hmmm decisions, decisions…to rush an attack, to climb first under AA protection…or somewhere in between…might have to use the old noggin
No one drops bombs above 800, not even 400. Therefore you are always in AA range when attacking.
nearly all attack runs start at sub 800. The most common thing is people will spawn in at 800 and nose down to target. (Im not saying the odd person doesnt climb higher cos I certainly do, Im saying what the majority do)
Dive boming is the preferred method, and as such bombs will be dropped sub 200. So effectively, makes no difference. AA Now and after, will always gets a shot at you. And we all Know how many people cant hit shit with AA…
Also since the example is Stuka, 800 is sufficient, because it doesn’t matter if you dive from 900, or 1000 in enlisted…the Stuka bleeds off all its speed in the re-climb and struggles to regain 800.
Nope. That video isnt showing time to Altitude. Its showing Potential “time to Strike”. If the test was about time to Altitude (which I also tested in a Stuka), its 2 minutes 40 to 800 circuit climb under AA protection. By the way, the P-47 can be at 800 in 1 minute 30 from ground take off (give or take).
also…seems like the main reason that this would bother you, is you are one of the players that likes to use their plane spawn as a tomahawk missile.
Checks out. So yes, this proposal isnt good for you
I don’t understand what problem you’re trying to solve.
The entire reason why carriers and airfields are unpopular is because they take away time where a pilot is being useful to their team in a vehicle that already pretty much makes them effectively absent from the battlefield.
You’d first need to switch to a plane, take off from the airfield and reach a decent altitude, and then start lining up shots. That takes between 1-2 minutes of a players’ time being unproductive for their team after having switched to a vehicle.
And for what? Someone builds an AA gun, and the minute or two you spent being unproductive can net you nothing, or if you were able to only do 1 bombing run, you would not have done your part contributing to the team on the ground.
You’d also encourage pilots to simply run to their airfield to defend against fighter planes, which wastes the time of both players while the battlefield below them rages on, and reduces the effectiveness of fighter planes overall since they’d also need to take off before they can deal with an aerial threat. At that point, you’re better off dealing with planes some other expedient way than equipping something in a plane slot.
By having the fixed air rearm spots, planes can’t just loiter around their respective safe zones where their flak lies, and at least allows fighters to commit to their supposed role of engaging enemy planes in exchange for paltry CAS loadouts in, I must remind you, a predominantly infantry-focused game.
The nature of aerial combat is too slow for this to be a good idea.
Self-contradictory statements
Contradicting yourself. You even mentioned that US planes should have a CAS advantage under your “general guidelines”.
BR Ranges
So… Irrelevant at present, and only ideal in the scenario where each BR is tightly managed- In a game where players generally strive to progress the ranks.
Furthermore, as much as reducing the BR bracket is ideal for the sake of balancing, one of the many reasons why we consolidated 6 campaigns representing 12 factions in the game with 12 queues into 4 factions divided into 8 queues is to address the issue with the lack of a playerbase.
Custom Ordnance
While I appreciate custom loadouts for planes, the way planes are done in the present. The lack of choice of plane loadout gives leeway as to how planes are balanced.
People won’t be inclined to strap as many bombs and rockets as physically possible because they’d have no ability to. And frankly, there would be no reason not to if players had such the ability to do so given that planes, while powerful, are absent for the period after they dropped their loads until they rearm and reposition themselves for another run.
Render Distance
Sure. But the render distance is limited given the fact that the game is likely more optimized for ground combat. Maps in WT, while scaled appropriately, have the benefit of reducing the size and quality of the textures and objects used as map assets, whereas in Enlisted, you are forced to play in a 1st person perspective, which necessitates a higher amount of detail to keep the game graphically consistent.
I genuinely imagine increasing the render distance would require an increase in hardware performance.
Gunner Seats
Sure. Even if it’s extremely unlikely. The way things are right now, defensive turrets operated remotely don’t have the gunner seat position. Here’s how the Me 410’s remote gunner turret position looks:
Image
You’ll either need to use your remote turrets from a fixed camera position that operates both guns (which makes first-person view pointless given that you’re supposed to use the reflex sights, or whatever mirror system the plane may or may not use to operate such turrets), or assign 1 gunner to 2 gunner “seats”.
Either way, it’ll be messy.
And that’s not accounting for certain scenarios where a gunner is expected to operate several guns.
Final thoughts
This thread reeks of attempting to bring wt-style air combat into Enlisted.
Too many “gib x” without so much as any real effort put into applying critical thinking.
We have time-disproportionate airfield mechanics where one of the listed advantages is having a “safe zone” where realistically, wannabe airsim players would likely just camp and be useless for their team, on top of being already useless for the entire takeoff period,
A slew of “Gib plane” and “gib loadouts” where the consequences of the additions are not properly thought through, like BR1 bombers with 20x 50kg bombs, BR2 bombers with 12x 50kg bombs, gun CAS with no underbelly armament and BR3-5 planes with a paltry payload to their predecessor unlocks,
And a clear lack of focus on the very fact this combined-arms game, while featuring vehicles, is focused on infantry combat first and foremost. You can take the vehicles away and you’d still have a perfectly playable game, and if you do the reverse, War Thunder exists.
The only thing this thread has got going for it is its formatting.
The problem with writing out suggestions (apart from the time it takes) is that it requires a little cooperation/imagination on behalf of the readers. To fill in the blanks, or to suggest improvements to “how can we make that work better”. Its a"suggestion", not a schematic.
What frequently happens is the moment the reader finds the "first’ point they dont like, it becomes a roadblock and they stop paying attention to the details and start to nitpick. I could write out a massive post detailing every possible angle and still have the same problem. Over half the rebutals from the users disagreeing in this topic are hanging their reasoning on points actually already covered in the main post.
As you took the time to respond politely, I will reciprocate, but the above applies.
Im not much interested in arguing the nitpicks or trying to change opinion, only addressing inaccuracies. So I will just put it under its own tab.
Responses
Carriers and Airfields
Apart from being written in the dot points you quoted, its also in the opening paragraph under priority changes.
Not sure how else to respond
Self-contradictory statements
Those arent contradictions. Even if it wasnt covered by the “General” qualifier. Asymmetry takes into account everything (speed, maneuverability, ammunition count, etc etc) Its not talking about just payload. There are also fighter planes and attacker planes, So one Nation could still be “generally” better at CAS, even if it was only your attacker planes loaded better than everyone else.
Those comments arent mutually exclusive.
BR Ranges
Its forward thinking. Might aswell set it up the same way the rest of the Tech tree is now. Its obviously designed to be used this way, even if its not currently activated due to population, Otherwise there is no sense to having 5 BRS, they might aswell just have 3 BRs. Not worth nitpicking
Custom Ordnance
With a little bit of imagination it would be easy to make meaningful customised loadouts “without” breaking the “general rules” or the needs of enlisted (forget what planes “could” carry in warthunder). Im not talking about giving them “everything” warthunder, Picks would be to suit enlisted while still giving you meaningful choice.
Lets just pick one example…say hurricane, a choice as simple as, do I want 2x 250lb bombs? or do I want 6 rockets instead. Bf 109 F-2, do I want 4x50kg bombs, or 8 rockets RZ.65 rockets? Perhaps an Incendiary bomb instead? Do I want Armor piercing ammo or HE?
Heck it could even be dynamic, choosing a massive payload on capable fighters changes the Classification to Attacker. Then you have some serious customisation options.
Render distance and Gunner Seats
Im just going to take that as “sure, why not” for gunner seats and render distance. No sense nitpicking
Final Thoughts
ouch…Not really a fair assessment is it? Its very easy to say “but, no and if”…but when it comes to qualifying remarks and test material, I have at least done some testing and shared material to debunk or qualify remarks.
Obviously, These loadouts were copy pasted from warthunder. I didnt get around to changing all the loadouts and balancing “All of them”. which I also did think through and covered in the main post by stating;
and also continued on in “discussion” a few posts down.
seriously? the amount of people using “whats best for the team” as a dot point. Infantry routinely waste that much time camping in some useless building, not pushing or building rallys. tankers waste more time hiding at the back of the map.
“whats good for the team” isnt really on the average casual gamers radar…in any game “fu I do what I want”
again…commented on in the Dot points and first Heading. Not sure where you are going with this. These changes benefit the “primary infantry game” as much as the air game, regardless of which you think is the primary focus.
Main Feedback I noted
The main valid concern i noted, is the losing a minute on each respawn (depending on climbing). some like yourself may think thats too much. So how about thinking outside the box and suggesting a way to alleviate this .
Something as simple as “How about “Air spawn” at speed BUT, 100 meters above the runway?” Its a potential compromise that warthunder also used at one point for very heavy planes.
What I am interested in however is, do you use APCS? do you like them? and did you buy any of them? Because your thoughts on them was, in short “No”.
You expect a fair assessment when what you’ve done is selectively ignore the points made that would influence how or why the suggestion was made in the first place.
I’m sure you can casually ignore the rest of the arguments I made and call it “nitpicking”.
Man, I wish I was thoroughly ignorant as to make what is effectively a massive wishlist without thinking how it would change the game. Especially when said “nitpicks” were made in good faith as a critique.
I’m after a development of the meta, not its degradation through the addition of unnecessary, recklessly thought out suggestions. I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll mention this again for the sake of brevity, but
the nature of aerial combat is too slow to match the pace of what’s going on in the ground
Especially if the plane, to utilize it “the best” way, requires the fulfillment of certain battlefield conditions where their performance advantages make meaningful sense.
Take for instance US planes- Their performance at lower altitudes is noticeably worse because their planes are heavier than the competition, and whatever advantage they’re supposed to be balanced with that justifies their BR placement in WT (Which you also seem to have used for making this suggestion) are absent.
Historically, they have a higher fuel load and operate at higher altitudes given their niche as fighter escorts- And you’ll note that we have a flight ceiling in Enlisted, and rearming planes puts them back to maximum fuel load each time. Naturally, planes intended to be operating locally or intended for the interceptor role have reduced limitations in that regard.
These limitations and how the position of planes greatly influence their performance makes tactics such as BnZ too time-consuming to effectively commit to, and encourages planes with an excellent turnrate and sufficient armament for low speed turnfighting.
To put it simply- If the objective is to “win” the aerial engagement, planes that cannot outmaneuver their opponents will likely just run towards whatever safe area is available and stall for time. Bluntly put, it incentivizes pilots, which are already absent from the battlefield except on bombing runs, to run.
This supposed “weight” you added the planes is detrimental to a game where all squads cost the equal number of tickets, and lives are worth peanuts.
No. I don’t.
No. The only unique niche they fulfill that’s irrelevant for most games is for assault matches, which seem to be rarer to see nowadays.
No, I haven’t spent any real money to get them.
If you’re bringing this up based on your previous suggestion to add APCs, the only thing I’ll say is that I greatly appreciate giving anyone with a handheld launcher or explosive pack an exp pinata. The limitations I mentioned in the past have remained true, and the impact of APCs as a whole are tied to map design.
The best APC in the game we have right now is a small tracked vehicle you can cram in corners- Like a proper rally.
Sure I do. I fairly responded to all your points that were not accurate and quantifiable in the spirit of the exercise. Like it or not, you yourself “did” ignore key points from the OP, which is all I was really interested in correcting.
As for the only part that I did ignore, I ignored it because it’s an opinion that you have obviously formed from playing the pacific, and that’s fine. Do I really need to engage in an opinion debate?..
This is not a new idea, its been on demo for over a year with all its pros and cons (pre merge). I played pacific too…and I loved it…its great…not bothered at all about your points about running to AA, plane performance, time climbing.
“I acknowledge your opinion is valid”…I just “agree” to “disagree”
At this point I’m confident our definitions of “development” and “degradation” are opposites. And its pretty arrogant to call something “recklessly thought out”, when it’s something we have been able to test thoroughly in game for over a year.
You know @Myrm1don , it’s a good thing there’s only rare exceptions that oppose the suggestion. Because it bumps the thread up for those who missed it and really want air gameplay to improve.
Even if those can be summed up as:
one player who admitted using suicide bombing repeatedly.
one person who just didn’t understand your suggestion even after you made videos to debunk his fears
one person who simply is condescending on every points for no reason whatsoever and oppose everything with only personal feelings as arguments basis.
It just shows again that the suggestion is really well made and the great majority approves of it.
Hopefully devs will notice and work on something similar
I formed the opinion from playing both WT and Enlisted.
Airfields and AA zones are just points of abuse, and prolong or otherwise abruptly end an aerial fight.
Your “demo” consists of the Pacific in its current state. If there’s an inconvenience in the air, a faster plane can just run towards AA instead of engaging them in a fight. You’d think the devs would have learned by now that prior to the implementation of the merge, they should have added plane timers at the start of the match.
It’s been over 3 months since then.
If there’s one thing they can be consistent on, it’s half-assing whatever positive implementations there would be, and leaving it something as that can be in an abusable state for months or years at a time until the trend to complain about it becomes the norm.
When you’re waiting for someone to mention there’s a defect in the suggestion prior to correcting it, I consider that lack of foresight.
When you do so with a massive list of changes and suggested new planes without a shred of consideration towards how it would change the game for people on the ground, that’s when it becomes reckless.
The aforementioned time from spawn to CAS run, the airfield AA, the arbitrary selection of planes and their respective BRs and the dismissal of arguments under “nitpicks”.
You can get away with anything by making a suggestion that reads like an update changelog or devblog that contains mostly positive language, and a receptive audience that would see a massive list of “positive changes” and go “yup, let’s upvote”, without really challenging the idea.
Afterwards, give it about a week or month for people who should have allayed their concerns to regret their decisions postpartum.
However, how would you like @Myrm1don to write his suggestion, then? Should he apply himself… less? Should he use… negative language???
As for the afterwards, the only ppl truly against it now are those currently abusing suicide bombing or those not understanding all what’s proposed.
For the rest, as all points proposed, it’s OPEN FOR DEBATE, counter suggestions, and improvements.
As long as the counter suggestions propose SOMETHING in turn, other than condescending language (again, what do you have against positive language?) that ends up with a mere “no” without any real proposal to make the suggestion better with new ideas or anything…
Are you sure? Because right now, this is very common:
When the suggestion is called a “revamp” or “rework”, that is not an “improvement” because it changes how the game is played. When the consequences of a suggestion affect the playerbase as a whole, sticking to rosy language will just end up disappointing those who were merely looking for “whatever I’m experiencing now, but better”.
It’s setting expectations and introducing points of discussion for how to settle areas that are not comprehensively covered or addressed in the original suggestion, while giving the appearance that the writer has actually racked his brains thinking about the suggestion and its consequences before they were brought up in the first place.
It’s less a matter of “negativity” and more a matter of “preparedness”.
I’m not asking for omniscience, only that major concerns be addressed pre-emptively and thoughtfully instead of being hashed out as an afterthought, or dismissing the concerns as they are brought up.
That changes what? So did I…I was cutting to the chase when i said “agree to disagree”.
Should we spend a long time debating differing “opinions” and how we got there and which one is more relevant? Opinions that were formed over a loooooong road of playing warthunder and Enlisted?..Or should we;
Ok, Ill Bite, My Opinions
Its a “potential” point of abuse…but in my experience (in both games) nearly never actuates, nor acheives anything. Pretty insignificant. Ive been purposefully taking slow carrier BR 2 planes against airspawn p-47s, p-38s and tempests, this month…havent seen them attempt it once …and I dont remember it ever being an issue before the merge and airspawn planes showed up
Can you do it? yes…doest it happen?, not so much… and even “if” it did. Whether you get shot down or hide at spawn, you are still neutralised…whether you are the one camping the airfield, or the guy causing him to camp the airfield, its still a 1 player for 1 player trade. Its still even numbers on the ground
job done…same applies to infantry and tanks…
Anyone that willing flys into the AA zone and dies, made a choice. They deserved it.
So yes…I have considered it (and spent a long time considering it), and arrived at IMO a non issue (certainly not one that outways the positives)
Anyone else have a vastly different experience???
Just quickly…As for your evaluation of the charactertics of American aircraft, although Accurate…I ignored it because how they play doesnt change. Whether everyone starts at 800 or on the airfiled…Those same planes will “still” be out maneuevered by a large portion of the planes they see. They are one trick ponys now, they will still be one trick ponys after (Either they get the jump, they force a head on…or they lose). not much sense going over 2000, you will not likely see anyhhing.
Then add the suggested spitfires to the mix, and small payloads for all fighters, you have alot more viable choices to throw into the mix.
not a shred of consideration??
Considerations for those on the ground
How about you put in “short one line Dot points”, the negatives to the “ground game”: (that havent already been discussed, or openly discussed) …Keep it simple and in the interest of being constructive ideas to eliminate/minimise it.
This seems to have got you on the defensive…you do know that the “nitpicking” is also directed at myself. I saw no sense for “me” nitpicking your response on Render or Gunner seats.
What nonsense, Of the 3 posters that simply replied “bad idea”. I spent more time testing their remark than they did (Hence the two videos which took time to make). As for you I responded to the majority of your objections…but you didnt apply any real testing other than experience either.
Should I have to Prove/disprove “every” single point/concern made from every poster when they simply said something without attempting to qualify it? I think not…
Ill give you that. you have being critical down. However Contructive criticism is the better kind.
And if you are going to give it, Be accurate, or be prepared to receive it.
Should he use… negative language???
