I mean at least they have it. I played subs in WTM and I enjoyed it tons. I think Naval first needs to have the BRs redone, the imbalance in Coastal is crazy.
1 Like
And console
1 Like
2 Likes
They need a lot less work to add vehicles and they had a massive head start since they just ported the models over from PC at a lower quality. They didnt have to do much catching up
That’s only for some of the WW1 and WW2 vehicles. WTM had battleships like the Bismarck first, they have submarines, and they have modern ships and subs. They make their own stuff. Even though, they do take some stuff from the base game, they still make their own stuff and they have surpassed the base games naval.
1 Like
So long as the map is big enough I think it’s time to see some gunships.
Though, it is true that other than these, the other vehicles are copy-pasted at a lower quality. (also another feature in WTM not present in the PC or Console version is that you can have multiple vehicles from different nations in the same lineup which sure is cool!)
Do we have a idea of what the infantry trees might look like
I think the big question for gunships is do other nations have counterparts. I know china has something similar but they might hesitate to add any if most nations dont have anything to match them. I could see them being added in a similar way as the strike drones in high tier ground rather than tech tree
There's a few others that could be added.
Yeah China has the AC-119:
Lacks guided armament though it’s just fitted with guns.
Jordan has the AC-235:
And the AC-295:
Both of which could potentially go to Britain since they already have a Jordanian vehicle.
Italy has the MC-27J:
Columbia has the Basler BT-67:
Which could go to Israel as they currently have the Columbian Kfir.
There is also potential for an A400M Gunship variant as France has announced interest in one but nothing has been shown of it yet.
Personally I think not every nation needs to have an equivalent to something.
It’s like with helicopters, the US get’s a stealth helicopter because it used it, no one else did. Similarly Sweden are lacking a top tier helicopter because they don’t realistically have any other option. Requiring something to have counterparts for other nations before it’s added just limits what we can get.
0?
1 Like
This is an Infantry post, what is all this stuff??
3 Likes
Read up.
We was discussing the possibility of gunships to be added for infantry.
1 Like
Oh ofc . . . that’s exactly what infantry needs . . more massive planes
that can wipe out entire locations in a single pass, or from 25 - 30kms away.
Peak “infantry” game play . . .
Instead of asking for things that will not enhance the game play in the slighest,
why not suggestions on how to make the infantry “game mechanics” better, so
the overall game play improves . . at this point, I am surprised no one has asked
for . . . . “nukes” in infantry . . . . for reals
Just my opinion . . . many players get “off the mark” at the drop of a hat,
and don’t seem to think thier wishes thru very much . . . seems like
1 Like
gun ships would be too much, mainly the newer AC130 like spectre, azrael and ghostrider the gamemode would be perfect with helicopter gun ships, having massive airborne 105 cannons its too much for this
That was my point really, even if I did a bad job of trying to make it . .
(I am still working on my coffee this morning, lol . . . sorry)
thanks for “getting it”
i replied to the wrong person TwT
my bad gng
1 Like
I’m still unconvinced that this is worth the development time…
If i wanted to play a first person shooter would i pour over 4k hours into a 3rd person tank game?
Not saying i don’t want this to be a success but I’m not sold on it myself
it is, plus a bunch of assets have been pulled from enlisted and a defunct gaijin game, it’ll add diversity, its pretty boring just playing tanks, aircraft and boats, no?