I’m not personally opposed to these changes, but I do think they could be improved substantially, or rather, that there are alternatives that should be explored first. Replenishment in spawn, command/engineering vehicles (which would be amazing for a more cooperative team in a game mode made for drawn-out battles), and more accessible camouflage are all things I think would bring value and more interesting play to the game.
5 Likes
Dude, it isn’t going to happen more than it already is (which is almost never). Even with ammo replenishment right at your spawn it wouldn’t happen a lot.
Have you ever tried doing something like that yourself? Coz I did multiple times and I never accomplish anything. Why? Because the rockets are extremely inaccurate, the fire rate ends up being worse than that of actual SPHs and in most cases you end up accomplishing absolutely nothing, even when you have a spotter ranging for you.
I would actually be more worried about stuff like the Wiesel and Shturm abusing the living hell out of those ammo boxes.
The ammo boxes would help balancing CAS at top tier
This is the new orage smoke for atillery or digging trechs with dozers just another fail and wasted of time.
The game only need better balance (CAS and BR spread) and much much better map desing all the other is just smoke.
2 Likes
This game is more than top broken tier.
Are they going to rename the game “Fort Thunder” too?
Players: “Can we get rearm points outside of the caps, like in the spawns?”
Players: “Can we get free camo nets for everyone?”
Gaijin: “This is what we came up with instead of what you asked for. With more of the earth moving no one asked for or uses.”
3 Likes
Yeah, it still is a step towards balancing CAS
Ok, more detailed response.
Ammo boxes: understood, I just think this is just going to increase the use of third-party artillery calculators and indirect fire and four-squads dropping into game, shelling the other spawn until they run out of ammo with a rocket truck and then ODLing out to the next game with multiple kills for score. They should not allow this right on your own spawn but at least force you to drive a bit, if people see that as a problem.
EDIT: People should also note this will reduce the number of ATGMs in AB for the non-ATGM carriers, as they can no longer reload. And it’s only the amount of boxed ammo you yourself brought IN to the battle, so there’s a lot more encouragement here to drive around with larger ammo loads than before… which does tend to decrease the newbie disadvantage of not knowing that trick and makes for more sailing-tank-turret explosions, so that’s not a bad thing.
Camo nets: ATGM carriers and TDs did need a new mechanic, that is welcome in that sense. And this does reduce the tyranny of bush box owners too: bushes for everyone! in a way. But you don’t normally put up a camo net as a three-foot frontal wall against direct fire, that makes no sense. Camo nets are put up to protect you from CAS. This makes no mention of helping people with that, and seems to completely misunderstand what irl camo nets are for and do.
Building terrain: Of the three, if it’s confined to ATGM and TD and SPAA, this wouldn’t be exactly terrible. Real cover instead of concealment is actually consistent with how something like a TOW carrier or a StuG worked irl. I don’t HATE this one.
I am a little unclear why you would remove friendly fire damage from the camo net object entirely, given it’s not clear if it also disappears when you die. The risk there would be you build the camo net, and then you die, and now no one on your side can do anything about it when the other team moves their tank behind it and starts using it as concealment. If you let friendly tanks shoot damage-free holes in other friendly tanks, you should make camnets other friendlies set up still be destructible. (The writeup doesn’t say if they are or aren’t.)
2 Likes
Sadly no
I wonder what wouldhappen if we made the ground maps like top tier air
The objectives and spawn are a the small map
But there is a large area around atleast on the fighting line of Sight meaning much longer maps
With a large area behind the spawn preventing spawn Camping but also make it impossible to play objective if not pushing
This idea seems unrealistic. Unlike arcade games, tanks can’t simply drop and use ammo boxes conveniently in real battles, especially considering the variety of ammo types used. This mechanic could break the immersion and realism that War Thunder strives for.
2 Likes
Unless you are playing sim (and even then) what exactly is immersive about ground battles?
Unless they make the ammo boxes cosmetical
Simular how Russian t-34 came with logs buckets fuel and dismount Crew
But it IS Top Tier too.
In fact, there’s as many (if not more) active players in Ranks VI, VII and VIII alone than in I, II, III, IV and V combined; and one of Gaijin’s biggest source of income is Top Tier Premiums due to how popular they are.
The truth is- a majority of the playerbase are modern warfare and war machinnery enthusiasts, and there’s nothing wrong with Top Tier requiring a little extra attention to address its issues, specially considering the highest tiers are very fresh additions compared to the tiers that have been ingame since its conception back in 2013.
Just increase the spawn points cost and CAS problem is fixed.
If you want build trechs, ammo boxes and another BS play Enlisted.
Why not add, a option to add trucks with 50cal who can replenish bases players or etc. Or allow helis jets drop ammunition and etc. Why this madness. So Maus will come to X point, build base and store Maus ammo who will become rockets later on for example AA. HOW THIS IS REALISTIC?
The SPAA’s need the help!
2 Likes
Resupply and support vehicles would be cool, but these ammo boxes aren’t any more unrealistic than the repair times, the re-arming on control points, the crew replenishment, the crew self-healing or the fact that tank crews dont bail out when their tank has a massive hole in it.
Also, next to nobody would use the resupply vehicles if they only have a 50cal as armament
1 Like
That would not fix as much as it seems; it would make the more experienced and better players be the ones to spawn CAS the most, making it a more difficult task for SPAAs to deal with them and also making SPAA activity, on the other hand, more limited by not having “canon fodder” CAS players to feed them.
If you want (X), play (Y) is never a good argument, honestly. If we abided by that logic, there would be zero evolution or new additions to games.
So, back in 2014, “if you wanted to play tanks, go play WoT” instead of adding Ground Forces to the game; back in 2017, “if you wanted to play modern tanks, go play GHPC” instead of adding newer MBTs up to the present day; back in 2018, “if you wanted to play supersonic jets, go play DCS” under the same reasoning… etc.
If we abided by that logic, War Thunder would still be the same game it was back in 2013; just planes up to the Korea War era.
3 Likes
I see changes as a good form of improvement through iteration. They might turn up to be good, might turn up to be bad, but the thing is that the game needs some simple mechanics to spice things up and this is a good start.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the game anyway as-is, but there are a lot of vehicles that are simply out of the meta or that can’t compete with others in a long match. I get that not everything can be balanced, but this changes are certainly a good start to open the possibilities of the game.
I find that a lot of APCs are really fun to play but they serve little-to-no purpose on the game (specially the low caliber ones) when facing teams with decent armoured tanks (yes I know, their role is to support, not to engage, but still you are just limited to scouting and breaking tracks/barrels). Take for example Simulator Battles, APCs have no part of the cake in there (yes, you might get some kills and capture some points, but eventually you are gonna face someone who you just can’t kill and your teammates won’t be arount to support you). So… I face the proposed changes optimistically.
I’d like to throw my own ingredient in there, knowing that it probably has been proposed a thousand times before: It would be really great to implement some form of “infantry”, not necessarily complex at all, just to have an excuse to use light vehicles to transport troops to certain capture points, to try to land with a helicopter in a capture point, etc. You don’t even have to model the soldiers into the game, they might even be “imaginary”: you fly to the point, land, wait for a progress bar (as if the troops were dismounting) and then you get some points, or maybe the enemy team bleeds some tickets.
Lemme know what you think! I’d for sure love to have an excuse to try to land helicopters into the battlefield, or to try to give real support with APCs just to capture a point and then go back and forth transporting some form of troops (and not just staying in the point with infinite ammunition killing everything that flies above me).
EDIT: Given the direction that the game has taken lately, with tanks capable of sniping from 1.5km with ease and planes capable of giving air support from 6kms, we need to start getting rid of 2x2 city maps on higher BRs. Okay, not eveyone wants to turn this game into a full hardcore simulator, but I’d like to actually drive the tank around and use actual war tactics. I’d love to see more maps like the one recently added that is located between mountains and has a train track that goes around (forgive me, I don’t know the name of the map).
1 Like
Definitely not! It’s gameplay overkill, it’s unnecessary absolutely thing. We’re trying to solve visibility problems by adding a cloaking net. We ask to solve the problem with the ability to replenish the bk - we are offered an absurd idea with “replenishment boxes”. It would be better to revive the legendary point D, and not this nonsense that you have proposed
Ah yes another useless mechanic - self-digging. Only in an even more twisted form.
2 Likes