in Enlisted, it is almost unavoidable that you use at least one firearm that the deciders decided to implement in Enlisted. And every firearm in Enlisted is implemented with the characteristics the deciders want it to have, with their choice. Whatever you choose in Enlisted, it is there because the deciders allow you to choose it. Their choice, not yours.

Games like Stratego continue to exist and thrive even though they do not have hundreds of thousands of people playing it online every day competitively. Numbers of consumers are never the deciding factor IF something is to be developed and produced.

In fact Enlisted is an interesting example since so few human players actually play the game.

Looking at the human player numbers Enlisted is a “market” failure. And yet Enlisted exists, even though looking at the human player numbers it should be shut down. So if the “market decides”, by which I assume you mean the consumers, than Enlisted would have been shut down a long time ago.

In fact games, movies, tv series and music are made, books are written for many other reasons than simply mass consumer “market” appeal. They are made and kept in existence no matter if they make money or lose money, they are made for other motives than money and mass “market” appeal.

An example for you.

02/20/23 AT 10:40 PM EST:
„Russia Allocates Billions To Develop ‘Patriotic’ Video Games Amid The Ukraine War
IRI is funding the development of Russian ‘patriotic’ video games. IRI previously pledged to allocate no less than 1 billion rubles toward game development efforts in 2022. Russia also discussed an initiative toward supporting Russian game studios until 2030.
Russia is allocating billions of government funds to produce and develop video games with a patriotic slant amid its nearly 12-month war in Ukraine, according to a report.
The development of video games is funded by the IRI, a non-profit organization established in 2015 at the behest of the Russian presidential administration. Initially, the organization focused on producing films, blogs and podcasts. It expanded its focus to include game development last year.
IRI’s general director Alexei Goreslavsky previously pledged to allocate no less than 1 billion rubles ($13.7 million) toward game development efforts in 2022, as translated via Google Translate.
In addition to funding the development of “patriotic” video games, it was also reported last year that Russia is discussing a federal initiative dubbed “The Gaming Industry of the Future,” which aims to allocate as much as $50 billion toward supporting Russian game studios, Russian newspaper Kommersant reported.“

That is 50 billion US dollar worth of government funding they are talking about, that is billion with a b.

A game like Enlisted is not made because there is a mass consumer “market” demand for it.

The “market”, in the sense of a mass of people that consume, are followers that consume what is offered to them by a small number of people that actually decide. Exceptions to this are creative “followers” that resort to making their own indy games, mods etc.

Another example.

If we are to believe Steven Spielberg’s claims, then it is he that created the WW2 FPS genre, he more or less claimed that it was his idea to make the very first WW2 FPS. No market research was done for that, it was just an idea that he had. It was something HE wanted made according to his statements.

The same applies to his movie Jaws. By all accounts Spielberg wanted to make that movie. He did not first do market research to see if “people” wanted to see a pretty nude girl being eaten by a large shark in the opening scene of his movie. Spielberg wanted to make that movie and he wanted that opening scene, so he made it and no matter what is made, there are ALWAYS a number of people on this planet that will consume it.

No matter how nice or how gross something is, consume it some will, no matter how many do or how many do not actually consume it.

Things are made and people consume them, the numbers are a side note.

The “market” however decides nothing, it never has and it never will. It can only consume that what is offered to them because it cannot consume that which is NOT offered, it does not consume EVERYTHING that is offered to them in equal numbers but it will always consume AT LEAST SOMETHING that is offered to them by the real deciders.

There is the illusion that there is a choice in decision in what to consume, in actuality that choice in decision does not exist because the mass “market” can ONLY consume what is offered to them by the real deciders.

For example the mass “market” cannot “decide to choose” to play a major title game or watch a major motion picture where the Japanese in WW2 are depicted as the peaceloving “good” guys and the USSR, China and western allies depicted as the warmongering “bad” guys because it has not been made, it does not exist and thus the mass “market” cannot “decide” to consume it.

You dont listen to the market, my friend. Thats why. Enlisted Market is probably easiest market to listen to.
Or for the Widars around…
Use planes like anyone else and stop being useless hipster and waste time and ressources.
(Its also worth mentioning that OP didn’t really ask for help anyway)

1 Like