Would you rather have:
- Powerfull but limited weapon.
- Medium / meh weapon that you can spam freely.
By weapon I mean everything: small arms, explosives, tanks, planes etc.
I’m just curious.
nothing prevents you from having both.
1 Like
Since most of your AI troop die before you die, spamming shit weapon have limited use.
1 Like
Honestly, I am fine with both. Talking about limitations, what kind of limitation do you want for powerful weapons? Is it class limitation, number limitation, or something else?
Just some kind of limit.
It’s a theoretical question so it doesn’t really matter.
I mean that for example if we were to get king tiger, would you rather have it implemented in the 1st or 2nd way.
Vehicles are hard-limited in every match anyway, so it doesn’t make that difference.
Guns… mixed feelings.
The core point is, if I (player, user) am forced to either pay or grind a lot to obtain a specific weapon, once I get it I want to be free to ACTUALLY PLAY it. So excessive restrictions are unwelcome.
On the other hand, the main argument against nerfs to endgame weapons is that if they become unappealing, there’s little point in upgrading one’s armory, and game revenues drop.
3 Likes
Mix of both.
I love using the gold order Kurz for example, and in Stalingrad I use the pps extensively.
What I don’t want to see however is powerful weapons to spam freely. For example, squads full of Kurz…
1 Like
I don’t think the question is correct. King Tiger is a great thing anyway, no matter how you look at it.
My position is different:
Stormtroopers and Machine Gunners weapons should be very good because these classes have no extra functionality and are limited in number.
Weapons of other classes are weaker (this can be implemented in different ways: less ammo, accuracy, damage, rate of fire) so that additional classes with other features are not essential for destroying enemy manpower.
In terms of tanks and planes: the question is complicated. They should be stronger than an infantry squad, since they are limited in slots, but the average player should have the means to destroy them in sufficient numbers (detpack should not be inferior), against the planes can be stationary anti-aircraft somewhere on the edges of the map type 8.8 flak, so that any player can try to shoot down an enemy plane.
Parties may have advantages in different aspects of tanks and planes, such as the U.S. and Axis in Normandy. In general, however, both of these classes should have equal effectiveness and not be mega-vulnerable to one another (like tanks vs. planes).
This can be achieved by more threats for aircraft, flight time to the battlefield from respawn, less bright and durable markers for aircraft (so the pilot may need to scout over the battlefield)
I would also consider the ability for tanks to summon a defensive fighter bot that attacks enemy planes for 60-90 seconds. This might allow tanks to defend themselves against aggressive aircraft. At the same time, the accuracy and efficiency of such a fighter should be lower than that of the player.
Regarding the availability of tanks and planes: I would make a system like in WT, requiring points for taking equipment, but necessarily obtained on infantry.
For example:
1 taking a tank is free, 2 requires 500 points on infantry, 3 requires another 800 points on infantry, 4 requires another 1200 points on infantry, 5 requires another 1700 points.
1 take an attacker plane - 700 points on infantry, 2 - 1100 points on infantry, 3 - 1500 points, 4 - 2000 points.
1 take a fighter plane without bombs for free, 2 - 300 points on infantry, 3 - 600 points on infantry, 4 - 1000 points on infantry
1 hit on a fighter with bombs or missiles for 300 points on the infantry, 2 for 700 points, 3 for 1100 points, 4 for 1600 points
Naturally the figures are approximate, but hopefully the essence is clear. In this way you could not spin three planes in a row or tanks. The player would have to sometimes play on the infantry, thereby giving others the opportunity to play on equipment. In addition, then the killing of the tank and aircraft would mean more.
I swear I’d love to see something like a 1-day joke event of unlimited G43 Kurz for Germans just for the sake of watching Woody having a meltdown on the forum.
1 Like
He´ll be so warm, that even a fusion reactor looks buffled.
but heres the thing, your run of the mill squad in IRL did not have any AT weapons, so it should at lest be reflected in the game
No, a bastard on a tank or a plane is no better than an ordinary player. Equipment should not give a huge advantage
ohh so in ww2 every soldier had a det pac? or some form of at weapon?
No, but who gives a shit?
Any squad should be able to destroy any squad.
That’s why every soldier should have an explosive pack, and engineers should build anti-aircraft guns
this is a bad game balance method, there should be things that you just cant do
Yes, and the game turns into who first took the tech slot and farms the opponents.
That’s what people want to play in an arcade session game.
Bullshit, I don’t want to discuss it, it’s all laid out above