Explain how. It would be the exact same as we have now.
Yet people continue to read into it further than face value. They magically think that one AT team means you have control of them outside the vehicle and magically you’re in control of infantry that I never stated.
That makes no sense and nothing I’ve stated is leading to war thunder becoming an RTS. You read what others are saying and are assuming that. I never said add full infantry squads nor controlling them after you deploy them. It would be a two man AT team that would be stationary. So if you can obviously imagine any of that makes it remotely an RTS that’s on you.
It’s actually about the representation of them… Control or not is nothing to do with it… If they are on the field as actual models, then the PEGI13 grade is problematic.
It’s why we don’t have troops on the field in games, and why we don’t have blood, or killing, just crew members sleeping.
We’re not reading into it, it’s what you said, and why we’re saying about that angle.
You’d be shocked to find out then about the AI recoiless rocket gun crews that are in the PvE helicopter mode. It is literally the same thing. You can’t denounce it when it’s already implemented. Has nothing to do with blood or anything. Exposed crews now just slump over.
1 Like
You know I’m starting to think this guy doesn’t understand what this game is and wants it to be something it isn’t nor ever has since its previous incarnations-> referring to IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey. One of several predecessors. Anyway at this point I’m just not gonna bother. For DMK: You’re not getting something that doesn’t belong in the game that’s that.
Explain in detail how anything I said is changing how war thunder functions as a game.
1 Like
It’s not the same… Nor is it the same when they’re in test drive…
They’ve always done that for the reason I stated.
So… they’re props? Like we already have in game with the cars and flak guns? What are you gonna do, 50 cal them? That’s kinda concerning.
How is that concerning? You can .50 cal a lot of vehicles with exposed crews right now…. What is your objections? Yea, a static AI crew that can defeat tanks but are easily destroyed.
And I’m stating it’s the same with an AI tow team. There are already AI recoiless rifle teams. You change the weapon they have. That’s it.
This idea might sound good on paper to you, but when you are driving through a city block and a well hidden, physically small kornet team one taps you, you will not find it fun anymore.
You’re ignoring the premise of why we don’t have infantry on the fields already.
It doesn’t matter all these wonderous and suggestive things you’re trying to put out, the fact of PEGI12, and the various restrictions imposed by such things makes it not a thing to be done.
Just like any tank hiding in a small corner. It doesn’t take away from the game. They aren’t hiding in buildings. Check your corners, crazy idea huh?
Sure. If it is ever implemented (and it won’t be because it’s a terrible idea), I WILL call you out if you make a cope thread about “ruzzia equipment to strong America number 1 fuck yeah”
You’re not understanding that we already have them in game. You’re acting like there is no target that is strictly infantry and you are wrong. There are manned recoiless rifle targets. I’m not saying you add something completely new, the basic concept is already in game.
I don’t make cope threads because that is weak. Just admit you’re bad at the game which talking to you recently shows you probably are. It’s a bad idea to you because I’m tearing your made up complaints apart. You had to make up and issue to be upset. You got upset at an idea you came up with. That’s funny
Au contraire, you want to implement TOW teams (fucking why) because the simple task of aiming a cursor yourself is too complex. Why should you get score for doing nothing?
Sorry, but no… Doesn’t matter if they are elsewhere, they aren’t in genuine battles.
The fact that you’ve switched from the ‘you’re reading too much into it’ to pointing out where they are in the rest of the game, making out they forgo what you said about them being deployable.
That’s something I could see worth having a conversation about. But before that you throw it into a random tangent to get upset by your own interpretation. That’s sad