I believe in improving AI and I see no issues implementing such a system
I don’t have to think about anything. People have different opinions
It’s okay but also a bit complicated to balance
And how is this going to balance more overpowered vehicles?
taking teamates and enemies out of an equation that you say should rely on conditions of the battle seems to be taking out quite a few conditions.
This refers to for example Invasion vs Conquest. Nothing more. Invasion could have a different limit than Conquest, or based on the ammount of caps that are left to capture in Invasion/Assault.
You’re lowering the skill ceiling of tank usage if you prevent the user to respond to things and automate it, on top of risking unneeded frustration because the AI won’t do what you want it to do. It WILL lead to the AI driving to places where you do not want it to go, such as out of cover, getting you killed by an enemy tank, It WILL also screw with your aim, as the tanks are not stabilized and you don’t want the AI to move suddenly when you are about to take a shot.
Asking AI to take the best course of action against an anti-tank grenade in the context of a complex, ever changing battlefield is quite simply too much to ask of it.
2 Likes
In my opinion it should stay mostly as it is.
With a slight change - player should be a commander as default. Of course things like working sights and ability to “shoot” as a commander are needed first.
If you want to shoot better then switch to a gunner. You will have more control over aiming but less awareness.
Similarly with driver. More control over tank, but less awareness. (Some kind of AI controlled turret may be needed here.)
While as a commander you could drive a tank and shoot. Also you may have binoculars to compensate for lack of gunsight. Maybe option to “lock on target” for your AI gunner so you can shoot but still check whats going on around you.
Maybe some randomness in how accurate is your AI controlled gunner. The higher his lvl the more accurate he is. I don’t like this option, but maybe you will (I doubt).
It could also be part of GE vs SU tanks balance. (Points are valid assuming you play as a commander and it’s battle for Moscow.)
- GE has more awerness but less controll over the gun.
- SU because of commander being also a gunner has more controll over the gun but this + poor sights make this tank next to blind
So it would work like this:
If GE tank faces front of SU tank, he is screwed.
If SU tank is flanked (what is very likely), he is screwed.
Ps.
Controls are to be debated.
1 Like
Bad idea
I’m sick and tired of people always roasting other people’s ideas but they never suggest anything by themselves
These people are also much more active on Forums than those who have ideas
3 Likes
Make the balance symmetrical
Easy solution
1 Like
Oh yeah…! 
bru your idea bad
Boring solution
Plus majority doesn’t want symmetrical balance
Symmetrical balance doesn’t work on the grander scale anyway because not everything is comparible.
Even calling the T-60 an equivalent to the Panzer II isn’t really right.
2 Likes
Asymmetrical balance should still be balanced symmetrically. So not that one side gets stronger tanks, while the other side gets stronger SMGs, but that one side gets a fast shooting SMG, while the other side gets a stable SMG, like we got rn.