You take it completely over the top, and with your reasoning there should be 64 planes/tanks on every map because maybe everyone wants to fly/tank.. On maps like El-Al and other desert maps half of the tanks and other ground vehicles stay un-used while people TK eachother for planes on the airfield. The entire team takes to the air (or camps for a plane to spawn) while the poor (or brave) souls dare to traverse the huge distances involved in tin cans on their way to the flags, knowing its only a matter of time before some guy flies over in a Stuka or Hurricane and bombs the crap out of them, if they are very lucky they survive the first bomb, try to scare the plane off with the top mounted AA gun, only to be bombed for a second time because 50 cals dont work against planes it seems. The mobile AA in this game at the moment is impotent at best, with their paper thin armor (all halftrack/truck mounted stuff) , limited field of view and weak armament (Ostwind). And the AFV's like the staghound and "duster" that are more suited to mow down infantry then anything else. Yes.. of course more fighter planes will take down more fighter bombers/bombers, but there are _enough_ planes on all maps, in some cases even to many. Most maps out there are historicly suppost to be tank VS tank fights, but the overkill on planes makes it more like a rapefest. Adding more planes will just turn the troubled maps into new Battle-of-brittain type maps because Johnny the newbie would rather fly a shiny cool fast airplane then to groundpound with one of the many crappy *** p4 that are stacked up at mainbase. I know planes are cool and such to fly, and who doesnt want to be a "ace" with a 21-21-4 score. then having a 10-12-7 score groundpounding. But im a little sick of all those people that wanna fly..wanna wait and wanna camp for planes so they can go bomb away with their super-agile fighter bombers.
no, adding 64 planes/tanks would not make sense either because that too would be modifying type of map. Balancing map by adding counter weapons to balance, only need to be added to the amount where the balance issue is resolved. Its justifiable that a a eqipment face its counter eqipment on a map for balance. To balance by removing it changes the the map type. A tank/inf map can be ok because the tanks face counter tanks warfare. The solution to those maps is not tank removal because then it would not be a tank/map anymore (i.e piats and satchels on arnhiem). On map with bombers, they dont need to removed are as much a part of the battle as anything else. But they do however, deserve to face effective AA and fighters. For example, on breakthrough the british have a lot air to ground but its rarely a problem because there effectively countered.
Western Ukraine, Crossing the Dnepr River the forces were laid out as such: Germany: 1,760,000 Infantry 16,800 Cannons 2,200 Tanks 1,460 Aircraft Russia: 2,230,000 Infantry 28,650 Cannons 2,000 Tanks 2,200 Aircraft This gives you a ratio of: (rounding up to nearest whole number) 1 Cannon per 88 Infantry 1 Tank per 950 Infantry 1 Plane per 1091 Infantry 10 Cannons per 1 Tank 13 Cannons per 1 Aircraft 2 Tanks per 1 Plane (Actually it is 1.14 Tanks per 1 Plane but I rounded up) So to all who think the tank vs. plane ratio is off you are absolutely right just not in the direction you wanted in this thread. Real life ratios don't work in a game otherwise odds are at most there would be one cannon on one of the sides in a BF scale fight. Give the axis more/better mobile and fixed AA and that will help, putting some slop in the flight physics on Jabo's isn't a bad call either. But taking out the planes on a board because you claim the ratio of tanks to planes is unrealistic is stupid as the ratio's were almost 1 to 1. If anything doing the math says we are severly low on the numbers of cannons on maps.
hmm well these are some intersting stastitcs. The way iv always felt about there not being enough infantry to other stuff is that in the same way one person can represent a entire 'crew' of ship, each person repreents whole group.
Its hard because bf uses a mix of direct and representive involvment. For example, some maps are for entire battle thats lasted days, involved thousands, and were over hundreds of sqyare km. Other times its a lmost 1-1 ration to rl of few guys shooting at another few guys, or a few tanks on a field.
That is a good point too about the field cannons, i hope in the future there a more of these. For example even if towed isnt doen maybe at guns droppable by trucks. There can be quite a lot of at guns on maps but, its hard to use them to effectivness isnce people now where they are and they cannot be moved like tanks or airplanes.
terminal-strikeah ok sound like quite a cool tank.
More fighters and AA absoultely means less bomb rape as long as the team actually use them. If a bomber is taken out it not only still means it that it may not be countered (hence still a rape, still not enough counter stuff) but it also means less fun for people who like doing arial combat.
Removing the eqipment denies that part of the battle being allowed to take place. It doesn't solve the balance issue, it eliinates it amutating that part of the map. It would be like chaning a map from a tank and infantry too soley a infantry maps becuase people dont like getting killed by tanks.
Changing a map design, and taking out things people like to do turns map is a map type issue not a balance issue. People need to be allowed to the task they want- but they need to fight do be able to do it.
If people want to bomb they must surive aa and fighters, just like if people want to tank they need to fight infantry and tds etc. By adding eqipment the result is more fighing and more fun and more multi-faceted combat, but on the removal logic the end result is to turn maps into a infantry maps with knives only.....
The problem I have with this theory is that most bombers are also incredibly good fighters.
P-47s come to mind. They are much better then say, BF109s, and putting them in the air with 1000kg (2000lbs) of bombs and having them outpreform a BF109 which is there to "counter" it is absurd. If a Jabo has bombs, its speed should be cut and its maneuverability should be cut. Since this isn't possible, give it a 30% reduction in overall preformance.
I've noticed that the FH map makers and map editors tend to put the best German AT weapons on maps where they server no purpose or are over kill. Take Omaha, the Germans for some stupid reason get Panzershreks on an infantry map. While on armor intensive maps all they get are Panzerfaust30's and a few 100's.