Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
1: Chinooks can't airlift tanks and there is no helo, which comes to my mind, that is able to carry any type of MBT, this is not Command and Conquer.
2: Rappelling soldiers is not safer in any way, quite the opposite. It may look cool, but it has very limited utility on the battlefield.
3: I really don't know why people like the AC 130 so much. I'm sure it's because of the one mission in Call of Duty. Anyhow... this thing wouldn't fit into the game as an CAS plane. It would be too slow and circling over the battlefield in WARNO usually is an instant death sentence. It's hard enough to use the A-10 or Su-25 with some reliable effectiveness, but the AC 130 would take the cake, if implemented in the game.
4: Please no... Yes mines are an important system on modern battlefields. No I don't want them in any way in this game, in which attacking and maneuvering can be hard enough without the added annoyance of using dedicated units like engineers to set up the general condition of maybe being able to effectively attack in the first place. Mines don't enhance any intended gameplay dynamic in this game at all. People already are struggling with the combined arms approach, when attacking defensive positions. Adding another limiting factor beside units, which already are in defensive positions, would just cripple the manouver gameplay and the game flow in general.
5: Paratroopers, which are dead on arrival, aren't immersive just stupid. You don't throw paratroopers in the middle of a modern battlefield and hope for the best. The reason why they have advanced deployment is they arrived earlier in the vicinity of the battlefield and were able to get to advantageous positions.
6: No bunkers please... at least not in the standard game mode. It's not the charge on the Atlantikwall or the Maginot Line. It's (mostly) manoveuer warfare.
7: Why would you want to introduce more systems with only one specific hard counter. The air game system is fine, maybe it needs fine-tuning but the general concept is sound.
8: Planes with a bigger payload are in the framework of the possible.
9: No, there is a reason the unit card system and its limitations exists. Having to compromise between different units, their payloads, and the activation point system is more interesting than just switching payloads with no consequence.
10: I don't see why this antenna solution would be a. enhance the gameplay in any meaningful manner and b. be more realistic than the current AA gameplay.
Like I said, I'm sorry for being so snarky, but nothing of this would improve the game in any way.
*Acktully*, the CH-47 is in fact capable of airlifting tanks, as long as it is about as light as a small car that is. During the Falklands, CH-47 was used to airlift Scimitars. Also, wasn't the Sheridan initially designed to be airliftable by them? Now the joke is over, I can move onto the actual topic.
Limitations of the engine itself unfortunately stop this from happening, at least the airlifting part. Vehicles that count as transports can only carry units that can be carried in transports, and this is universal. You can place things like the Vulcan into a Blackhawk even though the thing comes in in a Humvee. You can place the full 11-man Jäger Squad into the Jeep your Milan-2 team rolled up in.
If they added the ability to tanks, you could transport tanks into battle with your M113, which would be hilarious, but only ever so slightly immersion breaking.
You already got this in the form of normal SF Recon and other SF units.
Has been answered around a hundred times by now by the devs, and the answer is no. This would form bottle necks and the devs do not want this in a game about mobile warfare.
You call for immersion, and then forget that neither an AC-130, nor a Hercules would EVER in a million years be present in contested airspace. This is a debate that pops up every few months on average, so I'll just quickly summarize the problems.
Heavy cargo-sized planes are not designed to be able to avoid Radar and IR fire, they have some very, very basic defensive measures in place to avoid some, but against a proper military force, they'd be blown out of the sky the moment they enter the AO. Despite their bulk, they are not durable, a single AA missile, and the thing is a burning firework dropping out of the sky, let alone Radar missile.
This is why you never paradrop units in the middle of combat. Airborne units we have in the game simulate the real life use of Paratroopers in modern warfare with their forward deployment. In modern war, Paratroopers are dropped prior to the actual fighting, so they can move up to position ahead of the main force, and only into regions where there is no risk of interception.
What you are asking for is also in the game in the same form it is in real life. Air Assault. Helicopters replaced traditional plane jump decades ago, after seeing their success in Vietnam. It is safer, stealthier, and faster.
Game is still about mobile war. Maybe in the future when we expand to other fronts outside of Europe, it could be neat to see them introduce the Breakthrough mode from SD; but until then, don't expect them to make an appearance into regular battles.
Would be neat, but I'm pretty sure the payload thing is still limited by the engine. They have to be defined per aircraft. Really the only sensible suggestion on this list to be honest.
This is what people got to experience when the Patriot was first introduced to RD, and it didn't go down well. Being able to plant Radar AA halfway up the map and be able to lock down your opponent's airspace entirely didn't exactly translate into fun gameplay, especially when you couldn't do anything to take them out. Shells fly so slowly that by the time the first lands, a competent player has already vacated the spot the missile was fired from. The rest boil down to usual 'turn radar off micro' against SEAD.
But i think a few things could work in AG.
A mine field that just reduces pawn movement.
If you could choose the spot to drop your paras, that would be awesome. Blocking a crossing of your choice.
I actally want a defense, but realised that this is more diffucult here to penetrate compared to SD2. Atgm just kill tanks easily, also the range of anti tank is generally high. 850m to 150m in sd.
Instead a system like in sd2 with deployed would be nice.
Most maps feel the same, its straight up rng weather the zones are in your favor or not. Sometimes you even need too fight your way into them.
If i keep a, lets say weak vkk in a place for a round, why does the game lists it as an meeting engagement?
Different situations or even objectives on the map would help to differ each battle from each other.
At the current state its not really fun to play more than 2 battles in a row
Good news is that this is in the works.