That’s weird, since I destroyed few t-26s and t-60s with my classic bf 110 that has only 20mm cannons in previous days.
Careful what you assume, I’ve been around for quite a while.
I remember seeing one of their posts about it being made as a HE. It could still destroy tanks by delivering a blow to top vents causing an engine fire (and it still does if I’m not mistaken).
I remember the patch where damage calculations were all kinds of messed up allowing tanks to be destroyed easily with both aircraft and other tank shells.
After that it is definitely much more difficult to kill tanks with it since it is not AP, but its not impossible.
Even so, it’s the first attack plane that you get. Far before the enemy team gets the Jumbo. Balance wise you should move further down the line if you want something to kill tanks with. Like the JU-188. Cannons (nor any other type of weapon) should be a one size fits all situation.
I don’t have particularly strong feelings about the suspended munitions changes, although some of them seem a bit excessive (4 HVAR? 10 is definitely OP, but 4? And Wfgr.gr.21 are fine as is)
But I wholeheartedly endorse fixing aircraft guns. As @61839981 says, 40mm Vickers S Cannons have zero penetration and are no use against infantry either which is particularly galling given it is a premium. But the Hispanos are also completely broken with no armour penetration either, despite being one of the most powerful 20mm cannons fielded by any airforce in WWII. Stop messing with things and fix some of the existing issues…
3 Likes
Hispano damage has been broken for a long time with no fix in sight. Rifle calibre machineguns are more effective at the moment.
3 Likes
I agree, about the only way to counter some tanks is to have a massive hard to miss bomb. Without it, the other team essentially has a tank that will over preform and there is not much you can do about it other than wasting time and tickets trying to flank or get a sneaky AT gun up somewhere. That and the 40mm/37mm and other big caliber airplane mounted weapons are almost exclusively for shooting down planes as they are no good at anything else. Make strafing runs great again.
2 Likes
3 Likes
But we are bringing “balance” by butchering historical battles…
Im totally against ‘balance’. I think its utter bullshit that why i found Enlisted so refreshing. Its nice to fear and work around certain weapons.
1 Like
Yeah, we need BR that considering is year when the equipment was used, not its powerlevel. Sadly that’s not what’s planned.
I really like unsymmetrical balance, especially in casual games where it’s not so overabused.
1 Like
It is good that they are listening to their forum users, but the speed of reaction to give notice of a nerf and then withdraw it within an hour is rather odd.
I believe that balancing a game should be done with a clear vision, careful consideration, and based on strong conviction. But they withdrew it after only an hour of forum user reaction.
I can’t help but wonder if the nerf idea was actually announced without any in-depth discussion or consideration.
It’s as if they are rolling the dice to decide what to update…
3 Likes
They’re people too so it could just be up in the air or throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks
Probably didn’t expect nearly as much vitriol about it tho
1 Like
They never said it will not be implemented, they just “postponed it” until merge.
Plus I think this “balance” wasn’t a big thing in theirs eyes. So they told themselves it’s not worth it of another shttstorm (yet).
3 Likes
I agree. That’s what having a forum is for. I understand having a focus group of testers to run things by, but unfortunately, general human nature is to focus on what benefits the individual, so important balance details will be missed. Hence why using a larger group is necessary.
Personally I would like to see active discussion posts, with careful moderation to keep it on track. Having developers hash out details with forum users as a whole when dealing with topics they intend to change, so they are less likely to overlook details.
1 Like
Balance, balance and balance. There is no balance in WT. They seem to arrange tanks in BR firepower, and yet the realism of ballistics does its job.
There was no balance in the closed beta. When normandy came in, there was also no balance, and the game was good.
Some noobs who came to us from CoDwz started screaming that there is no balance. There is no balance in EFT, the player base is huge, and the game is still officially in closed beta.
Balance is obsolete. Give us back the realism with CBT, gun jams, wall-piercing high-caliber bullets. And gives us back seas of blood and waves of guts.
1 Like
The American tanks are extremely disadvantaged against the Tigers, but they have powerful aircraft that can destroy the Tigers. I liked this kind of asymmetry. It is also a good thing that if you know the rules of the game, you can win even if you don’t have the reflexes or dexterity.
This is like a very complicated rock-paper-scissors game and should not be adjusted to nerf only Paper or make it more difficult to use.
2 Likes
The fact that lvl 0 explosive pack exists made tank power creep a non issue. You could literally play a campaign for the first time and insta frag the strongest tank in campaign. (They have made it harder these days but still doable)
Didnt matter how strong a tank was vs another tank, infantry of any class could always delete.
That and there is huge differences bewteen infantry support tanks and anto armor tanks.
Asymmetry is great.
I also remember that they said that they fixed something that they dind’t fix, the problem with the it is much more difficult to kill tanks “but its not impossible” is that planes need to be conscistent at their role, attacking planes should be able to destroy tanks, if you think you should not be able to destroy tanks, acording to that then they should remove the missiles from the p 38 (because is a fighter plane also) and the bombs of the A-20 to be balanced, because they are early unlocks, they should be only able to destroy tanks with the last mustang and the p 47, honestly what the fuck are you even talking about, if thats the justification then the devs should give a real plane that can really kill tanks, even the jumbo at an early level, because the allies have the p 38 as their first plane, capable of destroying even the so called op tiger and panter
Planes are a huge problem, but I don’t think this was the way to handle it. I don’t know. The P47, Ju188, and some of the other insanely powerful planes could lose some armament, but the rest is fine.
I did see a lot of guys complaining that are clearly the type to camp out in planes the whole game, so that’s why they got mad. I have zero respect for people who play like that.
It seems better to rework the cause and not the symptom.
Nerfing the planes further shows the developers would rather create the planes even more weaker than they are already are. Lets be honest, flying is a hard concept for people who are engrained by day and night to play infantry roles. What thrill do you have being a pilot in this game now? To know your bombs and machine guns can’t destroy armor or said units as effective or not at all anyone? Its already hard enough with the planes taking damage, leaks, etc, its a flying coffin. Now you put the final nail in the coffin. Now with nerfing the air units you are basically saying “Hey we see you mastering how to play so proficiently as a air ace, we decided to make a nerf to not only counter you, but make air attacks just more useless.” Good job Gajin, I will continue to enjoy other games and disinvest in this one. If you were smart, you wouldn’t have done this but make more realistic plane loadouts or even given more ammo for certain planes. Guess not.
Since when? No campaign had explosive packs at level 0 that I can remember. Pacific? I can’t remember but you can kill those tanks with a sword (when the campaign released).
Being level 1 in Moscow a few months ago? Interesting times avoiding end level tanks with no explosive pack or any means by which to destroy a tank.