Aircraft taking off from nearby aircraft carriers should arrive at the battlefield faster than land-based aircraft.
That’s basically all.
2 Likes
Why?
The conditions for land combat aircraft and carrier-based aircraft are inherently different.
The land combat aircraft has gained enough acceleration and altitude when it reaches the sea.
But they lost their ability to repair
Carrier-based aircraft trade their initial mobility advantage for repair capabilities.
If you want a balance, you should let Japan obtain low-level land combat aircraft (maybe there will be in the future Soviet-Japanese battlefield?)
Rather than holding chicken legs in hand and demanding punishment for fish eaters
1 Like
When was the last time you repaired your plane?
The advantage of being repairable is negligible in Enlisted, as another aircraft can be spawned immediately.
It is very reasonable that carrier-based aircraft from nearby aircraft carriers can respond to the war zone faster than aircraft taking off from the airport.
What I want is the balance between land-based plane and carrier-based plane in Pacific
I don’t use carrier aircraft at all because there is no reason to use them now
And this needs to be change.
Even in Japan I wouldn’t be able to repair airplanes
Because airplanes are just functional consumables to me
After his mission is completed, he will just be a viewing platform in the sky to watch his teammates with low IQs being shot and killed voluntarily or engage in unnecessary inefficient air combat.
It is more efficient to return to the ground or change to the next aircraft.
This is why I say airports are a failed mechanism
They’re as bad as shit, both in terms of actual combat and balance considerations.
The advantage of land combat aircraft is to take off early and raise altitude
This means that they fly higher and faster than carrier-based aircraft and arrive at the battlefield earlier than carrier-based aircraft.
this is not balance
What you really need is to make the crap less bad
Instead of asking for other things to be as bad as garbage
Otherwise, what’s the difference between this and the cries of incompetent people who were wiped out by things like mines and machine gun bunkers and campsites?
This is impossible. unless you ask the carrier-based aircraft to take off with a rocket or whatever.
That’s because you’re so used to knocking over the chess table to solve any obstacle. When someone says you shouldn’t do that you just think they’re making “useable” thing trash.
Most players in the game don’t think airplanes should be used as functional consumables.
Carrier and air spawn adjustments just increase the cost of using them as functional consumables.
Since the airport is already terrible, it might be easier to just delete it.
Or consider improving takeoff acceleration or enhancing the presence of the aircraft carrier.
This is (war) and (game)
Personal emotional values and moral values cannot win a war.
This is why everyone in history favors long-range bombing and tactics and effective massacres rather than just letting soldiers shoot each other with a gun.
Games should not be restricted in how they can be played
You don’t want to use the plane as a consumable or something. It’s your choice.
I respect the way you play
But this does not mean that you can treat your own ideas as anything to deny and discriminate against other people’s ideas.
Oh, then can you explain why the planes in the Pacific campaign can be deployed directly while other campaigns need to wait 20 seconds?
In the Pacific map, infantry players need to face the spam dropped from the air earlier
Many times they have just found a location to build a rally point
The problem lies in the fact that the planes in the Pacific map are deployed and put into the battlefield earlier than those in other regions
Airfield takeoff is a good mechanism, and all you have to do is to ensure that all planes must take off
Have you ever cared about planes such as BF109G10, which are fighters but rarely appear on the battlefield, because fighting in the air is meaningless. If the player loses an aircraft, they can of course deploy the next one immediately, because air deployment makes them not care about the loss, and it itself cannot carry bombs
This is the problem with this game. Air combat is not like fighting each other to seize air supremacy in reality, but everyone tacitly drops bombs and does not interfere with each other, because everyone knows that even if you shoot down an enemy plane, you can only get some points, which is not very helpful to the battle situation
This game is a joke in the air combat from the beginning
No, it is a game and only a game. And since it is also a mp game, it needs to be balanced.
This game also does not reflect war in any realistic or even immersive way.
And if so, I would like to know how common it was in war to crush your plane to the ground to kill soldiers. I am pretty sure any air force that would do that would run out of planes and pilots in mere weeks.
Btw. nice grammar here with the brackets.
Stop larping, dude.
Also in terms of morale…
Then this game would be even less “war-like”.
I also dont know how this is related to the topic.
If that one makes us capital punish Rocket Men for wasting tickets, I am all in.
1
I totally agree with limiting high altitude aircraft to keep the same countdown at the start of a battle as on other battlefields
But no further birth distance is required
2
Most of the time, it is not too difficult as long as players are spread out enough to reduce losses or quickly find a suitable way to protect themselves.
3
The airport will make you miss many important opportunities for emergency interception
Forcing players to be in the air for a long time, wasting efficiency and taking more risks
4
It’s not my problem that they don’t have bombs.
I totally agree with having all aircraft carry at least 1 50kg bomb
I respect players who want to fly specific aircraft.
As long as they can produce results instead of waiting in the sky for 5 bombers to pass by.
5
I hope the official approach to solving the problem can be more proactive rather than treating (you can’t use high-efficiency massacre tactics against a group of idiots who can’t even fight back) as a reasonable protection
This just allows idiots to poison the environment even more negatively
They can definitely limit suicide wheels by encouraging players to fight back against vehicles
For example, if a vehicle is destroyed within 2 minutes after being hit by an enemy, it will be prohibited to drive the vehicle until 1 to 2 rounds of infantry rotation have passed.
And increase the score of vehicle assists
This can more effectively improve player motivation
This is why skills segregation is needed
Balance comes from player group ability
You can’t even expect 2 normal people and 8 idiots to win a battle between 3 normal people and 7 AIs
At least the AI can build spawn points and blow up tanks
but
in this game
You will only see anti-intellectual groups on forums who package themselves as victims and smear those who kill him or do things that are not in line with his ideas.
War is reflected in equipment and combat intensity
But at the same time, it is a game, so it does not have such a big problem of population consumption and has higher flexibility.
I’m curious how many actually follow it
you know
Whether it is the number of prisoners or civilians, only the occupiers have the final say.
Even if they are killed, the country will not be able to impose any actual punishment.
Then let the low-ranking anti-intellectual groups waste more unnecessary costs
The enemy will thank you
Because you not only make them safer but also give them more points
Not gonna lie, seeing you constantly switch between “war is unfair” and “skill balanced MM/ filter is needed” is funny.
I mean
And war includes factors such as expierence of soldiers. Anything is racism and discrimination… I guess.
This really shows your lack of knowlegde about actual war games.
War is reflected so much more ways. Beyond “intensity” and factions having different “equipment” (whatever this broad terms means). It includes doctrines, quality of equipment and soldiers, terrain and weather, morale, logistical matters, second-line tasks or even basic stuff such as the number of soldiers per side per battle. Not even basic laws of physics are considered and I am not including engineers here.
None of this is reflected in this “war” game. Every team has the same numbers of players and tanks, planes and APCs even if it doesnt make sense fron historical view. Not every battle had tanks, let alone CAS support, or even just the same number of soldiers. (Most) tanks also wouldnt fight on such short distances because it would be suicide and ineffective. Speaking of suicide, Rocket Men wont do well in war games and people just kick them out of the session.
Steategic bombers and artillery are (always) not called in the middle of a battle because they are not precise as today and would result in massive friendly fire incidents. And FF doesnt exist anymore because otherwise people would constantly kill each other.
And I could rant even longer, but long story, in short, you play a war-themed game, not a war game, which Enlisted couldnt qualify for.
Big difference.
More than you think. Also, pretty sure the US war crimes in Vietnam didnt help to make the war more popular in the US.
Also immorale stuff doesnt make you win wars otherwise the Soviets would have won Afghanistan or Germany and Japan WW2.
In fact, if the Nazis were not Nazis, they could have made probably better relations with Eastern Europe to crush the Soviets but it resulted in them uniting against Germany for the sheer matter of survival and Germany spending massive number of ressources against partisans.
What are you on again?
Then why are you not using cheats? I mean, isnt cheating also just a matter of morality and emotional values according to you. Or are you against cheating? That is racism and discrimination!