Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion (Part 1)

Game Discussion General Discussion
3317

If Enlisted is truly dying as you are claiming, then what makes you think merging Enlisted into WT would bring in more players? People that play WT and are interested in Battlefield-like shooters most likely already play Enlisted and Enlisted players that are interested in WTs vehicular combat gameplay most likely already also play WT.

If you can’t see how the points I listed would be major reasons for Gaijin not to merge Enlisted and WT, then I think you are massively underestimating the effort required to combine these games compared to the rather small increase in income this merge would bring.

WTs dev team already is having a hard time keeping up with the huge amount of bugs, inaccuracies and balance problems the game already is facing. Having a fourth mode where not only aircraft have to be balanced according to the capabilities of tanks, but also both aircraft AND tanks have to be balanced according to the capabilities of infantry would be an absolute nightmare.

I’ve said this before, but not a single aspect of WT has been designed with infantry in mind. They can’t just copy Enlisteds code and paste it into WTs code either. Game development (software development in general) isn’t as easy as people seem to think, you constantly run into problems and the more features you have, the more things can and will break when working on other things.

But since most of this doesn’t matter and your main focus point seems to be WT running out of vehicles to add, let me tell you this:
Adding infantry doesn’t change the fact that the amount of vehicles that people are hyped for is limited.
Infantry isn’t going to keep the people that are only interested in the vehicle gameplay around, especially not if the infantry has the same progression as vehicles.
And as a sidenote, logistics vehicles could be added without playable infantry, but most of these vehicles won’t be moneymakers either way.

1 Like
3319

Did you include any documentation stating the Pave Spike as being capable of 73x zoom?

3320

The Kurnass has TISEO? Where?
I’m fairly certain the Pave Spike did not have a zoom mode with 73x magnification

3322

That’s not a source for the bug report. If anything can bug report the stat card for being incorrect.

1 Like
3324

A lot of the bug report managers don’t really take the time or have the time to review the whole document it is important to be to the point with your sources and direct with the information and state what you want to need changed.

3326

I would have to verify it but I believe most of them are volunteers not paid even if they were with the volume they receive especially the amount of bad reports they won’t really have the time.

3327

So wait, does the Pave Spike get 73x zoom on the Kurnass 2000 or does it get the 2.9x-9.6x that it has on the Buccaneer?

3330

Then why did you make this statement?

I haven’t found a valid source yet but the only number I had seen given to the the Pave Spike is x4.

3331

Well, you made the bug report, so you should know if it has 73x or not.
It would also be good to include some more info in the bug report, especially if there are more problems than just the zoom being wrong.

3333

That’s the same number I have found, but according to a spreadsheet listing the zoom levels that Gaijin assigned to the pods, the Pave Spike has 2.9x base and 9.6x while zoomed in.

1 Like
3334

The screenshot says that the inbuilt optics (the TISEO) has 73.7x, not the TGP (Pave Spike)

3336

It doesn’t list the Pave Spikes zoom on there, afaik the “Pilot” specs tooltip never lists the external pods’ specs

Harrier GR.7 as an example:

With TIALD

20250407014149_1
20250407014149_11920×1200 253 KB

Without TIALD

20250407014159_1
20250407014159_11920×1200 253 KB

Tornado GR.1 with TIALD for comparison

20250407014600_1
20250407014600_11920×1200 261 KB

You’ll have to test the zoom for the Pave Spike and the TISEO seperately ingame to be able to tell if the zoom levels are correct or not.

3337

2 reasons. First of all, War Thunder has a much stronger brand then Enlisted. Just look around the forums and comment sections regarding ‘The Next Big Thing’ trailer. You have a ton of people hyped about the idea of War Thunder getting Infantry combat and only the occasional mention of Enlisted. The only people who know about Enlisted are people who play War Thunder and are somewhat active in the community. Secondly, for the same reason why Gaijin probably has what amounts to three separate games in what was originally supposed to be be a plane game, sunk cost fallacy, exposure, and maintaining relevance within your mind. You are more likely to try something if you are exposed to it, and more likely to keep using a product if you are exposed to it, that’s why brands put up billboards and advertisements everywhere. To keep their brand in your mind. You’re also more likely to try something if you have access to it, which, for video games, is having it installed.

It’s not that I don’t think it wouldn’t be difficult, it’s that Gaijin has done it from scratch twice now, once with ground forces, and once more with naval. You cannot look me in the eyes and honestly say that merging Enlisted with War Thunder would be harder then implementing tanks and boats to a plane game.

To an extent, yes, but it would be far better than the current scenario where there wouldn’t be that much hype.

Would depend on how exactly they implement it, but I can personally attest that I wouldn’t have bothered with either Coastal or Bluewater if they weren’t part of War Thunder and, instead, separate games, but as they were a part of War Thunder, I tried them and enjoyed them, and invested money and time I otherwise wouldn’t have into both.

Not really? Like, I guess they could have an engineer style of gameplay, but I feel that engineering vehicles would be a better fit for that as they would have methods of personally defending themselves.

In regards to revenue, that assumes you play both games. Sure, within that specific niche you may get more revenue, but that would probably not be enough to upset the potential opportunity cost in the form of players who would otherwise never played Enlisted or the average gamer who would otherwise never have touched War Thunder could have.

As for FPS infantry not having a place in War Thunder, that only holds water if you ignore the game’s own history. Playable tanks have no place in a plane game either, and yet War Thunder has planes. Similar story with both coastal and bluewater vehicles in a tank and plane game. They fit about as well back then as Infantry does now, and so long as it is its own separate mode, I don’t see the issue in having them.

2 Likes
3338

I can. While adding playable tanks probably was a huge effort, (this is gonna sound a bit ridiculous, but it is true for the purpose of this comparison) tanks are just planes that are stuck to the ground. WT already had most of the mechanics required to have playable tanks (and ships) ready through the mechanics used by planes.

If you take a plane with just one turret, force the player into turret mode and prevent the plane from flying you basically have a tank.
Similarly, if you take a plane with multiple turrets, force the player into turret mode, prevent the plane from flying and have it float on water you get a ship. If you have tanks already figured out there is even less effort required.

You can’t do that for infantry. If you need an example for why that doesn’t work, you can look at the Mobile Infantry event.

But to be quite honest, looking at War Thunders early development, I’m pretty sure that Gaijin already had plans to add tanks to WT very early on in WTs development. WTs global open beta started in early 2013 and the first tank beta started at the end of 2013.

They probably never had plans to add infantry to WT though and I could imagine that creating a seperate game for infantry + vehicle gameplay was easier than properly adding infantry to an entirely vehicle focussed game.

3 Likes
3339

Ok, so apparently I’m underestimating the amount of work it would take to merge Enlisted into War Thunder, where tanks and planes are already implemented, but it is not an underestimation to say that scratch building and implementing armored vehicles in a plane game is easier then, in effect, implementing infantry into a game that already has aircraft and armored vehicles already?

I’m sorry but I can’t see what sense that makes, especially when Enlisted uses the same engine. Obviously, it isn’t as easy as dropping the files from one game to another, but I severely doubt it would be harder then implementing armored vehicles from scratch, even if some of the systems are there in some capacity. From what it sounds like, you are the one who is underestimating the amount of work WT’s armored vehicle system takes to implement.

Especially when they’ve done it in War Thunder already, for both AI and player control, on top of being done before on this very Engine. Yes, I am aware that the instances I am bringing up, in regards to War Thunder aren’t perfect and not really intended to be full features with their own gameplay, but those instances, combined with them successfully implementing infantry into Enlisted, is a lot better to go off of then your hypothetical turret theory.

You only need to figure out how to do a biped once, and everything else is just dressing it up that’s easier said then done, I know, but compare that to having to create unique models for each and every tank? All with varying Trac k widths, weight distributions, armor layouts, module layouts (all of which have varying sizes and designs themselves)? Yeah, your statement sounds absurd because it is.

3 Likes
3340

And boom there your answer Enlisted runs on the same engine meaning their shouldn’t be any point of infantry coming to the game. Because you got Enlisted

4 Likes
3341

I fail to see what relevance that has to the conversation.

I can’t use any of the tanks or aircraft I’ve grinded out.

WT premium time doesn’t carry over to Enlisted

Enlisted doesn’t have any interwar or post WW2 kit/maps

It doesn’t stop the fact that WT is nipping at the heels of the content it can add that would make for a good update (from a marketing perspective)

I can’t bring infantry into custom battles.

But no, because Enlisted is on the same engine, which is wholly irrelevant from the consumer’s perspective, that means there is positively no reason I, or Gaijin, would want to merge the two titles.

4 Likes
3343

I’m actually wicked excited for Aces of Thunder, need to fly around in an Albatross!

3344

Gaijin could have run Great War part 2 in Remembrance day also adding more WWI vehicles like FT-17, Triplane, or even K-Wagen.

1 Like
3345

i personnally don’t see the interest of infantry in WT. I mostly play for the “vehicle” aspect for the game.

That being said, i’m not entirely opposed to infantry in WT, but only of they get their own mode. Ground RB is already a hot balancing mess as it is.

Regarding technical implementation, the most work needed would probably come from map entire rework. Interior of buildings and entire sections of map are currently not modelled for example. I would assume it’s why submarines are taking so long to come. Orher than the balancing issues and the models, war thunder naval doesn’t really have any under water terrain modelled (expect very shallow waters, which represent 0.1 to 2 % of the surface area of a naval map).

From a physics engine perspective however, i don’t see it being a major issue. Going from plane to tank would have been complicated already, as ground physics are quite different to air ones

4 Likes