Sadly I can’t see the Ozelot getting crew replenishment
1 Like
APCs and certain IFVs could get reclassed as support vehicles with different modifications/abilities.
4 Likes
I even would rather play as full support on some specific IFV’s that had only like, single browning and thats it. But they had a better cargo bay and lower profile/better speed.
As vehicles that you can call/spawn in like the planes in arcade battles maybe, but not as TT vehicles
1 Like
Well, possibilities and variants are infinite, but devs wants SPGs to have their own single-use resupply point. :/
And for some reason SPGs have to build camo nets and trenches… lmao.
Oh wait, just realised, they will build them for themselves. Purely un-teamplay mechanic.
Bush warriors on the edge of a map but 2.0, now with trenches, ammo boxes and camo nets.
Light vehicles in WT are really usually not firepower-deficient. As for armour, that’s sort of the point, it’s way more situational than mobility. You can play around lack of armour by not being hit and being careful, but you can’t similarly mitigate lack of mobility with gameplay. And since WT is a game about capturing points, where the meta is getting to power positions early, mobility is always more important.
To this you should add the fact that usually, TDs are turretless and have awful targeting speed. Sometimes very long reloads as well. They don’t usually capture points first, they don’t get you easily into CAS…
Currently the game doesn’t really make that distinction. A light is a light. If you want IFVs and APCs to gain a “support mechanic” in exchange for losing a mechanic that “proper” light tanks have, I’m all for it.
When it comes to TDs and SPAAs however,
You’re thinking about it from a “neat and orderly” external perspective, and from that POV it doesn’t make much sense, since the focus of TDs should be killing stuff.
However, WT is a game, and not even just any game like say Flames Of War, but an MMO shooter. So I look at it through the lens of, what do these vehicle classes need?
SPAAs need to be able to resupply without having to stare down tanks to get to a capture point. Their job is to engage planes, that’s what they should focus on and they need help doing that.
TDs will need to frequently relocate anyway because they’re usually more visible than a concealed SPAA from the air, but once again not having to rush to a capture point with a vehicle that is slow and turretless will make them a bit more flexible, which is welcome. And the ability to go hull down anywhere, while unfortunately not very useful on a lot of CQC maps, can definitely make your TD life easier on occasion. This is especially true for ATGM carriers.
2 Likes
Yes, I have nothing against that.
If only both spaas and td replenished their ammo from a friendly ifv/apc class that carries ammo for them from points or something, idk.
Maybe i just want a proper support class cuz i dont really like close combat engagement and i really love sometimes playing just a recon drone for a team. Just for my soul, lol.
So it would be better to actually separate light vehicles and support vehicles, yeah.
I do like the sound of this!
I personally don’t like the idea of being able to place an ammo box anywhere you want, but i do understand that players will like it and even more if they have a vehicle with that can’t carry much ammo.
However make sure in case of the ammo boxes, that they can’t be placed near a spawn to prevent a high spawn camping rate and maybe limit the shells to only a few so the game doesn’t turn into a static sniping sim.
Just enough to save you when you’re low on ammo and get you out of a tight situation or hold a position for a while. But when you need crew or a lot more ammo in general that you still need to visit a capturing zone.
Cammo netting wise i’d love to see the wall or even tent style coverings. Would be even cooler if it could be combined with a deeper trench so that you could actually make ambushes or hide the majority underneat the grass line. As a bonus it would be nice for the camo netting to match their surroundings. Desert netting on desert maps and forest colored netting on more forested maps.
An easy way to implement this would be for a mechanic where the camo net takes the color around it in a 20 meter radius and uses that color to fill a camo patern on the net.
If this could be combined with historical correct camo netting on tech tree vehicles it would for sure spice things up a bit across all br’s.
For the trench drawing i’m not quite sure if i should like it or not. It has potential, but i’m not sure “drawing style” is the way to go.
I’d like to see the current dozer blades either getting an upgrade so they can actually push more dirt and dig deeper then the current wheelbarrow of dirt we can move. The more dirt you push the slower you go, and not the current speed limit where you can only go ± 4kmh even when you’re pushing just a tiny bit.
It would be a cool way to make the dozer carrying tanks actually make a difference for the team.
Or a new class of vehicles with the tank trench digger modifications. (There aren’t many with guns/cannons so this would only work on a select few).
I do wonder if when you add it as a drawing tool like you said, if that doesn’t allow players to take advantage of it and block already hard to reach entery points on the edges of town for example.
It would also take away the current specialised dozer tank modifications rendering it pretty much useless if everybody can just draw/dig even if their vehicle wouldn’t be able to irl.
You know, as far as I can see, there’s been a real reluctance on the devs’ part to consider player vehicles that are supportive rather than offensive in nature, and looking at the state of WT team play on average, I think it’s easy to understand why. They don’t want to risk one team being “saddled” with people who are not gonna do damage.
Of course, AI controlled, drone-like support vehicles and PVE elements a la Air RB are another matter, but they also probably take more time and resources than a brush and a box, so it’s understandable.
I have sometimes wondered if it would make sense to tell a player who’s run out of spawn points in Ground RB, okay, you can’t spawn in any of your lineup vehicles anymore, but you can have a way back into the match by playing this static AT emplacement, or this static AA position, or this ammo resupply APC. Get enough spawn points and you can get back into the fight. You may have an incentive to do this if you’re playing with a buddy who’s still in the match while you’re out.
But it’s also true that many people already leave matches early as it is. So you’re doing something resource intensive that most players are never gonna use…
The human element of matchmaking is unironically the biggest limit setting what is and isn’t possible in War Thunder.
3 Likes
well, one team still can be “saddled” with spaas on some middle ranks where they can’t really pen a heavy/medium tank. So, i think there is no possibility for that really to be like… frequent.
In first games - yes, but then people will balance their setups and return to playing middle/heavy tanks more cuz… more players really prefer armour to everything else, idk. Thats what i see in games.
1 Like
Can we get the ability to prioritize the ammo that is replenished? Now if you have more than one it will cycle through all the ammo, but if you are trying to just one ammo type back it would be nice to set that and get moving again.
For me, the small size of the battlefield in the game is more important, especially at the top rank. It’s like a counter strike game.
1 Like
Damn, that’s so cool :O
I bet a lot of people would want to build an AA emplacement though 😂
This has a lot of potential for gameplay features in the future. Like reinforcing capture points and demolizing emplacements and obstacles with HE.
Maybe something that helps against spawncamping. It’s not fun getting killed after 15s from a camper or just a plane that you can’t defend yourself against. If you could control AA guns or AT guns near your spawn, that would certainly help to keep players at bay and reducing the pay-off of trying to get easy kills.
1 Like
It also doesn’t make sene that there’s a battlefield without any infantry.
So everything that can happen on a battlefield, like digging emplacements, can also happen in the game without changing anything about the immersion.
Just imagine invisible supply trucks and infantry being part of the battlefield.
1 Like
I’m wondering if it’s feasible to transport infantry in IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) and helicopters like Hinds and Hips. Additionally, i’m also interested in their potential roles, such as capturing bases, refueling and rearming other vehicles, and establishing FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) is this something that can be expanded on ???
A game already out called Heliborne does this quite well
As it currently stands, we don’t plan to have infantry involvement.
2 Likes
Part of me really wants to gripe about aspects of this, but those gripes are more nuanced than anything.
So I’ll take a " We Ball. " stance and see how it plays out. I’m sure we can adjust things has needed.
1 Like
That was not voted, was it? In fact, it was universally dreaded. Unfortunately, not enough people was aware of that economy change and everyone blamed all of its negative effects on a separate and unrelated update that came shortly afterwards.
Even I made a topic about it: