Limited crew replacement for tanks

Suggestions
1

Imo tanks with less than 5 crew should be able to replace one soldier in case of his death.

Those tanks would have additional crew “position” in the main menu (like gunner, commander etc.) where player would put his replacement soldier. To replace a dead soldier, go to the ammo resupply point and wait ~10s (add some kind of filling circle for indication or something like that).

Why? Typically the 5th crew member is a “spare” as he doesn’t have any function (no hull MG nor radio). So adding a way to replace one soldier would achieve similar result and would make those tanks less bad.

1 Like
2

Eh, I don’t think this is really necessary. Tanks in enlisted are just another cog in the match. They’re meant to be disposable to an extent. Making it easier to survive in one, even those with less crew members, is honestly against the way the game works. You can’t get soldiers back in your infantry squads.

They’re all meant to die in the end.

1 Like
3

The game also is about playing with whatever you want. (Or at least that’s what I was tolled. Personally I don’t believe it.)

“You want to play with tank X? Too bad it’s shit. And we won’t buff it because it’s meant to die.”

Not a great approach.

It’s a completelly different thing.
Squads have various number of soldiers and clases and often serve certain role. So it’s a tradeoff.

Meanwhile most tanks with <5 crew are straight up inferior in every way to their 5man counterparts (see stug vs pz4f2).

So what I hear is “don’t buff weaker tanks because they are meant to die”.

1 Like
4

That makes no sense at all - you are right that the 5th crew doesn’t do anything in Enlisted - and that id an advantage for a 5 crew tank.

Why should the same advantage be given to tanks with less crew?

Close enough - also don’t buff single seat fighters and 2 seat a/c etc for hte same reason - it is non-sensical.

5

Yyy, because they are bad?
I see that mentality of “lets make every gun worth using” is seen as weird in this game. This would explain the powercreep.

Anyway, the way I see it:
5 man tanks:
+can instantly replace dead crew
-replacement can also die before being used

<5 man tanks:
-needs to fall back to replace dead crew
+replacement is safe untill used

Imo this makes sense.

They kind of already have this in pacific (however it’s pronounced). You get fully repaired (replaced) plane if you land on the carier. For all I care it may also replace dead crew.

6

Fair note, but I’d increase impact from tanks and their survivability in another way. Juggling some features which unreasonably work for part of class is not best option especially when DF often break things that work

2 Likes
7

They aren’t “bad” - they just have a limitation due to what they were.

Huh? more nonsensical stuff…

More nonsense

I look forward to laughing when you explain why every pistol should be as powerful as a 50 cal HMG based on this nonsense.

It will be most entertaining.

8

If this limitation is somehow compensated then it’s ok. But from what I see, often it’s not.
They have a downside without an upside. So they are bad. And we won’t buff them because… they are meant to be bad?

Why would I suggest this? It’s completelly unrelated.

Though we already have a similar thing. BA rifles do >14 damage but semi autos do only 12 with the same bullet.
Because both weapons need to be usefull. And that’s what I try to achieve. Except I try to do things without artificially boosting numbers.

Again, all I hear is “this tank is bad and it must remain bad because reasons”.

9

I would settle for automated hull MGs and turret MG when not controlled by player, like when repairing.