Replace Meteor’s 500 lb G.P. Bombs with M.C. Bombs

Suggestions Vehicles
1

Hello everyone, It’s our second meeting.
Let’s go straight to the main text

I strongly believe the Meteor’s bomb loadout should either be updated to 500 lb M.C. (Medium Capacity) bombs Here are my reasons:

  1. Poor performance of the G.P. bombs
    The anti-tank and anti-infantry capabilities of the current G.P. bombs are severely lacking compared to the previous 1,000 lb bombs. In fact, they perform noticeably worse even when compared to other standard 500 lb or 250 kg bombs. As a result, the Meteor’s ground attack ability has fallen far below expectations.

The explosive payload comparison clearly proves how underperforming the G.P. bomb is for a 500 lb class ordnance:

• 500 lb G.P. Bomb: ~65 kg TNT equivalent

• 250 lb AN-M57 Bomb: ~58 kg TNT equivalent

• Japanese Type 92 250 kg Bomb: ~117 kg Explosive (107 kg Shimose / TNT equivalent)

• German SC 250 Grade JA Bomb: ~125 kg TNT equivalent

• 500 lb M.C. Bomb: ~128 kg TNT equivalent (approx. 100 kg RDX/Torpex composition)

In terms of actual explosive yield, the 500 lb G.P. bomb operates closer to a 250 lb bomb rather than a standard 500 lb/250 kg weapon. While other factions enjoy standard 250 kg bombs with 100–125 kg of explosive payload, the Meteor is left with a severely castrated 65 kg yield.

Replacing it with the 500 lb M.C. bomb (128 kg yield) does not make the Meteor overpowered; it simply brings its ordinance in line with standard BR5 anti-armor firepower offered by other nations.

Resolving this issue can be achieved either by simply replacing the G.P. bombs with 500 lb M.C. bombs—options would offer a meaningful solution.

  1. Firepower deficit in the BR5 tech tree
    The BR5 regular tree currently suffers from serious firepower issues across multiple roles:
  • Machine Guns: The M1919A6 lacks competitive firepower against top-tier opposition.
  • Tanks: Allied armor struggles significantly in both anti-tank and anti-infantry roles. Japan deploys the Ho-Ri, while Germany fields the Ferdinand and Tiger II (H)—and players with legacy squads can even run both. These enemy tanks have extremely small weak spots, yet they can effortlessly destroy both the Pershing and Super Pershing.

While the P-47 Thunderbolt can usually help cover these gaps, it is forced into an unfair aerial dogfight against modern jets, only to be ruthlessly vaporized by German or Japanese 30mm cannons. Overall, Allied Tier V equipment suffers from a severe firepower deficit.

  1. Asset Reuse and the F-80 Supremacy

Upon further checking, I realized that 500 lb M.C. bombs currently do not exist as an asset in Enlisted. It is likely that the developers replaced the Meteor’s 1,000 lb bombs with the G.P. variant simply to reuse an existing model and avoid adding new assets for optimization.

However, intended or not, this has created a major balance issue:

The Premium F-80 Shooting Star now completely dominates the CAS role.

players relying on the Meteor are left with an extremely underperforming bomb, while paying players driving the F-80 enjoy far superior ground-attack capabilities.

Even if the G.P. swap was just a quick asset reuse rather than an intentional P2W push, the outcome remains the same: Meteor CAS is practically useless, widening the gap between free and premium options.

Conclusion

I am not asking for unreasonable buffs. It is a simple request: Please add the 500 lb M.C. bomb asset to the game for the Meteor

Before the nerf 1,000 lb option. Having two jets continuously running 1,000 lb bombs in BR5 make to another air-to-ground balance issue.

This is exactly why replacing the current loadout with 500 lb M.C. bombs is the most balanced and realistic middle ground:

  1. Fair F2P Firepower: It fixes the severely underperforming G.P. bomb (65 kg TNT) by upgrading it to a proper 250 kg class yield (128 kg TNT), giving regular tree players viable CAS.
  2. Reasonable Progression: It maintains a clear distinction between the premium F-80 (1,000 lb) and the F2P Meteor (500 lb M.C.), preventing non-stop heavy bomb spams while keeping both options meaningful.

Switching to 500 lb M.C. bombs isn’t about making the Meteor overpowered—it’s about restoring a healthy balance for BR5 CAS.

Thank you for reading.

  • 500 lb M.C. (Replaced)
  • 500 lb G.P. (Maintained)
0 voters
1 Like
2

Inb4 seething about p80s PROPER loadout.

3

F80 nerf to 2x500lb and Meteor needs 2x1000lb.
No P2W in F2P game.

1 Like
4

It was nerfed to the ground for a reason. The F-80 turns like a school bus which makes its payload far more justifiable. Jets shouldn’t have bombs to begin with.

5 Likes
6

No, we need 2x1000lb back to Meteor.
There is no reason to pay 40$ just for 2x1000lb bombs in F2P game. So we need nerf to F80’s arms.
BTW jets are totally sucks. They ruined BR4~5 matches.

2 Likes
7

No planes past BR1 should have no suspended armament.

I think they greatly improved them… much easier to deal with the constant tank spam.

However what they have done, is completely remove any need to run any other fighter beside a jet besides cycling reasons… it greatly infuriates me in any BRV match when someone is sitting in the fighter slot and not utilizing a jet… even more so when they are using a jet and barely do anything… sit and rely on marks… pilots just generally suck usually… just speeds things up… which BRV is supposed to be fast.

1 Like
9

And the fact that not using a Jet is actively hurting the team isn’t a problem?

1 Like
10

The Meteor has sluggish acceleration compared to other jets. Both German and Japanese players can easily outrun and crush it simply by utilizing their superior acceleration and energy retention.
The Meteor has clear, exploitable weaknesses. Stop overrating it just to justify leaving it with a useless bomb.

11

Yeah, Enlisted jets are overpowered.
Their turn speed is too faster than WT and have excessive bombs.
I wanna ride bf109k4, ki84 but jets made them unreasonable:c

1 Like
12

I don’t know why, or by what logic, you’re making that argument, but I guess you want all the developers to starve to death.

Would you like a quick lesson in basic economics?

Developers make games. Developers need to be paid. In order to pay them, the company needs to generate revenue. And where does that revenue come from?

That’s right. Our wallets.

Now, let’s break one link in that chain.

Developers make the game, the developers need to be paid, and in order to pay them the game needs to generate revenue—but apparently encouraging people to spend money in a free-to-play game is somehow inherently wrong, so let’s just cut off that revenue entirely!

BANG!!!

The developers stopped making money, couldn’t afford to buy bread for their families back home, and they all starved to death.

The end~

14

You are totally out of a point. Deeply sad for it.
Enlisted is basically FREE TO PLAY game.
Contents can make balance problems have to be minimized.
Meteor’s 2x500lb bombs are too weak than other factions(from the main article). But, F80’s 2x1000lb bombs can destroy the grounds so easily.
So we need to roll back Meteor’s bombs and nerf F80 to 2x500lb bombs.

So, how can make DF money without F80 with 2x1000lb bombs?
Solider’s accessories, unique designed helmets and clothings, weapon skins, etc are the ANSWER.
Like PUBG, CS2 and any other f2p games, DF can make income by those contents. Fortunately and thankfully, many users of Forum, proposed wonderful ideas.
All DF has to do is just implanting those great things of users.

15

I’m not sure this is really something worth opposing this strongly. The current 500 GP bomb is just terrible. I’d honestly rather throw a grenade. It urgently needs to be replaced.

16

That still doesn’t really answer the revenue question.

PUBG and CS2 making money from cosmetics doesn’t mean Enlisted can just replace the money it gets from premium squads and vehicles with skins and uniforms. Those games have very different player numbers, economies, marketplaces, and spending habits. Just because they’re all free-to-play doesn’t mean the same business model will work the same way.

And forum users coming up with good ideas for helmets, uniforms or weapon skins doesn’t mean enough people will actually buy them. Having good ideas and having enough paying customers are two different things.

Darkflow also can’t just “implement” those ideas for free. Someone still has to make the models, textures, test them, put them into the game and maintain them.

So basically your solution is to replace an existing source of income with cosmetics and assume they’ll make enough money because other games do it.

Maybe they could make more money from cosmetics, sure. But saying “PUBG and CS2 do it” doesn’t prove that cosmetics alone would be enough for Enlisted.

At this point, that’s less of an argument and more of wishful thinking about how you want the game’s monetization to work. And there are plenty of failed examples showing that “just sell cosmetics” is not some guaranteed solution either.

18

No. Downtier the aircraft that aren’t… or alternatively add BR6… but people would rather complain about high power stuff then solve the problem with that.

3 Likes
19

It seems you know economics well, but you don’t quite understand it.
Or maybe you simply didn’t have enough patience to read the entire text.

My argument is that both options should be viable and attractive choices. Look at vehicles like the Kugelblitz
i bought it and I’m very satisfied. It’s great to have, but not having it doesn’t break the game for everyone else. That is how premium content should work.

But what about the Meteor right now? The 500 lb G.P. bomb can barely kill a snail.

Replacing the useless G.P. bomb with a 500 lb M.C. bomb simply aligns it with standard 250 kg bombs from other nations. It is absurd to claim that giving the Meteor a functional, standard-issue 500lb class bomb would suddenly ruin F-80 sales.

Right now at BR5, having the F-80 feels mandatory. If you don’t own it, Allied CAS isn’t just disadvantaged—it fails to function entirely. Forcing a “pay to compete” environment is bad for the long-term health of the game.

Even if the Meteor receives the 500 lb M.C. bomb, the F-80’s massive 1,000 lb loadout remains vastly superior and highly attractive for buyers. Developers need revenue, but players need a fair choice—not a paywall disguised as balance.

20

You are over-interpreting what I mean.
I am arguing to minimize contents can make balance problems, not DELETE ALL PREMIUM SQUADS AND VEHICLES.

May those games have different business model than Enlisted, but that does not mean their models cannot be effective in Enlisted. That’s over-interpret and bad assume again.

You are just a single user, not a economy assistant of DF. So don’t assume user’s contents won’t make income to DF. Also do not underestimate users proposed ideas, that’s not a good manner, even though Forum is just an online community.

That is a just basic things of games, I know that all too well. I don’t think you just thought that “Oh…Wallo1117 thinks DF can implement things just for free? I have to tell him that’s wrong.”
Don’t tackle other’s argument from just a single word, dude:D

I didn’t mentioned as you said. Why are you over-interpreting other’s argument…

YOUR OVER-INTERPRET is just a daily habit I think. As you said and your habit, most games eventually fall off. Then, making games are useless, right? So as human, include you and me, they eventually dies. So Life is also useless right?

Could you read things under the REAL articles? Deeply sad if you can’t, and I see you can’t.
I am deeply sorry of your over-interpret habit and low reading comprehension:C

21

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I actually agree that the Meteor’s current 500 lb G.P. bombs are terrible and should be replaced. I even said earlier that they are so bad I would rather throw a grenade.

I never argued that giving the Meteor a functional bomb would somehow ruin F-80 sales.

My argument was a response to another user saying, “The Meteor should get 1,000 lb bombs, while the F-80 should be reduced to 500 lb bombs,” though…

23

That’s What I mainly say!!
Devs need revenue, and also free users need a fair choice:D

24

Ah…After dealing with so many hard-to-understand arguments, I lost my cool a bit. Please forgive my rudeness

1 Like
25

I never said you wanted to delete every premium squad and vehicle.

I was talking about the revenue affected by the kind of premium nerf you were proposing, especially the F-80. You yourself asked how Darkflow could make money without the F-80 having its 2x1000 lb bombs, and then answered that cosmetics were “THE ANSWER.”

So questioning whether cosmetics can actually make up for that revenue is not over-interpreting your argument. It is directly responding to the alternative you proposed.

I never said those models cannot be effective in Enlisted.

I said PUBG and CS2 being successful with cosmetics does not prove that the same model will work equally well for Enlisted or generate enough revenue to compensate for what is lost elsewhere.

“Could be effective” and “will generate enough revenue” are two completely different claims.

In fact, saying it “may be effective” is basically my point. It may work. It may not. You originally presented cosmetics as “THE ANSWER,” which is a much stronger claim than saying they might be effective.

I never said those cosmetics would make no money, and I never said the ideas were bad.

I said that having good ideas does not prove that enough people will actually buy them to make up for lost revenue. Product ideas and actual paying demand are not the same thing.

And the “you are not Darkflow’s economic analyst” argument works both ways. Neither are you.

If I cannot know for certain that cosmetics would not make enough money, then you cannot know for certain that they would. That is exactly why presenting cosmetics as “THE ANSWER” without any actual numbers is an assumption.

This has nothing to do with disrespecting forum users or their ideas.

I did not literally think you believed developers could create content at zero cost.

I was responding to your sentence, “All DF has to do is just implement those great things of users,” because you presented it as if implementation itself were the simple part of the solution.

But honestly, this is a side point anyway. Remove that sentence from my reply entirely and my actual argument does not change at all:

You still have not shown that those cosmetics would generate enough revenue to compensate for the revenue affected by the changes you are proposing.

Again, I did not claim that you literally said, “delete all premium content and fund the entire game exclusively with cosmetics.”

What you actually said was that the F-80 should be nerfed, then asked how Darkflow could make money without its current bomb load, and answered that cosmetics were “THE ANSWER.”

That is the claim I responded to.

If what you actually mean now is merely “cosmetics could provide Darkflow with some additional income,” then sure, that is obviously possible.

But that is a much weaker claim, and it no longer answers the revenue question you originally raised.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I said there are failed examples showing that “just sell cosmetics” is not a guaranteed solution.

That does not somehow mean “anything that can fail is useless” or “there is no point in trying anything because everything eventually ends.”

You changed “this business model is not guaranteed to succeed” into “anything that can fail is pointless,” and then argued against that instead.

That is your argument, not mine.

Personal remarks about my reading comprehension do not answer any of the points above.

And considering you somehow turned “this monetization model is not guaranteed to work” into “humans eventually die, therefore life is useless,” I really don’t think reading comprehension is the point you want to focus on here.