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
The screenshot says that the inbuilt optics (the TISEO) has 73.7x, not the TGP (Pave Spike)
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:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
I’m actually wicked excited for Aces of Thunder, need to fly around in an Albatross!
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
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
It would both increase and decrease the market. Yes you could lure some fps players in (which likely won’t stay anyway), but the change of pegi 12 to pegi 16 would mean the age range of 12-15 would become off limit to Gaijin in terms of marketing.
It’s not weird at all though. It’s incredibly clear that Gaijin really really likes WTs pegi 12 age rating.
Infantry simply means no more pegi 12. You can cope all you want, but reading the discription of the age rating there really isn’t a way for Gaijin to both have infantry and pegi 12.
4 Likes
The thing is, they must have had a good amount of ground physics ready from the start to allow for take-off, landing and crashing. The main thing that would have been missing is traction.
And as I’ve mentioned in another reply, it’s very likely that the idea to have tanks in WT came up pretty early in WTs development anyways.
The thing about infantry is the amount and complexity of interactions they need to be capable of when the game they are going up against is Battlefield.
Most things involving infantry need more complexity than planes, helicopters, tanks and ships. Be it the animations, collisions, customization, environments, interactions, movement abilities or weapons. And if the goal is to compete against Battlefield, you also need pretty complex damage model, more complex game modes and bigger server sizes (more than just 16 players per team).
Despite Enlisted and WT sharing an engine, the only thing they likely would be able to port easily over to WT would be the models.
Edit: Also, the servers and netcode would definitely need to be upgraded a lot to support larger match sizes, as 16 vs 16 is pretty small for a Battlefield-like shooter. If more players per team isn’t an option, matches would have to be padded out with a lot of AI.
4 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT A lot of players are still on the copium train for Infantry it seems, so I would like to ask was this statement a dud ?
“Very soon, a large-scale closed beta test of infantry will begin. We’ll share more details about the tech trees, weaponry, gear, and gameplay features in future devblogs.”
9 Likes
Fair point indeed
2 Likes
I agree. The World War I event has already ended. Now, the community is left with a feeling of uncertainty, wondering whether that announcement made on March 31 was real or just another April Fool’s joke. It would be great if someone from Gaijin could confirm or deny the entire thing. That way, everyone can move on with or without expectations…
4 Likes
Yeah I understand why there was confusion as it sounded like there gonna be one after this but the teaser it self just doesn’t feel like war thunder
1 Like
What is the king of Poland, I mean, Slavic Union doing in war thunder
5 Likes
I can’t bear this madness
2 Likes