✈️ Dynamic Vehicle/Plane Custom Loadouts (Ammo/Ordnance)

Suggestions
1

This Post is my feedback towards the recent Me262 Narhwal addition. @MajorMcDonalds . Everyone wants something different (I still prefered 1 for 1 AP-T/HE ammo)

With the Release of the Me 262 Narwhal Premium and its ammo belt changes, I was reminded of the importance of customisation and people being able to play the way they want to play.

I have suggested this before, But I would like to go into detail.

We all Know Warthunder has a Custom loadout option for aircraft and tanks.

image

It is a much desired feature here in Enlisted but I would like to present an idea suited to Enlsited

image

Currently in Warthunder, vehicles have a set BR and can strap anything available to their vehicle/aircraft and maintain that BR (no matter how big)

In Enlisted I suggest each Vehicle/Plane have a “Base Empty BR rating (no ordnance)” and then treating Individual Ordnance Packages as a “weapon” with a BR rating applied. Much like infantry have to equip weapons and equipment, Planes will have to equip an Ordnance Package, and Tanks will have to equip Ammunition

The “Stronger” the Ordnance Package/Ammunition… the higher the Battle Rating.

This has the advantage of not tying Vehilce Power, to Ordnance Power:

Here are a few current examples

  • The Beaughfighter is clearly NOT a BR 4 Aircraft…But the 8x RP-3 rockets ARE a BR 4 loadout
  • The Ju-87 D-3 is NOT a BR 3 Aircraft…but the 3x250kg bombs ARE a BR 3 Loadout.
  • The B5N2 is NOT a BR 2 Airfcaft…But the 2x250kg bombs ARE possibly a BR 2 Loadout

There are mutliple ways this can be done. One is to just straight port over the way warthunder does it, But I fear this would require limiting payload options so severely there is no real choice… or put mediocre Vehicles/planes far too high in BR because of their payload.

Everyone is familiar with equipping their Infantry and that the primary weapon increases BR

I suggest Equipping Vehicles in the same way Via Ordnance Packages/Ammunition with a BR assigned :slight_smile:

image
image1226×638 174 KB

Lets take the P-51D for example:

When you research in the TT you will purchase your first 1 :star: P-51D

Lets say a P-51D without ordance is a BR 3 plane

DO NOT get caught up on the Payloads specifically if you dont like them. Thats NOT what it is about. They are for Example purposes ONLY!!! to show you what potentially is available, and why Dynamic BRS is a good thing. The question is do you support the base idea of Dynamic Custom Loadouts

Keep in mind the more you carry, The more it impacts plane performance.

At 1 ⭐ you will unlock BR 3 Loadouts to Equip

1: 4x HVAR, 2x Mk 78 Incindiary Bomb
image

2: 4x HVAR, 2x 100lb bomb
image

3: 6X M8 Rockets, 2 x 250lb bomb
image

4: 6X M8 rockets, 2 xMk 78 Incindiary Bomb
image

5: 2 x 500LB Bombs
image

6: ALL Ammunition Belts
image

At 2 ⭐⭐you will unlock BR 4 Loadouts to Equip

1: 6x HVAR, 2x 250lb bomb
image

2: 6x HVAR 2x Mk 78 Incidniary Bombs
image

3: 6x M8 Rockets, 2x 500lb Bombs
image

At 3 ⭐⭐⭐ you will unlock BR 5 Loadouts to Equip.

1: 8x HVAR, 2x 500lb bomb
image

2: 6x M8 Rockets, 2x1000lb bomb
image

For Tanks I suggest something Similar

image
image1226×680 284 KB

Lets take the Semovente (75/32 41) For example:

When you research in the TT you will purchase your first 1 :star: Semovente

Lets say a Semovente with stock round is BR 1

At 1 ⭐ you will unlock for BR 1

1: APCBC Round
image

2: Smoke Round
image

At 2 ⭐⭐ you will unlock for BR 2

1: HE Round
image

At 3 ⭐⭐⭐ you will unlock for BR 2

1: HEAT
image

They Beauty of doing it Dynamically is you dont have to restrict certian payloads/Vehicles that dont fit at certain BRS.

9 Likes
2

Seem nice

1 Like
3

I would like the ability to customize loadouts. I think your proposed loads for the P51-D are disgustingly powerful for Enlisted and I realize you said not to get hung up on that but I did. That plane is borderline too strong for BR3 as-is. We don’t need ever-increasing HE spam.

But… custom loadouts, yes!

4

Sure…there will be alot of disgusting load outs made available with custom loadouts. (unless you dont add most of them at all…)

Thats why I am getting at make it Dynamic.

And yeah I did say dont get caught up on the payloads :stuck_out_tongue: (even though most of those BR 3 payloads were based on what is already available “mostly”)

5

we just don’t need more HVARs on any (more) planes, TBH. But I don’t want to derail your actual point. In terms of ammo belt, tank rounds and things like 2x 250kg vs 1 500kg, I would love to have choices.

2 Likes
6

Thats fine, Im just pushing the base idea, which is as you say. Thanks for your support

1 Like
7

I also want to point out that this is its own idea. Its not about wanting to buff CAS even more.

I am still in favour (and have been for a long time) of changing How CAS interacts with everyone via, Airfields, Pushed back spawns, lockouts, slowing down the rearm/bomb cycle… etc etc

1 Like
8

Agreed. Customizable loadout is sensible, useful and fun. It doesn’t have to mean vehicles are inherently stronger than they currently are against infantry. It just provides options.

1 Like
9

This would be great addition as we would be able to see more varied aircraft in lower brs since planes like p 47 and f4u corsair could be in lower brs with less rockets. Also players who are still using low br vehicles in high br could atleast have a bit more fighting chance

1 Like
10

Exactly :+1:

We get alot more mileage out of our vehicles/aircraft by seperating the vehicle/aircraft power, from the ordnance power.

11

Developers are literally having trouble balancing vehicles with fixed loadouts. This would just unleash total chaos and an incredible balancing problem.
Infantry players would then start complaining even more about vehicles, which would lead to them being limited (which would result in me totally losing interest in this game).

Dynamic BRs is nice idea. But it’s very naive.

12

I dont agree…its no different than adding a New plane with a fixed loadout and having to decide where it goes (which they are doing anyway)…They mostly decide based on payload anyway…they decided 4x German rockets was too much at BR 3. They decided 6x250KG bombs at BR 4 was too much…they are making these decisions based on the ordnance more than the plane. Then if you have those boundaries, its not hard to assign what ordnance package goes where, While freeing up the plane/tank to start at a lower BR with lesser/no ordnance.

This way you dont punish the Aircraft, for the payload it has access to, OR the Tank for the Ammunition it has access to…

In anycase…custom loadouts will come in some form…if they continue developing… Im sure of it…I can smell it

13

Yes, but not to that extent.

This would more or less almost triple the number of vehicles to be balanced. That’s just the way it is.

And I bet it would be extremely chaotic. Doesn’t really matter if we are speaking about triple the number of seperate unique vehicle with fixed loadouts or the thing you just proposed.

14

Warthunder does it a few vehicles at a time. Adding payloads to one existing plane at a time in Enlisted is worth more than adding half a dozen entirely new aircraft. This is a GOLD mine of new content.

15

How exactly? New vehicles means new things to grind. Payloads effectively means nothing. Players won’t have to spend any further resources on them, they would upgrade vehicles either way.

16

and yet you see the same favourites every game because of their payload…IARC, p40, P-38, BF110, P-47 ,…Those are OLD planes…they have been around a long time

Why dont you see anyone using stuff like the BF 109F?..that would change pretty quickly if you could add a 250kg bomb or gunpods to you BF109 F.

The majority pick payload…payload = fun. People tend to hate something when they spend time grinding for it, to find out its a piece of shit…

There are event CAS that players grinded…but unless they have the right payload…people dont use them (whens the last time you saw the P-47 with M8 rockets?)

The New event plane we are doing now, I guarantee would collect dust if it didnt have the bombs aswell)

17

That’s not what I meant, I’m not talking about the players’ perspective.