The coastal tech trees in war thunder could fit right in to enlisted. They would provide better anti air cover, act as a coastal bombardment platform that could fit well with players marking targets, like arty already does and they could provide juicy targets for torpedo bombing and dive bombing. 2 ships each per team with a player count increase to compensate would be excellent. I would also like to see maps size in general increase like another person said recently on the suggestion forums. In general maps need expansion and utility. Airfields to land and repair(we already have carriers soooo), more space to roam, maybe more capture objectives and ideally a naval battlespace that coincides with the coastline in order for the winners of conflict there to become coastal artillery. This and… RIVERS, make maps with rivers and river/coastal patrol boat squads could be an absolute blast. All assets are available in War Thunder’s roster as usual.
Enlisted should embrace its combined arms status, and infantry is one of those combined arms, so ideally we should increase the player counts if these things are added to fairly compensate for more vehicles on the map.
Wont work.
Already starts with the fact that certain maps do not have any water bodies.
Any river boat would be useless because any AT weapon would instantly kill it or planes.
And Germans on D-Day map would spawncamp the shit out of the Allies.
Or the range… or the greyzones… so many variables that make it a horrible idea…
I fundamentally disagree with your assessment, AT being able to kill boats is a good thing, I’d simply avoid sailing face first into AT. River boats and coastal boats are effectively the same thing in the War Thunder tech tree and these are the assets that would be used. They have already proven to be able to survive air assault in war thunder, why not here? I think you underestimate how hard it can be to bomb a coastal sized ship. They also would provide more anti air cover which is a good thing. There is absolutely no reason this couldn’t work for enlisted that I can think of. Even if the rivers weren’t a thing, pacific theater is packed full of great opportunities for naval warfare. Also, good luck “spawn camping” on d-day at that range and hitting a moving coastal ship.
Yeah… for infantry I guess… not really for the boat.
Should be easy since most maps at best have small rivers where RL military wouldnt even deploy them for obvious reasons.
I dont even know if the boats could be capable of getting killed because they cant even aim at the actual battlefield.
Amd thats before we even include greyzones.
Because in War Thunder you dont play in crowded small ass rivers where boats probably cant even turn and those pesty small low-level boats dont face P-47s or Ju-188s.
Not really because Enlisted is eaz game for planes since most maps are small and crowded.
How so?
Maps. Really, maps is all enough to say.
You mean those rivers that irl wouldnt be a operation area for those boats?
And did you also know that two factions are not in the Pacific and that Pacific isnt something you can choose except for Japanese players?
Thats the point. The attackers in spawn have to aim for it. And this time it is not a ill-suited “river”.
I said add new rivers not play on the ones we have lol, I am not just entirely delusional. Matchmaking could just not put you in maps without water if you have a boat squad… You are so focused on this river thing and the matchmaking, but it is a very simple fix. The greyzone issue is easily fixed by allowing boats in their own dedicated playspace with their own greyzone. All of these issues you have listed are entirely technical problems that are easy, and I would argue almost obviously necessary implementations in such an update. I remain unconvinced naval warfare is impossible to implement.
So, even worse, because that would make boats unplayable or even unchoosable for 90% of the time.
9/11, best class ever. And would require new maps.
I am also pretty sure that infantry will love to constantly face big-ass rivers in new maps, because if HnG teach us two things, it is that rocks are not cancer and big rivers are fun and balanced and are not heavily favoring defenders.
Matchmaking could also allow us to choose modes and devs could also fix the BR gap issues…
and I could get a unicorn.
And I think the unicorn part is more realistic.
It also makes you wonder how practical a class actually is if you need to change the MM and have mandatory rivers for each new map. Would also open abusing methods since maps also mean choosing the factions you could face.
It’s so simple the devs didn’t do it for, I think, four years now before even including stupid boats.
So more grayzone camping, cool.
Also, I don’t know how this would make machine gunboats more useful.
“Easy”…
Basically, allow people to exploit MM and allow them to pick enemies again for the sake of countering the issue that boats are unplayable on 95% of current maps.
“Just” add new maps, which is funny if you consider DF adds like two maps or so per year now.
More grey zone camping because the tank is already fun, and they do not even know how a grey zone machine gun will help the time.
“Easy”
And it is still funny that we “need” a class that only works in the Pacific and not anywhere else in the status quo.
You are exaggerating, being pessimistic and not at all rational in my opinion. Each example you gave is entirely tailored to fit your narrative that is impossible, when many of the things you said can simply be implemented slightly differently than you are intentionally assuming to validate your stance and it would be resolved, such as infantry needing to “face big-ass rivers” all the time. You simply run a river parallel to the map instead of dead through it(except on occasion which I am sure people wouldn’t mind), or suggesting that boats would be unplayable on 95% of current maps, which is just blatantly false if you widened a couple rivers on a few and effectively did nothing to many others(There are many it would already work on).
You also skewed my words when I said “easy” and “simple” from being about the obviousness of not implementing this without changing rivers a bit here and there and matchmaking simply not putting you in rounds without water if you have a boat squad into being “easy,” somehow about the MM being exploitable again(clearly a past gripe out of context) and randomly stated boats would be unplayable on 95% of current maps(exaggerated statement), and then “simple” into it being so simple the devs didn’t do it for four years, referring to boats as stupid.
It sounds to me like you are salty about their poor management of the BR issues and the lack of mode selection and likely other things and you are taking it out on any other feature they add in order to vent from them no addressing your preferred changes. I also agree with those issues, I simply am not coping in a destructive way. Sorry to make any of this personal, but I just don’t see you actually discussing the feature with me more so than trying to technically undermine it as if a game like this could never posses boats for technical reasons like matchmaking and map creation which is just silly and untrue as proven by countless games. You have actually given very little gameplay reasons that boats wouldn’t work and your inability to even discuss balance beyond a mention that the AT kit can kill a boat suggests that you haven’t even pictured them in game yourself and instead your faith is so destroyed in darkflow you simply don’t believe they are up to the task of implementing the feature in a good way, more so than you actually believe it is impossible. Forgive me, but you mostly seem salty and that is driving your pessimism. I think many people would love to see boats in game and I know for a fact I am not alone in thinking so as I see posts about it often. I think we are at an impasse though, you clearly fundamentally disagree with me and I fundamentally disagree with you.
Enlisted in my eyes could be an awesome platform for coastal naval ships, alongside its already prevalent tanks, planes, trucks, APCs, amphibious transports, etc. In fact they are right at home in game with the majority of people playing infantry and vehicles operating around the perimeter. Who’s to say some of that perimeter can’t be water, with entrances in and out of the infantry’s operating area just like tanks and planes have? It is entirely feasible with proper balance that has been given thought and a professional implementation, which I still have faith darkflow can do. Like any feature there will be bumps in the road, but the whole point of posting here was to discuss those bumps, something you partially did and I don’t mind, but going as far as to outright say the feature is impossible to implement because your quick 30 second deliberation revealed a potential issue is a major exaggeration.
There is something called reality and rationality. I also do not know if you fully understand what you are trying to do here… or how much time map development alone actually takes.
Your class lacks universality and requires serious changes in MM and future map design. Otherwise, it would be a useless class in practically all maps, excluding the Pacific, making it only really useful for Japan and very situational for the Allies.
So why do we need it if there is no reason to exist for them in current maps?
Is this even a counter or are you not really getting how large a river needs to be to even give military patrol boats a reason to exist?
It needs to be the size of the Rhine or the Spree. And are you now telling me that Rhine-sized rivers can be “simply” add to the map?
Yeah… sure… just add a 100-400m wide river to maps and then we can have stupid boats. Hell, most CPs are sometimes not even 100m away from the spawns. And the CPs also have to be designed in a way to allow boats to be useful. Cant wait for the rich diversity of constantly playing on rivers unless we have cheesy MM manipulation method.
“But it will be easy, just increase map size.”
Oh, no joke, mate. Guess what thousands of people asked DF for the past four years now?
For real. Do you read your own stuff? Is this a counter? “No, it is not unplayable because we will rework them”.
It is still unplayable in the status quo. It doesn’t matter if it will be unplayable. It is unplayable as of right now. If it would be playable, you don’t need the rework. I also do not know how it would work on maps without rivers, maps with “historical rivers,” or how not doing anything to unplayable maps will do anything, but what do I know?
No. It is because you do not understand the issues you would cause by manipulating the MM with boats, especially with the US.
If it is really so simple, why didn’t the devs do it earlier? Why don’t they just make stupid long rivers everytime and allow us to manipulate the MM again? Either because it is not that easy at all and/ or because it is stupid to do so.
And I thought you check nothing at all.
Because, unlike you, we can make a conclusion.
The devs do not make big maps. Their closest resemblance to bigger maps is not really that big because of horrible map design, grey zones and CP design. So why should they not only do that to new maps now but also change all old maps?
You know, except for BOOOOAAAAAAAATZZZZZ
I would rather play a Ubisoft way than cope like you because that is next-level ignorance here.
Yeah… I should stop pointing out reality. That is really mean… I mean “technically undermining,”… whatever that means.
Such as?
War Thunder? Nobody plays boats, and all boats are on coastlines. Same applies to WT. And none of them have infantry.
BF1?
Only on shores and only attackers had ships so I don’t know how that can be applied here.
No. I have not. You are just dumb.
Every soldier has the ability to destroy tanks. Everyone can quickly build a AT gun and destroy the stupid boat. All tanks can do even quicker work of them. And all planes as well. Heck, even snipers can snipe the entire crew and call it a day.
And what do patrol boats offer? HMGs and maybe a slow ass cannon. All that for what? Being a sitting duck in small ass rivers where they cannot move? That can all be done by engineers and tanks too, and they have the advantage of being smaller and being useful outside of water bodies.
And Destroyers etc. on shores would make the game hell for infantry and tanks.
Wow, almost two months.
Really a hot topic. 1 like and one or two threads each two months.
And the only one here in the comments is me.
And that is amazing! Other games have done that for decades now, but strangely, almost none of them have actual naval forces.
Reality.
Yeah, just rework all maps, change the MM and somehow nerf infantry and tanks and planes so they don’t OHK the boats in brown waters and Destroyers from wrecking infantry and tanks on shores.
Easy peasy. Like all those hundreds other FPS games did it.
Yeah. I personally like the “still”.
And sadly it can also result in disliking this idea.
Buddy. Again. You don’t know how much work your “easy” implementations take and how little output boats will give in return beyond nuking the coastlines.
Jesus christ. Pretty much all I want to clarify is that I am under no delusions that it is “easy or simple” to develop games period, that was not the argument I was making at all. I was referring to a conceptualization, not that the work is “easy.”
You are waaaaaay too deep into defeatism to even attempt discussing this with you further. Also, what the hell is up with you posting that shit you did, that is entirely unnecessary and proves my point entirely that you are pessimistic, and at this point you are being extremely negative and combative. Theres no one else participating in this discussion, so I’d rather not continue, you and I bickering changes nothing either way.
Funny. The few people who wanted to add naval forces to the game in the past years, also said it will be easy. and back then, I already said it is stupid and will not come as well as other people.
And yet, after four years, most of them are not playing the game anymore and no naval forces in the game.
But sure… THIS time they will come and this time it will be easy. The doomers will see!!!
And also funny that you cannot list one FPS game with naval forces, infantry, planes and tanks.
What now?
Either it is easy or it is not easy, but you cannot keep u-turning or forgetting what you wrote one post ago.
Again showing the high popularity of naval forces. They are really a hot topic.
You should know that every map is made out of a portion of a larger map.
So you will need to add multiple rivers in the larger map to cover every capture point. This will make the map become unpleasant to play due to constant river crossings.
I am not imagining every single capture point being covered by a river, it would be a situational squad at least to a degree, similar to helicopters in war thunder being situational.
