Though I think the Sdkfz 6/2 AA halftrack should also be a rider squad (where would the infantry sit?).
This one follows the previous August storm concept where I use the 4man apc squads as a basis for some AA vehicles.
Re infantry riding I presumed with these trucks they just sit around the AA gun, it works for the Bren carrier somehow??
Idea here is add multiple ways for Axis team to have several AA guns in battle, ie on rider vehicle and since their current Sdkfz7 halftrack is honestly kind of shite.
Honestly not sure whats the best solution here (4man apc truck AA as apc spawn point or rider AA squad)
These are some dreams vehicles I would love to see in the game, but there might be an over-emphasis on vehicles in relation to new infantry content.
Its hard to add more infantry equipment to German tree, without upsetting balance or crowding it.
Also rider vehicles are a sorta infantry addition, since they buff the scout infantry basically by adding more men.
I don’t think the radio “reinforcement request” would ever be used, its kinda boring and doesn’t really matter much.
Honestly secretly this might be the strongest feature; it adds anywhere from +5-40% to attacking team if whole team uses 1 radio man (clans could). Its basically a way to make:
Radio squads more relevant by making them semi-HQ squads if that makes sense.
A safety valve on how strong airpower/tanks are getting.
Nation and BR specific AT and AA buildables are a must-have.
Agree, theyre way overdue and players want a counter to grey zone tanks for a long time. instead of map changes just give them cool flavorfull tools to reach out at range and punish the campers.
Though I think the AT buildables on the premium AT squads seem too strong, seems pay-to-win.
You want premiums that players want, I just designed both squads around something that I would really like to see.
The “stronger” premium AT guns are balanced by few things. They take more time / engineer resources to build. Theyre actually bigger than even the heavy AT guns for f2p players. Esp the 12.8cm Pak44 is HUGE. Ie trying to build them on uneven ground will be a NIGHTMARE; and theyll be huge targets once built. I do think the “official” rate of fire of 8-10 rounds per minute on 100-128mm guns is a bit crazy; ill remove that in V2 and would prob leave it as a balnce dependant thing.
I think your biggest gripe is with the BR system here, not this proposal. And to some degree, like alot of the player base I agree. (T3485 br4, Fernidand br5 but saw Kursk for example).
As a historical concept, Id rather have the map and the vehicles ingame, under current ‘flawed’ BR matchmaking, and then have custom battle or further pressure on historical modding, vs not having the content. Alot of players want the cool toys, and generating extra revenue for Darkflow that comes with it.
I’m all up for more content.
And even more excited for Eastern Front maps.
The last one we got was STZ back in December 2022, more than 2 years ago.
But since we have these BRs now without the ability to fine tune equipment like it was often done with campaigns, I don’t want “fake Kursk” or “bastardised Leningrad”.
I would much rather campaign for the following generic maps:
Post community discussion Version 1.1 change notes:
AT Gunners now gain +20% AT-gun loader speed perk, increasing their lethality with the lethal emplacements. Now u can specialize your troops in these powerful tools.
AT Gunners now can gain the “Can-Opener” battle award for most vehicle kills as an AT soldier (Minimum 3).
Both premium AT squad AT guns have a slightly lower rate of fire, offset by the AT loader speed perk above.
Air Play Changes
Powerful aircraft play is being balanced by more immersive features. For battles in the higher battle rating of 3-5 aircraft rearm points are now a further 1km away increasing time for rearming. Plane speed is now a more important consideration than ever.
As well we want to limit unrealistic mechanic such as mass aircraft crashing. Players who loose an aircraft will be limited by a increasing 1min timer increment (1min, 2min, 3min etc) before being allowed to pilot an aircraft again. Practice flying these valuable machines in the training field pilot!
Research Level Change:
BM-37 shovel mortar easter egg note change
Do-217E2 “slower than Ju188” note change
Pe-2-359 “Peshka” nickname added
Stg44 with GGP40 GL changed to MP43 wtih GGP40. This creates a healther balance where player has to select the best AR (Stg44) or more flexible choice (MP43 GGP).
Fernidand is already prevelant in all the pictures of the Kursk campaign as you’ll notice and the top tier research item for Germany in the campaign research tree. Tiger P makes sense thematically since it was a Fernidand company leader tank thereafter.
Su-152 would also be a perfect fit, but it was competing with KV-2 in the research tree, and im trying to use models that are already in the game engine where preferable as a campaign concept thats easier to develop.
As well the ISU-152 was already conceptualized in the August storm campaign for Manchuria 45 scenario, so some duplication there, except ISU generally has better stats
I think SU-152 would be a very good f2p event vehicle for a 43-44 related marathon event; based on above inclusions.
I absolutely love this post, my friend, outstanding work, and I love all of the details. You have really done an outstanding job putting this entire form together. I really and truly mean it when I say that I wish the devs would read this form post and implement it. Especially the part about the writer class and the AA guns and weapons. I would love to see the addition of axis and Soviet vehicles, especially more aircraft and more tanks. Person have also made a form post about having larger AA cannons and AT cannons. Also having a better buildable system for advanced engineers, that would be in high BR games.
I book-marked this post and I wish it well. I will keep an eye on this post!
I do try to make these as plausible as possible, and the concept obviously can be broken into serveral parts, but exists together for balance purposes. The heavy CAS aircraft for example being balanced by rearming distance increase in high BR and stronger buildable AA guns. Rider rework like Medic rework from previous concept can exist as a seperate upgrade of course.
But together or appart, I feel and most of the players agree there are good ideas here; threads on this concept and previous August Storm on enlisted reddit got nearly a thousand likes combined which is saying something; esp with %95+ upvote rate.
I do hope devs do take note, esp as this isint just my work but a summary and contribution of the community (alot ideas are from this forum & linked where possible) that they would like to see.
I agree 110%.I play as a primarily German/Axis player and I have made a very similar forum post about 5 months ago asking for “heavy” attack bombers and planes, I’ve asked about 4 times for larger AA guns and larger AT cannons. Some can be wheeled by changing position and some will be “stationary” but have a higher and lower angle of range of motion; 360 degree X/Y motion (AA) And the AT will be a small-medium (what we have) and a large (Germans can have pak-43 and Pak-36) (Soviets can have the 57mm, and the 152mm)
I also LOVE your idea of the rider re-work. It have just recently unlocked the R75 motorcycle for the axis and it’s not useful (IMO) because it’s only 2 people and I never get tunisa or moscow, two maps that I would love to play, but I always get Stalingrad.
I believe that the Soviets, Germans, and all factions should have some more in-depth vehicle development (mostly tank traction and maneuverability), and the vehicles should also be given the “auto-select” option for different color-pallet camouflage patterns depending on the map.
The addition of Kursk, Kherson, Karkov and many other locations, will allow the game to have the ability to increase the vehicle types, variants and models. The Soviets and Axis have so many WONDERFUL vehicles that have been used in large numbers that are not in game, and the few that are, unfortunately are premium or event items that very few players possess. I.E the StugIIIG and the T-34STZ (I believe it’s the stz).
Again, I agree with your post and I would be overjoyed if the developers just looked at this post.
I mean Im up for any plane and every plane, But I dont think the I-185 will help too much (its not the plane they are looking for). Id still rather take the La’s or Yaks In the fighter slot Im thinking it will be middle BRish
More interested in the Tu-1s, Tu-2s, TIS-MAS, Su-8s and all that rediculously over gunned stuff
Currently RU has 1 slow 500kg BR5 CAS (Il10 ) and the nimble Yaks. Its extremely restricting/ uninspired to be honest. Il-185 can pack 2x250kg or 4x 100kg and bring the heat (its basically a Fw190), so fills the mid size role between clean air superiority and dedicated CAS, ie the 1 choice if u only have 1 plane slot available.
Of course as you have seen from my concepts I want Soviets to have their extreme ASF/CAS division continue, ie Tu-2 3x500/3x1000, Tu-1 3x1000 + dual 45mm, Su-8 with its gallery of death , TIS-MAS; just all sorts of absolutely muscular A2G completely unsuited with dealing with any fighter. At bare minimum Il-8 with dual 500kgs, should have been here long time ago. Give me any of these and ill IMMEDIATELY BUY THE PREORDER.
We balance that with time outs for crashing/dying in a plane (1min), farther rearming, and as you can see tons of AA from vehicles to infantry ground mounts in the concept
This way planes are strong, but if you miss ur CAS sortie or a fighter jumps you your not going back in that plane for a while; it makes them strong, able to change the tide of battle, but also require skill, not just brain dead dive and crash/rinse and repeat. Ground vehicle/ infantry players also have agency, for example able to mark aircraft for 1 min (rider perk), and all the AAA available. I think players on both sides can see the current set up is frustratingly weak and cheap way to play (suicide cycle which ruins immersion).
This deepens the air/ground play, makes players want to use alot of different vehicles/squads and thus want more slots, which again incentivises premium play/buying more squad slots.
all factions should have some more in-depth vehicle development (mostly tank traction and maneuverability),
1000%. I think its much more fun to have a situation where you want to pick multiple different tanks and aircraft vs just 1 best thing. Right now for Sov/Axis BR5 its Tiger2H and IS2… there is no incentive to get anything else, no incentive to get more slots, no incentive to think about premium time, its not great honestly.
Say Axis had Whirblewind as a rider vehicle, Fernidand, Tiger 2H and Panther F; all of a sudden its a balanced interesting lineup, you want to get more slots, if u dont you have bad battles and you see that maybe the Elephant or Whirblewind could have turned that battle around?!?! There is more player choice, and it pushes players to think deeper about the game, consider more slots/ premium time etc.
And theres more variety on the battlefield, than just 1 type of tank vs 1 type of tank
I just think the Soviet airforce doesnt appeal to the masses. Everyone is all about the fire and forget massive AoE. The average gamer desires/needs the biggest bomb they can get. So anything that is lower than what the other side of the fence gets is “shit”
Which is unfortunate because the soviet lineup is VERY strong. Superb fighters, Amazing cannons, great flight characteristics (obviously not all…looking at you Pe-3…but at least it can carpet bomb like a boss)
I really enjoy the Soviet planes myself, and honestly probably have the most fun playing them. Sooo much more satisfying removing tanks with cannons lol. More than enough weaponry to deal with anything and everything. Just requires you to be more “deliberate”
I dont know if its a design choice, But I really like/appreciate having the big cannons, carpet bombing plus rockets. Gives you tools for everything. Far more interesting than “drop nuke somewhere in the vacinity”
Personally I think it should be carried on. IL-10 needs rockets aswell, and at least one of the Pe-2s
I agree and its in its current form, that requires skill over big boom from players. And im also completely for keeping it this way, its just that current lineup is ahistorically weak (I think DF recognizes this or at least they hinted at it). For starters rocket use was much more prevalent; Su-6/Pe-2 with 10x RS132 should be a thing; We need our 2000+ Tupolev-2s to be a thing; Il10 only had such a medium loadout cause Tu-2s were decimating everything heavier. And of course the absolutely Big honker CAS protos we described above are more about flavor of just Soviet hammer vs actual need at that stage.
Re game state, Axis kind of have a choice of everything re flexibility, US aircraft are all automatically multirole, I think its good to keep Soviet & Japan seperated from this (except in rare circumstances like premiums/event stuff) with dedicated a2g/ asf as it currently is to a degree.
IL-10 needs rockets aswell, and at least one of the Pe-2s
Id continue to keep them seperate; ie add Il-8 with 2x500kg or Pe2-xxx with 10xRS132 gives interesting player choices vs just 1 plane doing everything. ‘Everthing’ is for Americans with their P47s etc
I think a seperate Pe-2 with 10 M-13UK/RS132 and Tu-2 should be the bare minimum goals; as I wrote with you earlier in the balancing thread; give the premium P-63 its multi role bomb load out and me and serveral people I know instantly buy it; Yaks are fantastic air superiority so no one is buying the P-63, but if it was multi-role…$$$
Just like above writings about fexibility in ground vehicles, it would be nice to have agency in soviet air. I look at German air tree T4/5 and I salivate; I look at Soviets and I wonder where half their airforce is?
Your ideas are good. His fixation on HA is in the absolute tail end of the bell curve so… you know. Do with it what you feel appropriate. The vocal 0.3% is vocal.
Im thinking it will be middle BRish
