I must reiterate it again
The respawning mechanism of vehicles in this game is very unreasonable
There is no mechanism to limit the defender’s vehicles, which means that the defender can deploy unlimited vehicles if they wish.
This is a very extremely unreasonable mechanism. In a game with a large enough number of players, it is almost impossible for the defender to lose, especially in a very empty terrain like the Battle of Moscow.
The attackers have manpower limitations, which means that it is almost impossible for them to win in evenly matched vehicle confrontations. The defenders can use kamikaze attacks and tanks unlimitedly to consume the attackers’ manpower. I can drive tanks to destroy the enemy, but They immediately flew kamikaze bombers and blew up my tanks. I lost manpower. What did they lose? None!
This is very very very stupid, the developers obviously have no experience balancing a large battlefield game
Take “Battlefield” as an example. Mature developers will be very careful to restrict the defender’s use of vehicles. They cannot deploy tanks at the first strategic point, and the defense at subsequent strategic points will still have longer defenses than the attacker. vehicle respawn time
Even so, in the game Battlefield, the winning rate of the defender is still higher than that of the attacker, because defense is always advantageous.
Besides, come on, even War Thunder knows how to fucking limit bombers, and yet the idiots at this game still allowed kamikaze spam for two or three years! This is so stupid
my suggestion is:
Vehicle regeneration is subject to a global cooldown limit. If your teammate dies driving the vehicle, the entire team must wait for a period of time before deploying the vehicle. If it is a kamikaze attack, the entire team must receive additional rebirth time. punish
Follow the example of the Pacific Campaign. The Pacific Campaign is the only multi-player game where kamikaze spam does not appear (the irony is that in reality, the Japanese are the country that likes suicide attacks the most). The reason is simple. , all planes take off from aircraft carriers, which greatly limits the effectiveness of spam
The defender’s vehicles must be restricted, limiting the number of vehicles for each defender player, or the defender has a longer vehicle deployment time than the attacker. In any case, this will effectively prevent unlimited deployment of tanks.
No unlimited kamikaze attacks, no unlimited tank deployment = a fair game
At present, the winning rate of the offensive side is too low. I don’t even want to play offense.
Hell no, punishing the entire team because one person can’t fly or kamikazes sounds very annoying. Punish the person who does it with a longer cooldown or something.
I agree that taking off from an airfield should be on every map.
I’m not a fan of limiting the max respawn limit for defenders since, after the defenders lose all vehicles, the attackers can just sit in the gray zone forever.
And honestly, if you know what you are doing, attacking is a lot easier/fun. Why do you think everyone wants to play attacker.
sorry man but personally i dont like attacking since it require teamwork (which you know what happen) most of the time but the same goes for defense too i guess anyway tbh i dont like the idea of limiting thing like warthunder
Really, I guess not everyone then. I prefer attacking since most of the time just flanking wins Attacking and you get a lot of action. While sitting on my behind and waiting for the enemy to come is pretty boring.
The developers did do this, but it doesn’t make much sense because it takes longer to return to replenish bombs, and the game is filled with a lot of suicide attacks.
Taking off from the airport can also effectively curb this situation. At least I rarely see unrestricted use of aircraft for suicide attacks in the Pacific.
The tank hiding in the gray area is still a tumor that needs to be dealt with. It is a passive gameplay. The tank is not a self-propelled artillery.
If the defender has enough players, they can get unlimited tanks. Once you destroy one, another one will be deployed immediately. To be honest, this is unfair to the attacker. The purpose of destroying the defender’s tanks is to create firepower for the attacker to attack strategic points. There are gaps, but what’s the tactical significance if they can be deployed without restrictions?
In particular, some camps’ tanks are not very good. They rely on the air force to destroy tanks. The air force cannot be like tanks VS tanks. When the air force destroys a tank, it must replenish bombs, and the defender immediately deploys another one. This means that your There is no point in destroying
I always flank, no matter if defending or attacking, when defending I flank and prevent attackers from building a rally and generally fortifying the position. flanking is simply useful in every scenario.
I have suggested defenders getting their own tickets like Red Orchestra 2 that allows more tactical decisions whether to hold on a losing cap point or retreat to save tickets.
Of course some defend the design promotes camping and stuff but its not and allows both sides to use their brain.
The defender dont have much of an advantage really if you concider how fast some factions can cap those points.
Giving the attacker the chance to win by ignoring the objective in favor of some interation TDM ontop of the messed up cap times does seam a bit unfair.
The attacker could just camp in his base and wait for the defenders to come to them and there is nothing the defenders could do about it.
Currently invasion is more like a meeting engagement that can only progress in one direction. Defenders are given no time to prepare themselves and spawn as far away from the point as attackers.
Giving defenders tickets would open the possibility of giving defenders more time to prepare and dig in, by giving buffer times between caps before the grey zone moves up for attackers. Having a limited reserve pool would force the defenders to think more tactically instead of endlessly suicide rushing the attackers to drain their tickets.
If the defense has their own limited reserve pool, the attacking side could still make progress by wearing down the defenders, even if they were unable to easily break through hardened defenses.
A good while ago I had a similar proposal with Dynamic defender Tickets. The idea being the Defenders have a good portion more tickets available than the attackers, however they dont have access to them all on every point. Makes unlimited counterattack unsustainable, at least on the first few objectives. Also locks Capture points to prevent attacker snowball.
your suggestion was by far the best one, I think this is everything that’s wrong with invasion. I’m really curious how much would meta change with this simple change. I assume gameplay would become something more I have been expecting from enlisted to be like.
right now certain play styles, classes etc. are literal burden for the team, this is unacceptable.
I think they measure attack defender strength by the win loss ratio of defenders and attackers. The problem is that almost always players will attack. People will not always defend the point how many people have had that happen. That is most of the team is farming kills or picking their nose. You know what i mean no one is sitting on the point playing real defense. The attackers playing the game roll up sit on the point and take it without resistance. There may be games where the defenders stop the attackers cold but there are many games where the attackers roll over the defenders.
Because of no tickets limit. You can be reckless as possible since you have infinite resouces as defender.
I really dont understand people who hate confrontation and conquest. Fairest gamemods by far.
I totally agree.
All planes in all campaigns should always take off from the ground and not spawn airborn.
This will discourage suiciders and enhance the experience for real pilots.
Win win.
(I would also like to see that planes in all campaigns can be repaired, why this only is possible in Pacific afaik is beyond me)