Some more of Black Bess
I am in love with this skin. Absolutely loved her Battlefield 1 and Through Mud and Blood story.
4 Likes
Yeah, playing the objective wins. Having bots stay on the point does nothing but encourage camping.
Because guess what, if you only have a Conquest game. First person to the point automatically wins, because all they have to do now is spawn camp you and you cannot do a thing about it. At least before you could attempt to flank and save the game last second. Now you have to spend your sweet time machine gunning, and by God if the game glitches out and there’s an invisible AI soldier. Congratulations, it’s an instant loss, you might as well just return to hanger. Same thing with Domination: without the bots, you have the ability to save the game last second. Now all we need to do is capture the point and spawn camp, and you cannot do anything about it.
Oh, and let’s not mention how useless most tank destroyers are going to be, especially since ISU doesn’t get a machine gun, neither do most turretless tank destroyers/self propelled guns. Oh, and what about SPAAs that could potentially flank and capture an objective in time due to their speed like the ItO 90. Now they can’t capture objectives without wasting all eight missiles. Same with the Tor and HQ.
There is absolutely zero need for AI soldiers beyond some “immersion” which is absolutely absurd. Want realism? Ukraine needs your help, boyo. America is on the brink of revolt. Israel needs you to fight their wars. I’m sure the African warlords would be happy to have another soldier oppress a village. Plenty of real war stuff going on, so pack your bags and get the Ground Realistic match that you surely want.
- It’s an event, they’re going to work that out.
- This is a dynamic change to the game. Maybe more people will decide to push caps, and try to take caps back, and perhaps focus on using other resources in the game such as artillery barrages, or maybe even using the vehicle’s hull as a weapon (if you catch my drift). It also makes HE even more useful, can bring in a reason to have canister rounds, and allows tanks like the BMP-2M to use it’s grenade launcher to actually be useful.
- However it affects the game, it affects the game. No point in crying about it. Tank destroyer doesn’t have a MG? Stay away from infantry. Easy.
- Further, they will likely have segregated game modes, so you can play without the infantry. I personally will probably play both modes, but infantry will inevitably make the game much more protracted, and I’d rather choose if I’m going into that or not. Difference is, I don’t want to download a second client unless it’s for an upgrade to Enlisted that brings modern infantry.
Spoiler
LASTLY. I’m an American, I’d never serve in the Ukrainian armed forces (gross), nor would I join any army at all (I have a wife and kids), including my own (US). Sure as hell aren’t dying for Israel, and neither Africa.
Me saying you should get used to the change and be creative and count on the devs to implement this in a way the community likes hardly warrants your vitriolic spat about serving abroad because we have a difference in opinion.
4 Likes
this is a separate issue unrelated to infantry. We don’t have a BF1 style operations dynamic map like we see in enlisted which (until endgame) removes spawncamping from really existing.
load HE or use your coax MG.
Enlisted is a good game but it doesn’t quite hit the notes it ought to. Ai staying on a point doesn’t ruin the game. It means you have to actually work for a point instead of sitting still for 30 seconds
this is a big reason for why I like the concept of infantry being in WT. make IFVs and infantry tanks more worthwhile.
3 Likes
The idea that I could play almost any IFV, dump infantry, even if AI, and keep moving sounds exactly like what the vehicles were intended for, and makes the game that much more interesting imo.
3 Likes
agreed. I want my CVR platforms and battle taxis to actually be able to work as CVRs and battle taxis.
1 Like
It doesn’t need to be in the game, I don’t know who the hell wanted such a stupid idea, but they need to be studied because I haven’t heard an idea that stupid since they decided to allow CAS into GROUND battles. It’s pointless and is going to ruin the game. “Oh just machine gun” yeah, brilliant idea, if only Tank Destroyers, missile carrying SPAAs, and SPGs thought of that. What a great way to make them even more pointless. What’s the meta going to be?
I seriously don’t understand how you don’t realise how stupid this idea is. I seriously don’t get it. There is no reason for AI to be in the game. But hey, anything to make this game die faster. It’s not like people are already mass quitting because of how ineffective Gaijin has been with implementing a stable game. Oh, and I know I’m going to be reported because I dare called out how unstable War Thunder has been. I can’t question the Snail nor call out their stupid ideas as exactly that: stupid ideas. Soldiers don’t need to be in GRB. Soldiers don’t need to be in Sim. They don’t need to be in the game.
Fine, I concede. You guys really want something this pointless that will quite literally ruin the game, have at it. See you guys a month after it’s in the real game, and you all are complaining on how buggy it is and how game changing it is, because now you can’t pull a Superman and save the game last second like you could without bots. It’s happened plenty of times before: Gaijin puts something in the game, and it ruins it.
Oh, and I REALLY cannot wait to hear about a new form of exploiting, where people specifically mow down infantry. You bet someone’s going to do it, and then people are going to cry about “Soldier Grinding” and demand that Gaijin nerf Soldier Grinding, but then Gaining will just continue to ruin rewards as they always do: see Simulator Battles. And then the game will continue to die after that since now you need to grind more for less RP and SL, and somehow the forums will blame Soldier Grinders instead of the real culprits: Gaijin. Why do I predict this? Because it happens every single year. Every single day, you run into people complaining about base bombers, and every once in a while, Gaijin nerfs rewards, just take a look at what they did to rockets last year and how badly they ruined rewards for everyone, not just rockets. They’ve done it before with other things as well. Oh, and because IFVs are definitely going to be artificially brought up. Long are the days of the Puma being at 10.7, now that thing is going to be 11.7-12.0 because of infantry stuff. The Bradley will be brought up, and so will many other things just because. Why? Because it happens every single year. Someone gets smart and starts doing things to make the grind easier, and then Gaijin screws everything up. Like clockwork.
The game is fine where it is at, albeit needs better SPAAs. We need better air defence, not a bunch of glitchy soldiers that are going to make this game unplayable with the ungodly amount of ruination that will come from this.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You could create an argument for almost anything in the game not needing to be in it. In fact, it’s a game, so there’s no need really at all, given this is an entertainment product, not a utility or a good. Don’t like this entertainment? Go find another one. Part of the reason why I’m okay with all of this. I like War Thunder a lot. Gaijin wants to add more content to one of my favorite forms of video game entertainment? Great!
Oh man. Let me know how charging a cap point in a missile only SPAA goes, or for that matter, most SPAA’s about about 5.7BR. Echelon units, stay in the echelon. Assault SPG’s clearing buildings out in street combat? Great! They had infantry accompany them. Otherwise they laid in wait, in strategic areas, to ambush enemy tanks. If gaijin wants to let Assault SPG’s have a little more urban flavor, then they can add a “dismount infantry” option for them to dismount a unit riding on top (be it from spawn, or maybe entering a friendly cap circle and waiting for infantry to magically jump aboard, just like ammo restocking etc).
Have you played naval? Or low BR Air and Ground? AI keeps those game modes alive. AI infantry just gives you another way to play the game, and another way to earn EXP.
We don’t discuss “politics” in this thread, or anywhere in the forums really. By politics, I mean discussing the events over there, or anywhere else. I’d recommend deleting your comment, because it’s likely going to get moderated.
Regarding the rest of it. Respectfully, please seek professional help, it sounds like you need it, and using the forums as a sounding board for your personal issues is not what this thread is meant for, sincerely.
4 Likes
I still don’t see why it should be in the game. Maybe as a custom game mode, sure, why not have a cute little roleplay thing that no one will ever use. But having it in pubs is just asking for exploiting. Considering the fact I have already found a way to exploit it, God knows how long it will be until people get banned for it. Imagine that, getting banned because you mowed down too many soldiers. I mean, historically accurate, but still.
It’s cute for an event, but it does not need to be in the main game. While it would be cool to have a secondary way to grind out tanks, like destroying Howitzers and SPAAs in AAB/ARB/ASB, it’s still unnecessary.
Also, I am the fool that bumrushes objectives with a SPAA if we are losing. I’ll flank the entire map to get to A in a Tor and start capturing from behind so then we start winning, or stop losing as fast. I’ve seen people pull out even more stupid things as a last ditch effort to get us victory, and it works. That’s the neat part. I could go into a L3 and race around the map decapping a point to ensure our survival or just for mild irritation as they have to stop spawn camping and have to take care of the point.
Also, I don’t need help. You can stop talking like them.
but it would be really cool to have big helicopters like CH-53K and Mi-26 hauling around troops, smaller vehicles, and howitzers
AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and MV-22B aerial assaults and everything
5 Likes
Me too bro. And I love last minute heroics. However, I am looking forward to a change in the dynamics of the game, where it will be harder to do this, and encourage more players to play the objectives.
If you have to decap/complete the cap of an objective to stabilize the ticket-bleed, and then hold to try to save a game, you’ll need to keep the changes in mind now. I think that makes this more fun, and I look forward to it.
JM2C.
Brilliant, didn’t even think of it, but now some of the utility choppers have more purpose.
3 Likes
got idea from airshows, and @BOMBAY9997042-live suggestions of ambient infantry for heli insertion
2 Likes
The EF entered service 2003ish
The rafale entered service around 2004ish
Su-30SM is a 2011 modernization
and the J11B became a domestic production around 2006ish
Time to add the F22 Raptor, it entered service in late 2005, it’s service is around where some jets did. Ignore the fact not a single jet ingame would be able to see that Mach 2 bumblebee beyond 22km at the earliest. Maybe it would be more fair to add the 1997 versions instead after someone leaks it’s sekrit documents on the fourms :)
these were not combat capable jets. the earliest combat coded jet was sometime in like 2000 iirc
3 Likes
Mate, you do realise they’re going to butcher the F-22, right? They’ll probably give it AIM 120Cs and AIM 9Ms because “balance” because otherwise Eurofighters would have Meteors by now.
i dont have the slightest issue with that, thats an accurate loadout for a 2005 spec F-22
1 Like
I’d push back a little just in saying the Su-30MKI, which was originally built by Sukhoi, as well as the first initial batches, originates in like 1997/98. The Russians functionally didn’t deviate from it much other than add their own avionics (maybe RWR and Khibny are better than the Indian version). HAL didn’t start kit-builds right away either, fyi. Other than the few changes, the Su-30MKI and the Su-30SM are virtually the same.