it is still a lot of money wasted it would also be the first time they did a trailer and go haha. also ai infantry were already in game and seeing how spaa in sim are deadly accurate if they updated their ai i think a lot less people would find it cool and better then just making them playable
AI infantry so far only existed in form of static AA and AT emplacements, having individual soldiers on the battlefield is something entirely new.
As it stands we could still be getting a second April Fools event mode that could include modern infantry, but the trailer definitely was overselling whatever Gaijin is planning to do. Again, cinematic trailers don’t require as much effort as doing in-engine gameplay trailers and they could have used a lot of bought assets.
I’m not saying creating a trailer like that is necessarily easy or cheap, but judging by the quality that “amateurs” can produce with the Source Film Maker (or even just Garrys Mod), the trailer Gaijin produced didn’t necessarily have to be expensive to make.
1 Like
its also gaijin they wouldnt show first person for no reason however this could just be gaijin wanting people to play enlisted and made an entire trailer for wt but had no plans on it. it could also flat out be the next update and someone at gaijin could have dropped it really early and the ww1 event was meant to be the apirl fools and now gaijin is scrambling to get something which would explain them say nothing on it at all and also how other company are showing the trailer as the next update
1 Like
And you think they would release such a video in a post on March 31st and edit the date on the post to say April 1st?
They probably used a whole bunch of weapons/animations from the other new game that they are developing or publishing, called “Active Matter”.
If you want the new infantry to release with like 1 playable map? I doubt it. It would take a massive amount of time to rework existing ground RB maps to fit infantry and if they want to fit infantry into ground RB every new map released in the last year would likely already have been made to fit that rework quality (not talking about visual reworks).
None of the new maps from the last year or so are infantry ready.
3 Likes
My theory is that it was a way to test the waters for it without committing to it. The only ‘tells’ that could indicate it being ‘April fools’ is it being released the day before and its title. Outside of those two things, nothing else indicates it being a joke.
My guess is WT was planning to implement infantry in some form, probably as a way to secure points and as a more active deterrent to spawn camping and CAS, and discussions naturally turned to playable infantry. While Enlisted was always intended to be WT with infantry, the reality is the game isn’t doing too well, and is basically a mode of WT that is arbitrarily its own game, at least at this point. Initially, it was its own thing, but over time, it’s become more and more like WT.
They probably weren’t sure how receptive people would be, so they ‘announced’ it in such a way where they could move forward with it if the interest was there, and if it received backlash they could drop it and say ‘April Fools’. Seeing as how it’s almost at a million views, and my personal anecdotal experience in seeing a lot of people excited at the prospect, I imagine that Gaijin is making plans to either absorb Enlisted into War Thunder, or kill Enlisted and implement Infantry into War Thunder.
1 Like
The difficulty about player controled infantry in War Thunder is…
Why spawn a soldier, instead of a 60 ton mattle tank filled with machine guns and with a huge canon?
Enlisted is not “WT with infantry”; it’s “Infantry with WT vehicles”. “WT with infantry” would hardly work, because spawning a soldier in place of a heavy vehicle is just not beneficial.
The only way vehicles and infantry can co-exist is by vehicles having very limited numbers, like Enlisted, BF, Squad or any combined arms game.
3 Likes
My point with saying Enlisted is WT with Infantry is that Enlisted is more or less how they would implement playable Infantry into War Thunder. It wouldn’t be in what we currently know as Ground Battles, and would be its own separate mode.
Playable infantry can work in WT, but would require a massive change to how the game works that risks alienating much of the playerbase if put into what we currently understand to be Ground Battles, so it has to be a separate mode.
1 Like
Infantry in grb is going to be very annoying. Imagine getting shot by a RPG from some random window while trying to cap a point.
2 Likes
Why would they go through all that effort when Enlisted and WT can just co-exist though?
2 Likes
I mean as a British player give me an Ajax with a deployable NLAW/Javelin team over a CR2 any day
When it comes to April fools they go all out. So yes making a whole teaser trailer with new assets and gameplay just to fool us is definitely what they would do
4 Likes
Especially when they can take a lot of assets from different games for less work.
Enlisted is doing just fine. WW2 shooters, especially F2P ones with a progression system like the one in WT are bound to fetch a smaller playerbase, but 6000 player peaks on Steam alone is a good amount. Of course it is less than what Battlefield games are fetching, but those are well established mainstream games.
There are good reasons to keep the game seperated, they didn’t just develop Enlisted seperately because they felt like doing so.
- It is way easier to balance the two games seperately
- Each game can get a seperate ESRB/PEGI/USK/FSK/whatever-rating (12+ for WT and 18+ for Enlisted)
- The level of complexity for different mechanics and gameplay elements can be much deeper when there are fewer aspects to factor in
- The servers can be more specialized to reduce loads for the different games’ needs
- The spec requirements for the two games can be kept lower as things that are needed in one game can be left out in the other
- Development overall can be much simpler, as there are fewer things that could potentially break when working on seemingly unrelated things
Neither of those things is going to happen, it makes more sense to keep both games running seperately. Enlisted is profitable enough to keep it running and War Thunder is better off without playable infantry.
1 Like
Simple, because Enlisted is nowhere near as popular as War Thunder and is dying, at least from what I hear, and, as I’ve stated before, is basically a mode of War Thunder that was arbitrarily spun off into its own game. The only things that made it ‘not WT’ was in the ‘backend’, how you acquire your units and so on. Since then, however, the game has become more and more like WT, with progression and matchmaking becoming in line with how WT does it, only with fleshy humans.
It would also greatly expand the content that can be implemented into the game. As it stands, WT is nipping at the heels of the big content that can be added. They aren’t out of it, to be clear, but if they continue pushing forward they are going to run into the issue of either having to wait for new vehicles to come out IRL, or have to start making things up from scratch, which would go against WT’s identity. I get the argument that they basically do that right now with how new the vehicles are, but there is a difference between making up stats for a classified vehicle and completely fabricating a fictional vehicle. Even going wide isn’t much of an option. While there are nations that can be added, none of them come without issues, and will run out eventually, even if they rework tech trees to allow for multiple sub trees.
They expand to infantry, however, that gives them a whole new avenue of content they can add, such as dedicated engineering vehicles, APCs, transport aircraft, light unarmed vehicles, and so on, as well as greatly expanding the amount of nations that can be implemented, with infantry being the justification. Would also have the added benefit of allowing them to revisit tiers and give vehicles hype, as now people would have to consider what is viable for top tier infantry.
It would also increase War Thunder’s market, as now FPS players would have an interest in the game, which, in turn, would increase the game’s reach. There’s a reason why War Thunder is, like, 3 to 4 games in one, and Gaijin didn’t split off its titles.
Honestly, in retrospect, it’s kinda weird they did Enlisted at all, and didn’t just implement as a mode in War Thunder. They didn’t for ground, they didn’t for naval, and seeing as how Enlisted has become more like WT over time (in terms of ‘backend’ stuff), any reason for a split has kinda just dissipated.
3 Likes
Most of it was just video splicing of scenes from their other titles not as much programming work as you think. The other scenes are along the same lines as you’ve seen the trailers where we see things on wires without the need of much development aswell.
This is on par with the amount of work they did for any other April fools event.
1 Like
which could be the end of it for some players, because FPS games attract streamers and hackers. the former tend to influence dev decisions too much. but that’s my opinion
3 Likes
I wouldn’t use Battlefield as a positive comparison. That franchise has been slowly dying for years now. Regardless, that hasn’t been the sentiment I’ve heard, but maybe I’m wrong, though I’m skeptical.
Those would be good points if it weren’t for the fact War Thunder currently has Naval, Ground, and Aircraft all in one game. They follow this logic, at the very least naval would have been spun off into its own game from the outset.
As for the rating, that really isn’t as big of an issue everyone makes it out to be. There are ways to keep a low age rating if they care about it, like not having blood and so on. At worst, it would be rated T, which is what Fortnite is.
And they could arguably make more money if they merged Enlisted into War Thunder. War Thunder is an established title, and much of its success can be attributed to it being, in effect, 3 games merged into one. Adding a fourth, one that has more appeal then Naval, would expand the game’s market and increase the playerbase of both.
And, again, War Thunder, the far more popular title, is nipping at the heels of what can be added, at least for its most popular modes (Ground and Air). ‘Sacrificing’ Enlisted to expand the longevity of War Thunder by merging it under War Thunder’s umbrella is a mutually beneficial decision. Enlisted would gain access to a much wider array of vehicles, Enlisted expands its playerbase, more attention would be brought on to War Thunder and it can advertise to the FPS crowd.
I’d also hardly say that War Thunder is better off without playable infantry, provided it is in its own game mode. So long as Ground battles, as we know them, stay the same (maybe rename them ‘tank battles’ or something), nothing is lost and is only gained.
EDIT:
Don’t see why that would be. War Thunder regularly gets tens of thousands of players as it stands, and there are streamers aplenty already. I fail to see how the existence of an infantry game mode would suddenly make people quit, so long as they can still play ground as it is now.
1 Like
They get more money by splitting your currency between games.
Enlisted avgs anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 players on steam alone. For the title it is that is just fine.
FPS infantry has no place in War Thunder.
7 Likes
I totally share this opinion.
The only way i see AI in WT Ground is beeing a IFV modification (or any Vehicle that carried Troops) that lets you deploy a small squad with some launchers that defend the area you dropped them (will mostly annoy you with taking tracks/engine) and the most use of them will be defending capture points
like the AI in the Trenches from the event.
(This could also open the Can of deployable mines)
New Door animations on their way of inviting HE shells
Other than that they have no place here.
5 Likes