Depends. I’d call it a plus tbh.
No, it doesn’t. Engineers and assaulters win games. I’d argue air superiority does the least.
Spawn a 262 and delete them off the map at 900km/h with your 15kgs of burst mass then.
I’d argue that it’s not a huge deal. Especially as it’s unlocked very late and so will rarely appear.
It is simply impossible to play on a tank if the enemy has two 500 kg bombs
You take your tank, in 30 seconds you are dead. It is impossible to save as it is impossible to stop the plane while it flies to the target from the spawn. There is too little time.
Now I often see this too. You kill a player from the tank, he takes the plane and kills you. You can not prevent him in any way.
Grenade launcher rifles are a trooper only weapon
I don’t think the devs are going to give the Allies another fighter, as they already have one more than the Axis but need an Attacker. Instead, I think what may happen is something more like this:
Level 37: M9 Bazooka against Panzerfaust 100
Level 38: P-61(Attacker II, 4 x 500lb) against Fw 190 D9 (Fighter II, 1 x 250 kg bomb, 4 x 50 kg)
Level 39:Radio II squads with Johnson M1941 LMG (Radio II) against FG 42 II (Radio II)
Level 40: Overstamp Thompson with 50 round Drum Magazine(Assaulter III) against Kiarly M39 (Assaulter III)
Im impatient to see if this year we stop ad 40 level or we going forward
I myself have barely experienced this.
Though I do main Moscow. But even in Normandy, I can usually get a bit of playtime in my tank before getting wrecked by a plane. Though keep in mind I like to paly tanks actively and not camping in 1 spot for the whole game, so that might make a difference.
These guns aren’t in the game yet. So they’re not restricted to anything. Mkb showed patterns do not matter, and I see no issue in making these granade rifles availible to all rifle slots. Tbh, I wouldn’t mind making all nade launcher weapons availible to all rifle using classes, as I do not see the point of them being locked.
Fighter 3 class is missing. So another fighter is needed I’d say.
That may be more likely, but not as good. Let’s put forward good suggestions instead of likely ones, so that when the devs do butcher them, you end up with something nicer instead of what would happen if they buthered a realistic suggestion.
Cause while I do think it’s more likely, I do not like what you put forth.
More copy paste.
Oh hey, let’s put a night fighter that barely took part in Normandy in as a ground attacker.
More copy paste and doesn’t seem too different from what’s currently in Normandy.
You get an Fg, you get an FG, everyone gets FGs!
Tf is that doing here? A total of 8000 of all Kiraly variants were made in WW2. A lot of those were 43s. And they were made in Hungary and would go on to serve on the eastern front.
So can you explain to me what it’s doing in Normandy?
This is as outrageously unhistorical and non-sensical as adding the fedorov to berlin.
Oh, wait…
Yes there is a lot of copy paste, but A. The devs are lazy so that is to be expected B. Sometime copy paste is better for Balance.
Fighter III squads are not needed, however the Allies currently have 4 fighters and 2 attackers(3 if you include event vehicles) and the axis have 3 fighters and 3 attackers(4 if you include event vehicles. The devs should make it 4 fighter and 3 attackers for both sides for balance. The Fw 190 D5 will work for that purpose and while it is copy paste, it is more balanced than a 262 even if the Allies get a Meteor.
The Ju 188 was grounded for all of Normandy, the Bf 110 and the P-51 C were on Anti-Bomber and Bomber escort duty respectively the whole time and the ME 410 wasn’t even anywhere near France, as they were on the Eastern Front. So the P-61 is probably as historically accurate as all of those, if not more.
They were there as much as the Zk 343 so…
NO, just no, forget about this, Normandy does not need more fucking explosions, specifically the allies dont need more fucking bombs
Axis doesnt need more heavy fighters
I really dont think that normandy needs more tanks but ok I guess
Still. Seeing as they’re ultimately gonna ruin the suggestion no matter what, we might as well ask for more to hopefully get something at least.
Though I don’t believe my suggestions would be that bad to implement.
Panzershreck could use similar aniamtions as Bazooka. Just a bit altered.
nade launchers would be easy to make.
Vehicles from warthunder.
Tommy already exists, would only need a reload animation tweek.
Mg15 exists on a bunch of plane gunners, would take a bit of work to tweek it, but shouldn’t be too bad.
I mean, Tempest is multi purpose, it can do basically everything. And it’s not like the allies need better strike aircraft. The tempest is also the best possible historically feasable plane availible to the allies in Normandy and the best allied fighter of the war, so I don’t think it would be underpowered.
262 wouldn’t be too unbalanced. It would require a lot of skill to use well and would have limited air to ground capabillity.
D9 (not D5, that doesn’t exist) ís just lazy copy paste.
Eh. Not sure about all of those things, but from what I’ve read, during Normandy, the P61 was racing Mosquitos in Britain with limited night fighter usage towards the end of the campaign.
I think you mean 383.
And no. there were 35000 ZKs made and they were made in Czechia and issued to the SS, so them being in Normandy isn’t nearly as much of a stretch.
The P-61 isn’t supposed to be a better attacker, it is supposed to be a sidegrade to the A-20 like the ME 410 is to the Bf 110, hence why I gave it the 500lb bombs instead of the 1000lb ones.
262 would basically destroy the A20, and in all honesty, the Meteor is only a little less historically accurate than it so why not just add that instead if you really want jet fighters. However I still think we should stay prop only and balance out the attacker/fighter rosters.
Racing Mosquitoes is still more involved than the Ju 188 was, I can promise you that.
Still shouldn’t be there. I myself am very much against adding in a night fighter, which barely saw service, in ground attack configuration which was barely ever used, and have it fight at day. Might as well add in a PPSh-41 as a sniper rifle to normandy now.
I mean, A20 would still be viable. And seeing as the 262 would be difficult to use in game, as well as likely being rare, I believe it would be a fun little gimmick. And not like the A20 vs 262 matchup would be any worse than Hs123 vs IL-2 in Moscow.
It isn’t historically accurate…
All it did was chase V1s. Meanwhile both the 262 and tempest saw use in Normandy. Literally noone wants a copypasted Dora in Normandy.
I don’t. Having a singular historically accurate jet fighter could be cool. (Although the Volksjäger could be a nice addition to Berlin, so maybe 2.)
And I don’t think having the same amount of fighters and attackers on either side matters if there’s decent options on both sides without a huge level gap between them.
I mean, the 188s were there, and maybe did a few bombing runs. Not much, but at least they probably may have done something remotely resembling their in-game use.
That is a completely diffrent case, the P-61 was used by the Americans, and even though it may have been limited it’s use it was still there and was still used, which is better than quite a few things in the game.
A-20 is literally the ideal 262 prey. Slow, heavy and relies on turrets which the 262 can outrun. The Fw 190 would be a more fair fight.
And all the 262 did was chase strategic bombers, not CAS aircraft. The Fw 190 D may be a copy paste, but it works better for balance.
Again, the 262 was off chasing strategic bombers, not intercepting CAS aircraft. It is also probably best for the game to balance out the attackers and fighters for both sides. Finally, I find it funny you refuse the P-61 for historical accuracy but claim the 262 is historically accurate.
They literally were not. Their productions stopped in 1943 after the effective destruction of the Luftwaffe and the few that were built remained in Germany for the rest of the war.
My proposals were based on balance first, historical accuracy second and uniqueness last. In my opinion, that is the order the devs should prioritize adding content into the game as well.
Oh, alright my bad.
Then put in a sniper thompson with 100round drum.
I won’t deny that, but it’s got enough guns to down a 262. It can also simply avoid them. Plus not like they’re of the same tier. And seeing as sturt vs tiger matchup exists, I don’t believe this is too bad. Also as most people use bombers like V1 guided bombs.
Actually, that gave me an idea. Let’s just put in a V1 for the germans.
Still way more similar roles than night fighter and cas aircraft. Or if that’s waht your problem is with it, change it to be an A2a sturmvogel variant with 2x30mm and 1x500kg.
I’d say it’d be better if the fighters were better than the attackers air to air wise. So that they’re viable and people use them.
Cause way more 262s were used there than P61s and the role of fighter and interceptor was closer than night fighter and CAS plane.
Honestly, there’s also ne need for it as well. There’s more aircraft that could be put in it’s place.
If it isn’t a premium already, a B-25 or B-26 would be much nicer additions.
I’m fairly certain they were some near Normandy but didn’t see much use due to fuel shortages. Or do you have a source which states they weren’t there?
In my opinion, it should be: Uniqueness (noone wants to grind the same stuff over again, so unless absolutely necessary for balance, copy paste should simply be avoided), Balance, common sense (attacker P61 or sniper thompson excluded by this precissely), historical accuracy.
Still didn’t see service in the US army, because A. The Americans never used the 100 round drum (the British might have) and B. No idiot would ever put a scope on the Thompson.
Both the Meteor and the 262 were effectively doing the same thing, that being anti-strategic air over their respective countries so I don’t understand why you refuse the Meteor but absolutely need the 262.
That is not what I said. I said it was better for the game if both sides had an equal number of Attackers and Fighters.
Over Normandy? No, the 262s were never a part of any battle over Normandy. They were deployed strictly in the Anti-strategic bomber role on the Western Front (I don’t know or care about it’s use in the Eastern Front)
B-25 could work too, B-26 wasn’t even used in Normandy.
If by close, you mean grounded in Airfields in Germany fine. However, none flew any combat missions due to the fact Germany couldn’t send them up due to the Allies complete air superiority in France and as you stared fuel shortages. Personally, I find geographic proximity a stupid way of determining how historically accurate something was, as that meas the defender always gets access to all their prototypes. If something fought in the battle, then it fought in the battle. If something was in service at the time of the battle, then it was in service. That latter one seems to be the Devs standard, and it makes more sense and is more consistent that geographic proximity.
This is a game, so Balance should absolutely come first. Also, how is the P-61 unbalanced? It literally has the same payload as the A-20, and similar firepower just in the form of 20mms instead of .50 cals. Its literally a sidegrade to something that is already balanced.
And no sensible pilot would use a P61 night fighter as a daytime ground attacker.
Nope. The 262 was actually engaging bombers over France during the battle of Normandy. During that time, the Meteors never even crossed the channel. Also, Meteor would have very limited air to ground and would be too op as a fighter, due to it actually being manuverable unlike the 262, which demands a fighting style that’s awkward to pull off in Enlisted. Tbh, the Tempest is just all around a better aircraft for the allies in this game.
Oh, but why? I don’t see a neeed to give both sides exactly the same kind of stuff if it’s not even impoortant for balance. Cause even if one side may have a higher variety of fighters and the other of attackers, I’d say that’s fine if both sides have good options for both, even if not as many.
Pretty sure they were doing that during Normandy for bombers that were bombing things as part of the battle of Normandy.
Was. The Martin B-26 Marauder was used as a low and medium altitude bomber in operations from the british isles since may 1943. It was used extensively on the buildup to and during the battle of Normandy. You can read it on Wikipedia. I myself remeber them being used there, as Pierre Clostermann wrote about escorting them in his book “The Big Show”.
Allied fighters weren’t a huge concern for them actually. They were simply grounded, as fuel was low and their own fighters took priority over the bombers.
The problem isn’t just that ‘they were close, they can be there’. I’m saying that they might have fought there because they were close. Sure, they didn’t fly there usually, due to fuel shortages, but I’ve yet to see a trustworthy source completely deny their use. If you have one, I’d love to read through it.
This is a game, having fun should come first.
It isn’t unbalanced, just completely stupid. Expecially since there is no need for it. The alleis don’t need more strike aircraft, the ones they have are fine (so no issues with balance), so I don’t see a reason to put it in rather than any other historically authentic and unique plane that flew there. Out of all the hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests, Spitfires, countless strat bombers, light bombers, heavy fighters and naval aircraft that fought there, I see no reason at all for it to be there.
Spoiler alert: Becouse Devs can’t change names for weaponry we won’t see FG42 II in Normandy
No sensible pilot would have used the WFR.GR.21 Rockets for ground attack, yet here we are.
Exactly, engaging in anti-strategic anti-bombing missions, not countering CAS aircraft. That was almost identical to what the Meteor was doing, except A. it it didn’t engage any bombers because Germany didn’t send any and B. Britain didn’t have any infrastructure to protect across the channel, hence why it was not there.
IMO, jet fighters really shouldn’t have any ordinance whatsoever to negate the advantages they hold over prop planes. Also, the 262 would literally be too fast for any other allied plane to combat, even the Tempest. Sure, the Meteor is still slower than the 262, but at least it has a chance of competing against 262. Also, as you said previously
If the 262 should be allowed to stomp the Allied prop planes and the Tiger allowed to stomp the starter tanks, then why shouldn’t the Meteor be allowed to stomp the German prop planes?
It is important for balance in the way the devs have set up the linear tech tree. With a pair of linear tech trees, every piece of equipment needs a direct counterpart to preserve the balance. If you change from a linear tech tree, sure the sides can have different things, but since the devs are currently sticking with a linear tech tree, this balance must be held.
If you count fight bombers over France on their way to factories while Overlord was happening, sure.
My bad on this one, I forgot to check for British use of the B-26.
It was a twofold issue. Allies had effectively established complete air superiority, and the fuel issues. Either way, they weren’t there and tis is reflected in how no official sources list them doing anything on the western front at that time.
Yes, and for a game to be fun it has to be balanced first, then the content has to be intresting. Would you not have agreed when the Jumbo was first added that a copy paste Sherman like an M4a3 in it’s place would have been more balanced and thus more fun?
I’m just using the P-61 as an example, like I said the B-25 also works for me, I’m not really partial. I jus think the Americans should get another attacker with a similar payload to the A-20.
Why do you think it carried bombs?
Also here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Pilots of the 422nd and 425th NFS switched their tactics from night fighting to daylight ground attack, strafing German supply lines and railroads. The P-61’s four 20 mm cannon proved effective in destroying German locomotives and trucks.
Luftwaffe was too busy not existing by the time the 262 came about so they shouldn’t get any new planes
Just old shitboxes that launched from the autobahn that hasn’t been overrun yet
This is inarguable
Why though? They’re large rockets, of course people would use them for ground attack.
While the Meteor has a higher max speed than the tempest, it has much worse acceleration, thus consistently would actually be slower than it.
It wouldn’t as much as the Tempest. Plus, it’d have 0 ground attack capabillity. That’s it’s biggest problem. And seeing how many people like gun only fighters in this game, it imo wouldn’t see much play. Idk why you want the meteor so much when the tempest is literally a much better plane within this game’s meta. Oh, and you can absolutely destroy 262s with a Tempest.
It doesn’t. Seeing as the P47 is good enough as a counter to every single axis attacker. I’d get your point if the axis had better ground attackers due to them having more, but that is simply not the case. As you previously said, the upgrades for axis attackers are morel ike sidegrades. You don’t need a counter for every sidegrade.
No, but a cromwell would have been. Or a 76 sherman.
Then why pick the msot unrealistic plane first?
NAd why do you need another attacker like that? You know you could just play the A20? I myself believe instead of more similar stuff, it’d be better to add in new and more interesting stuff. Maybe Typhoon with 1k pounders.