Correct, and I still consult when asked.
There is a LOT that goes into this, but I’m going to break down the very basic issues that I see to begin with.
As far as
Yes it does. That’s the whole point of grinding to get the better equipment on a fundamental level. Rather than looking at it as “acquiring new powers” or “growing squad size”, look at it from an equipment standpoint. Each gun that is added to a plane for its effect. Not all the MG positions on a plane are super useful all the time.
This is not true, depending on the plane, and what MG positions and calibers they have.
The A-20, Sb-2m, and (the Normandy Axis bomber, can’t think of the name right now), all have INSANE firepower if properly manned and utilized.
Giving that power to just anyone right away is indeed instant gratification.
Back to my other point.
One of the biggest issues that from a development standpoint that is an issue is that they are focusing so heavily on trying to get infantry combat to be the most “interesting”, as its the simplest role to play and will be their main draw of players. Unfortunately, as it stands right now, its more like people running around like its CoD and everyone is always trying to play offense, rather than defined offense and defense roles.
Because of this, vehicles can be a MASSIVE difference on the battlefield, as we have all seen. The basics of tanks is really simple, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Even beginner players can jump in and manage to do ok against infantry with a basic tank crew, because VERY RARELY is there anything the infantry does to defend against them.
Now this is where it gets tricky: attack capabilities vs defense capabilities. Tanks vs infantry.
Tanks have FAR more devastating potential in terms of offense. They also ignore small arms fire, requiring AT equipment for infantry to take them out. This makes them pretty far ahead of infantry in terms of team value. To make up for it, they are not able to capture objectives, and they are limited to 2 per team. However, because it is now a limited resource, it can become a deciding factor in the game depending on who is running it.
Ultimately, by keeping the initial crew sizes low, it keeps survivability low, encouraging players to keep cycling through, so if a bad/ new player is using it, they’ll get their turn, die, and move on. Whereas experienced players survive longer but are also much more effective on the battlefield. In the meantime, it stops noobs from being able to instantly wreck due to higher capability equipment.
Planes are just a more extreme version of this.
Meanwhile, I find it very interesting that so many people are so focused on “tank crews should be full to start with” as a means to
Yet when players like myself ask for even a way to grind up and eventually build stronger fortifications, not even get them right away, so that we are able to enjoy our time more, we get told to sit down and shut up.
From my trained standpoint, you are asking for far more capable offensive capabilities faster, when the defensive capabilities within the game are already lacking, and there is a massive imbalance there already.
Have you ever stopped to look at the desertion rate on games that are offense vs defense? Defense is generally 2x as many people quitting out. I considerable amount of that reason is things like tanks that are able to sit back and endlessly lob HE shells into an objective that defenders are supposed to hold, getting easy kills with little competition.
If you put 2 teams of basically noobs against each other, one on offense, one on defense, having given them the tutorials available within the game (so they understand how tanks work). Which side do you think is going to come out on top? My money is on offense.
Fix defensive capabilities, then I could understand giving full crews to begin with.
