I think friendly fire need to be add and random spwan point for aircraft as well. Remove the friendly icon for tanks so people need to add paint on their tank in order to be identifiy by friendly aircraft
Weirdly enough they did add separate hull MG ability for Japanese tanks since that post, but never retrospectively to any others
They should allow the same level of autonomy to the Bow MG gunner that they do with tail gunners on planes. This can be nicely tweaked for accuracy and effectiveness within the existing solider ranking / perk structure.
So as soon as a solider enters the visual angle and range of Bow MG they should be auto engaged by the RO/Assist Dvr with a certain level of effectiveness.
This would be a most welcome adaptation for all tankers in their fight against unrealistic levels of INF AT spam that they now faced with. In the same way that a tank crewman now has to get out of their tank and climb all over it to fix a broken module, ridiculously exposed to small arms fire and other shrapnel effects, any infantry attack on a tank should be sensibly made from the flanks or at least out of arc of the bow MG !
Let’s call it a “improvement in the skill level required to operate an infantry soldier” which is the current flavour of the patch BS statement floating around in relation to the aforementioned changes to vehicle repair.
2 Likes
Japanese tank has usable hull mg because they can use it in War Thunder.
Jagdpanther that was added after introduction of Japan tank did have the ability to use separate hull mg(also usable in War Thunder).
Interestingly, the new AC1 premium tank finally has the ability to fire its hull mg that is not usable in War Thunder.
2 Likes
I’d adjust item 3: Commander Freelook.
We can freelook, but it is weirdly stuck in 180 degrees forward. Even plane pilots can look further back.
I’m not too sure about hull mg. Might be a balance decision to not give more than 1 mg (exception being pz 3 with 2 coaxial mgs).
1 Like
good idea
i personally think this would make tanks way too aware making them too powerful, could be tested though
good idea
FANSTASTIC IDEA, they look so dumb right now lol, enlisted really need a animation overhaul
the models come from wt and dont have animated hull mgs, they would need to be remade which is extremely expensive, newer models have hull mgs but they still havent appeared in enlisted.
another fantastic idea, its so dumb to see them stuck everywhere
another great idea!
i think this would make them too much powerful, it would need to be tested but sounds good
Idk why these arent already in the game, great idea
probably wont happen since they are charging 200 gold for each skin, this would mean less revenue, im all for it though
It was horribly unbalanced with us and germany tier 1 fighing in normandy against tier 5
1 Like
Exactly. I’m saying implement it on top of BRs!
Not instead of them.
1 Like
oh i didnt understand sorry! that could be tested but i think it would create too many queues
Mate, I don’t even mean more queues.
Simply BR2 Crusader and A13 would favor Tunisia maps over Pacific, and would still play against German BR2.
Similarly, Seagull seaplane would try to go to Pacific maps over Tunisia.
Pz IV J (1944) would preferably go to Berlin and Normandy, and Pz IV F2/G from the same BR would try to go to Stalingrad, Tunisia and snowy USSR.
1 Like
Anyone who bought tank skins before, can you confirm that they got reset and refunded?
If that’s the case, that would mean there’s nothing stopping DF from implementing the adaptive camo system for free now (which would only make total sense for a ww2 game)
Yes, they have been removed and I did get the golds.
Awesome.
So those who bought them before wouldn’t feel bad if now everyone started getting them automatically for free in respective maps (free and GJ are hard to match though)
(however, some might have already spent the gold again on those skins)
Which is so stupid now given that you don’t even know where you’re gonna be placed and your white camo tank that you planned for Moscow will stand out like a sore thumb in Berlin
No, I bought some of them back lol.
yes to everything,
no to:
stop clinging on false hopes / points that never have been valid to begin with when talking about enlisted.
it’s just pure nonsense. or rather, as shown and seen, didn’t worked the rule on matchmaker.
and just like your previous thread regarding your self made " roadmap " which there are good points, historical accuracy simply isn’t the place for enlisted default matchmaker.
and never will.
Well no wonder, they “tested” T-60 vs Pz IV F2 and PPSh-41 vs MP-3008 with their “preferred maps test”?
Obviously it would be a fail, and same as pre-merge.
What they should have tested is BRs + some preferred map preferences
It didn’t work for 2 reasons.
- Equipment that were available in specific map wasn’t properly balanced.
- not enough queues.
It could work, but not the way devs chose to do it
1 Like
which it wouldn’t work because you would still have people stomping new players with t34s and other campaign optimal choices against new players.
also, very brave of you to assume that you can select your prefered maps and what not.
might as well never have done the merge to begin with.
but that’s not the case, is it?
i highly doubt that.
no matter how many balances you try to make, HA by nature and default isn’t balanced.
let alone if you were to make an attempt, you’d have more than 6 queues.
it simply would become a flawed game which won’t stick nor appeal to the masses of arcady players that enlisted has.
if you have a relatively sucessful business ( which i’m not claiming enlisted is, it’s… going ) you will not switch your business model or rather, target just to appease two or three people.
you might make some tests, like devs did.
and it turned out even worse than the anti merge of current build.
Not select preferred maps, not stomp noobs.
All I’m saying is this:
Your BR2 setup has A13? – you’re more likely to go to Tunisia
Your BR2 setup has LVT? – you’re more likely to go to Pacific
This doesn’t temper with BRs, balance or any noob stomping at all.
That’s exactly my point: they only tested PPSh-41 vs MP-3008 aka pre-merge.
They never tested Seagull sending you to Pacific on the same BR rather than Tunisia.