I wouldn’t put it past them to do such an elaborate trailer just as a joke, especially when they already have most of the assets ready in some form. Anything that they don’t have ready can just be bought from people creating models for a living.
2 Likes
Yeah, but i dont think you understand how much work that is for just something that will never be ingame, or never be used.
Creating the models, programming it ingame and then make a trailer of it, costs a lot of money - to much for just an april fools.
1 Like
Again, models that they didn’t already have could be bought, they also don’t have to program the stuff ingame, cinematic trailers can be done outside of the actual game.
True, didnt think of that
MiG 29s were meant to use R73 from the beginning which is why it had HMS. It did use R60 for sometime but later it used R73 as its primary short range missile.
That will be really beneficial for the CAS mains.
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