Deployable, dropped out of the back of an APC. So no. Those things are in the regular playable game. If you don’t play the helicopter game mode I could see that you’d miss it but it’s part of the game and has been for a while.
PEGI12 disagrees, and the fact we don’t have infantry on the field in normal battles is an example of ‘No’.
It’s in the friend in regular games so yet again, that is incorrect. If you looked into it, you could even see that.
I was more confused than anything else. And if you see the armour-infantry interactions elsewhere it is a reasonable assumption to make.
But you didn’t say “can you explain further”. You went with your own interpretation out of nowhere then continued to throw a tantrum everytime I tried to explain it. You have shown that you are no worth having a decent constructive conversation because you went back to the premise you created, not the original comment.
facepalm Just because it’s in helicopter battles doesn’t mean jack… You’re doing that from distance, they are part of a vehicle so they are literally just crew at that point.
You’re wanting deployable infantry, and as I said, if they were just imaginary, and not physicalized then you’d be going places, but because you want them as actual physical models, then no… It ain’t gonna happen.
If you suggested this sort of thing without the NPCs, then you’d be a sure fit, but because you’re wanting deployable troops, it’s not.
Because even without having served in the army I can see that infantry teams sitting in the open with no camouflage, defilade or cover waiting to be machinegunned is stupid. My mistake for assuming there would be any kind of common sense in your post.
I never said infantry teams, the point of them being static and sitting in the open is because of the limitations of putting them in buildings and controlling them. Controlling them would take away from what the game is. But adding something to make APCs some that only have 30mm cannons be able to contribute more. But there you go again, bringing up examples I never stated. You are again arguing about a premise, you created in your own head
So what exactly are they going to be doing if they haven’t got a vehicle? Sure sounds like infantry…
Nowhere did I say deployable troops. Nowhere did I say anything close to that. It could literally be a TOW by itself and even target description of TOW. Just like the helicopters, you can literally land next to the recoiless rifle teams so idk where you’re getting your far away, having people on them changes nothing because the sole hit box is the TOW. You’re destroying the equipment, not free moving infantry.
I mean, I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to convince me to think that I am mentally ill or do not know what I am saying.
It’s the developers you have to present this bin-worthy idea to.
Same as the exposed AA guns and the recoiless rifles. They are non detailed figures. They don’t show any damage, blood or anything becuase you attacking the weapon system hit box. When it gets destroyed there isn’t people on the ground, it’s just a destroyed weapon. Just like what we have now.
Yea, no…
You keep responding, people read your comments are get turned the wrong direction over the premise you created not mine. You throw a tantrum about an issue you created. I came here to flush out my idea and see how to make it better or how to change it to make it practical. But you read it, completely misconstrued it, then got upset.
That’s constructive. Good one 🤣. I even agreed with you earlier that maybe a deployable team was too much and changed the idea of how to use IFVs. But you taking evidence you can look up and say a literal carbon copy on ground wouldn’t work even thought it’s in game, makes no sense
Guess what? People are people and interpret things differently, we all have our own opinions and experiences to share. If you feel you are not able to get the point across adequately, then…
Back to the drawing board
Yup, you are. Then when you state how you interpret it and the original poster says no, that’s not what I’m saying, yet you continue to think it is. That’s on you. Then when you throw a tantrum stating only your side after the poster says that wasn’t the idea you just appear to be stupid.
What tantrum? I can assure you I have done nothing of the sort. I assume you are talking about the American definition which usually involves a fat lady in the Walmart throwing objects at Mexican people
I’m not saying it wouldn’t work, it’s just that PEGI12 says no…
That’s why we don’t have infantry in the game as it stands.
Don’t get upset about the point being made, and bring up that you agreed with me elsewhere, it’s just the brass tacks of it.
…… no. Wtf? You’re constant pushing that I’m trying to make war thunder into an RTS after I’ve explain how now, then continuing to push your interpretation regardless of correction. That’s a tantrum. You refused to listen to a response.