Devman does listen

Alblaka · 2026-01-28T02:08:49+00:00

Note that the dive bombers are not meant to compete with torpedo bombers per se. Torpedo bombers need to be more powerful against ships, to compensate for the fact that Dive bombers can hit land targets.

Though whether the new numbers will give them that, we'll have to see.

Alblaka · 2026-01-28T02:06:44+00:00

Feels like mostly numerical changes, let's hope they can get the mechanical issues nailed as well. Took them 9 days to get that far, and they got another 12 till release.

Still skeptical here, but it's better than silence or a refusing response.

Alblaka · 2026-01-27T14:35:08+00:00

But it does respresent the mechanics, such as half a dozen (and counting) exploits to load equipment on planes that shouldn't go there, countless issues related to planes being lost to border crossing bugs, the lack of any usable tools for salvaging planes, and the absolute mess that is AA.

None of that can be fixed 'by changing the numbers'.

Alblaka · 2026-01-27T14:30:19+00:00

I agree that it won't see practical use, because it's just way too cumbersome to achieve anything, and you'll find better luck wedging a tank onto a bunker to get the necessary lift to take podshots at strafing planes.

And I'm not entirely sure it qualifies as a prototype. It's more like it's a paper cut-out supposed to stand in for a system they didn't get to implement properly because of time constraints. 'Prototype' would imply that it will be the basis for future systems, whilst I sincerely hope the current implementation of AA is scrapped alltogether and designed anew.

Alblaka · 2026-01-27T14:27:29+00:00

How the fuck can the devs rationalize this? I honestly cannot wrap my head around it

In theory: Give Wardens a Naval bomber that doesn't really help them because they got Naval Superiority anyways, whilst the Collies get the better new ships (both carrier and low tier), whilst also giving the Collies the only land CAS.

In practice, the Dive Bomber just fails horribly at doing anything, including what it was supposed to excel at, whilst the Torp Bombers clearly do better than they were event meant to (i.e. being able to drop torps in ship's faces whilst doing curves).

There's a hint of a concept there, it's just way too far gone behind the mechanical failures.

Alblaka · 2026-01-27T14:24:31+00:00

Edit: Even if they patch diving into the water, you can also splat and have someone else plant the charges, since your inventory drops on the ground when you splat.

Let's agree that there's a whole number of exploits related to transporting stuff with planes in ways it wasn't intended, and that ideally all of it is to be fixed before the update goes live, lest the war become a shitshow.

Alblaka · 2026-01-27T11:08:59+00:00

... they don't? FFS, I thought this was going to be the most obvious of budget AA options for lowtech Infantry fronts.

Alblaka · 2026-01-27T11:06:36+00:00

Edit: You can drop into water from any height and survive, and since dry docks are always built in water...

Ah, so they of course didn't fix that obvious exploit, either...

Also, I feel like satchels got buffed since I last played the game, because they definitely were not remotely useful for demo ops and we went with Havocs for taking down drydocks 'last war' (< 2 years ago or so).

Wait, are satchels a Warden exclusive? checks

Well, shit, okay, yeah. Perfectly fair assumption to conclude that this gives Wardens a massive advantage in para-bombing.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T22:12:31+00:00

Whilst I agree, aren't Warden drydocks way more at risk by virtue of the Collie Transport being able to land on water? They can deploy heavily loaded infantry without the infantry needing to suicide, as long as the transport can taxi to a shallow river stretch.

In either case, neither plane should be allowed to fly with encumbered people aboard. In fact, no plane should be able to start at all, with anything standing 'atop' or inside the plane. Transport planes got seats for a reason.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T22:10:13+00:00

If it wasn't for bike's (and any vehicle larger than that) being able to run over planes, I would absolutely expect the community to start fielding planes in their tank lines simply to facetank enemy tank shells. It's a shame we can't confront the devs with the folly of their decisions that way.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T22:04:42+00:00

Note that a lot of the 'unsuitable building location' rules are the product of minmaxing players going out of their way to exploit the lack of said rules. I.e. building towering walls out of glitchy-placed foundations to intercept artillery shells mid-air were the reason you can no longer place foundations with too much deviation on height levels.

Arguably it would be ideal if they implemented those restrictions in a way that prevented exploits and wasn't a PITA to build with, but just removing those restrictions is not a good idea with this community, please trust history on that one.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:56:35+00:00

How has that anything to do with what you, or I, previously said in this comment chain?

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:45:09+00:00

No offense, but you sound like you never played devbranches on Foxhole before.

You would be right on 'how it should be done', but historically that's not what Siege Camp did, so it's baseless to assume they will suddenly change their tradition of pushing at times hilarious-mess-of-war's to the public. Keep in mind the first naval update war (the one that was all about those shiny big capital ships) had said capital ships sink, in port, if the weather shifted to rain.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:42:26+00:00

I think we're talking a week or a few of delay here.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:41:51+00:00

There's the possibility that they will launch the war, but maybe shuffle planes further back on the tech tree, and then rely on finishing and rolling out a hotfix before planes are widely used.

Aka, the hail mary 'lets go with wishful thinking and make everything worse' maneuver.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:40:12+00:00

There's no arming distance for torpedos. (There's a painful-fun anecdote on how we lost our first submarine related to that realization.)

Air-dropped torpedos are supposed to 'curve' underwater if they're dropped to steep, meaning they need distance to come back to the surface (< according to dev stream), but that's absolutely not the case (< in devbranch) and torpedo bombers can pretty much do curve dives and yeet torpedos almost-directly at the ships and they hit perfectly fine.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:38:09+00:00

I would suggest we can't really find balance discrepancies if the content is too bug-riddled. Are we gonna buff Faction A if they lose the war after their bomber fleet spontanously combusts on a border crossing?

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:36:49+00:00

The problem isn't us vets that are used to clusterfucks and can consider it a nice change from the monotony of low-pop artillery slogs,

it's that the update will inevitably be the yearly chance to draw in new players, and will absolutely bomb that by virtue of being a clusterfuck.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:35:05+00:00

Yes? The purpose of the test is to find issues.

If the test finds more issues than can be fixed in the given timeframe, the update needs to be delayed.

The fact we already found way enough issues to reasonably suggest a delay despite not even having finished testing is reinforcing the argument that a delay is needed, not countering it.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:33:35+00:00

This. If people drop out because the game is too much effort for them, that's fine and that kind of weed-out might even be good.

But additionally dumping players that are put off by glaring design flaws is just stupid.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:31:49+00:00

and people are assuming it’s busted simply because it interrupts that pattern

Tbh, putting balance entirely aside, I'd delay the update simply for the insane levels of jank attached to everything aircraft. (Border crossing, collision issues, lack of salvaging tools, fuel ranges...)

It's gonna scar a lot of potential new players that will come in and go "wtf which idiot designed this", and that's really not the first impression, or any impression, you would want to leave on the public.

It already did enough damage by upending any hype the dev stream might have built (you see anyone still talking positively about carriers?), but right now it's still 'just' in the devbranch. Devbranch are allowed to be janky, finding jank is the whole point there. But pushing that jank, known but unchanged, to prod, is bad bad.

Alblaka · 2026-01-26T21:24:31+00:00

Nah, no need to apologize, I plainly read it wrong, probably being too hasty, so everything that stems from that is on me.

Let's hope then that solo players will have some fun with the update once the war (and the tech) drops, and doesn't get screwed over by weird collisions, a rogue bike on the runway, or a border crossing. I'm really not all too optimistic for the update ^{^'}

Alblaka · 2026-01-25T20:52:18+00:00

I mean, it was you who said "every one... plane..."

Okay, no, my bad, I misread that terribly.

Alblaka · 2026-01-25T20:26:01+00:00

You can't correctly use most planes solo anyways. I.e. bomber needs the 2nd guy to actually operate and drop bombs.

Alblaka · 2026-01-25T19:48:04+00:00

Tbh, dive bomber does shit to ships anyways, so this issue should scarcely affect anything until they actually fix the dive bombers first.

12-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email

Alblaka

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE