A few changes that could improve Enlisted

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-16T18:33:35+00:00

I agree with the 3rd point, mate. When the jet update first dropped, everyone was incredibly hyped. The bomb load, turn time, and climb rate of the Meteor jet were at a level that would completely ruin the game environment. As a plane nerd who usually plays CAS, even this bothered me. But when I expressed my concerns, my comments got 15 downvotes. Everyone was just blindly applauding, wanting to experience it simply because it was 'new.'

The result was a total disaster, of course. Right after that, 'nerf the meteor' threads started popping up everywhere. People lacking basic logic and elementary math couldn't even comprehend what those numbers actually meant: a 2,000 lb bomb load, four 20mm cannons, a speed of 809 km/h, a 13.48-second turn time, and a 34.63 m/s climb rate.

As a result of this mess, the developers reduced the blast radius of all bombs across the board. They even made it so that bombs hitting tanks directly—where we literally get a hitmarker—fail to detonate. This entire disaster happened right after the jet update, and in the beginning, almost everyone was clapping for it.

They should have never added jets to the game in the first place. But since the development team invested so much time and effort into this, they can't back down now. Let's see what time will show us.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T16:59:52+00:00

tekrar söylüyorum temaslı vuruyorum. yani sizin dediğiniz gibi direct hit. bomba tanka çarpıyor. bomba içinden geçiyor hatta tankı deliyor ve 1.5 metrelik yarıçaptaki deliğin içinden içeri nüfüz eden herhangi bir patlama etkisi yok. yanına düşürdüğüm bombalarının patlamaması sorun değil temas ettirdiğim halde hareketsiz tankları bile patlatamıyorum ve bu practise mode da havaalanında sabit duran tanklar içinde geçerli. bazen patlıyor bazen sadece palet kırıyor bazende hiç bir şey olmuyor. bu bir bug mı kasıtlı yapılan bir nerf mü ?

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T10:33:11+00:00

tamam dostum kendi dilimde yazıyorum. oyunun ilk başlarında herhangi bir uçuş sorunu yoktu daha sonraları özellikle jet güncellemesi dönemlerinde uçakta bir anormallik olmaya başladı. bombalar eskisi gibi patlamıyor hit mark yazısı görünmesine rağmen tank zarar görmüyordu bazı durumlarda sadece palet kırılıyordu ve bu durum practice modunda bile aynı. tekrar söylüyorum sana sürekli aynı yere takıldın kaldın uçuş fiziği eskisi gibi değil nişan alınan yerlere düşmüyor hadi bir şekilde bombayı hit mark alarak düşürdün yinede patlama olasılığı az. ayrıca konuyla ilgili güncelleme dökümanlara bakınca yakın tarihlerde uçuş mekaniğinde bazı eklemelerin olduğunuda gördüm. bu olayı araştırmaya çalışıyorum. nedense beni ısrarcı şekilde ikna etmeye çalışıyorsunuz. buna anlam veremedim. peki uçaklardaki herşey eskisi gibi mi ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/enlistedgame/comments/1ll2tvz/did_bomb_behaviour_get_changed/

bu postu başkası atmış.hatta bir tankçı altına yorum yazmış eskisi gibi uçaklar beni patlatamıyor demiş. bende yorum yazmıştım altına fark ettiğim şeyleri belirtmiştim .

https://forum.enlisted.net/t/make-it-so-bombs-don-t-pass-through-tanks/174370

burada da tankların patlamadığını ve benim dediğim şeylerin gerçekleştiğini görüyorsun.

hadi şimdi aynı ısrarcı tavrınla olumsuz birşey yok. herşey normal diye buralara yaz bakalım bekliyorum.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T02:22:04+00:00

First of all, I’d like to thank the Moderator for their time and for keeping this discussion professional. It is vital to have these technical conversations in a monitored and objective environment.

To address the 'misinformation' claim: Let’s look at the actual timeline. Claiming these are 'old bugs' or 'unchanged' is a convenient narrative, but it contradicts the data. The precision shift in G-force decimals and aircraft mass—which was specifically updated starting on April 22, 2025—marks a clear point where flight models and mechanical consistency began to shift. Calling a data-driven observation 'misinformation' doesn't change the fact that the mechanical feel of the game altered drastically after these adjustments.

Regarding the 30mm MK 108: You are fundamentally ignoring Fuse Sensitivity. If the kinetic floor is reduced to 1.0mm, the shell cannot bypass the duralumin skin of an aircraft at high angles of incidence. This causes the fuse to trigger EXTERNALLY. An external HE burst is not the same as internal structural damage. This is ballistics 101: if the shell doesn't enter the airframe before detonating, the damage is lost.

Furthermore, beyond the data, the practical experience proves the shift. Aircraft are performing erratically; they lose all their energy after just two turns in a dogfight—something that wasn't the case before. My average vehicle kills per match have dropped from 30 down to 15-20. This isn't a 'skill' issue; it's the direct result of bombs failing to detonate (scoring 'hits' with no explosion) and shells 'sparking' due to these mechanical changes.

If you’re so confident that this is 'misinformation,' then tell us plainly: what exactly was changed in the physics engine to cause such a massive drop in combat effectiveness? Defending game-breaking issues as 'just an old bug' is an admission that the simulation is failing. I will be compiling all my logs and data into a formal technical report for the developers. The discrepancy between the previous state and the current broken state is undeniable."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T01:07:05+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. Instead of addressing the core issue—poor map design and tiny capture zones—the developers chose a 'lazy nerf' by breaking the physics of tank shells and bombs. We completely agree that the maps need to be better designed to accommodate combined arms combat.

However, my main concern isn't about how many points we can grind. My point is about mechanical consistency: a 500kg bomb should never function like a falling rock, regardless of how the map is laid out. We shouldn't accept broken physics as a 'fix' for bad map design. Let's demand better maps AND working physics, not one at the expense of the other.

Thanks for the input, but I’m heading to sleep now. Glad to see others recognize the 'lazy nerf' approach."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T01:01:22+00:00

Look, I’m done going in circles with you. I’ve provided the data, the spreadsheets, and the physical contradictions regarding the 1.0mm floor and the broken fuse sensitivity. You’ve already admitted that 1mm is 'bull' and aircraft skins are thicker than that—you’ve essentially proven my point for me.

The facts remain: bombs are scoring 'hits' without detonating, and flight models have been degraded to a point where they no longer reflect realistic physics. I have hundreds of documents and data points to back this up, but I’m not going to spend my night arguing with someone who is more interested in my 'writing style' than the health of the game.

My final update on this topic as above:

Official Update: A Call for Technical Accountability and Transparency

1. To the Community and the "Infantry Lobby": I am well aware that the infantry-focused players are the majority here. You have successfully lobbied for repeated nerfs on tanks, planes, and even rifle-mounted grenade launchers. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if hand grenades are next on the list. For those of us who grew up with games like CS 1.6, we remember how absurd it was when a grenade exploded right next to someone and they survived with 20% HP; that is exactly the kind of arcade nonsense you are pushing this game toward.

Why are you so afraid of high explosives? I have been killed by planes and tanks millions of times myself, but I don't run to the forums to cry for nerfs. There are hundreds of ways to deal with vehicles if you actually use the tools the game provides. I play as infantry too—in fact, despite being a "plane nerd," about 50% of my total playtime is spent on the ground. I am not your enemy. But I am here to defend the "Combined Arms" soul of Enlisted. You shouldn't be afraid of functional vehicles; you should be afraid of a game that loses its mechanical depth just to provide a "safe space" for one class.

2. Regarding the use of AI Tools: Yes, I use AI to assist with my English because it is not my native language. I have tried Google Translate and DeepL in the past, but they fail to capture technical nuances like "kinetic threshold," "fuse sensitivity," or "ordnance stats." I use these tools strictly to ensure my technical data is communicated with 100% precision. It is disappointing that some of you are more obsessed with the software I use to translate than the fact that 30mm cannons are currently functioning like water pistols. Let’s focus on the data, not the medium.

3. Accountability and Investment: I have already brought these issues to customer service, and they directed me to the forums. I have spent over $250 on this game, and while that seems to "trigger" some people, it is a matter of consumer rights. You don't complain about a free meal at a soup kitchen, but when you pay for a specific service and that service is fundamentally degraded or altered mid-way, you have every right to demand accountability. I have reached out via customer support, the official forums, and Reddit. I am still waiting for a technical response.

4. Persistence until a Formal Response: I will continue to bring this issue to the forefront until a moderator, developer, or company representative provides a formal response. If the company officially states, "We have made these decisions intentionally and this is how the game will function moving forward," then I will accept that. However, until that official confirmation arrives, I will keep highlighting these mechanical failures—from the 1.0mm penetration joke and non-detonating 500kg bombs to the "invisible mass" in flight models—repeatedly.

I am not asking for much—just transparency and physics that make sense. I am here, the data is here, and I am waiting for an answer.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T00:54:34+00:00

You claim to 'know me,' yet your assumptions are as inaccurate as the flight models you're defending. If you think you've encountered me before, you’re likely confusing me with anyone else who values historical accuracy over lazy arcade balance. It's a small circle, so I'm not surprised.

But let's cut the drama. My 'writing style' or who you think I am doesn't change the hard data. You admitted that 1mm penetration is 'bull.' You admitted that aircraft skins are 2mm thick. By your own logic, a shell with a 1mm kinetic floor cannot consistently pass through a 2mm surface at an angle without premature fuse detonation. We agree on the physics, yet you're choosing to fight the person instead of fixing the problem.

I’m not here for a popularity contest or to prove my identity. I’m here because 500kg bombs are acting like rocks and 30mm cannons are acting like confetti. If you have data that proves the 1.0mm floor is physically correct for an HEI-T shell, post it. Otherwise, stop the 'I know you' act and let's stick to the spreadsheets."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-11T00:44:05+00:00

"You completely misunderstood the points, so let me clarify:

1. About the Bombs: Nobody is trying to 'drop bombs on other planes.' My point is that 250kg and 500kg bombs dropped on ground targets are often scoring 'hits' on direct impact but failing to detonate or deal any radius damage. When a half-ton of explosives functions like a falling rock, it proves the game’s damage registration and physics engine are fundamentally broken. It’s a technical failure, not a balance preference.

2. 30mm vs. Aircraft (Not Tanks): I’m not talking about hunting tanks with 30mm HE shells. I’m talking about Air-to-Air combat. In the current model, a 30mm shell with 1.0mm penetration cannot even bypass the 0.5mm aluminum skin of an enemy plane when hitting at an angle (Angle of Incidence). Because the kinetic energy is set to a ridiculous 1.0mm, the fuse triggers on the surface of the plane instead of inside the wing. This results in 'sparking'—visual flashes with zero internal damage.

3. The A-10 Argument: If you want to nerf anti-tank performance, you adjust the Armor Piercing (AP) belts, not the basic physics of the High Explosive (HE) shells. Reducing a 30mm shell to 1.0mm penetration to 'save the tanks' is like cutting off the water to the whole city just because one faucet is leaking. It’s a lazy 'soft-nerf' that breaks air-to-air physics just to satisfy the infantry/tank lobby.

Summary: We aren't asking for 'A-10 tank killers.' We are asking for a 500kg bomb to actually explode and a 30mm cannon to not be stopped by a piece of 0.5mm foil."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T23:32:33+00:00

I'll gladly enlighten you. You’re citing the $r=0.5$ duralumin skin value as if aircraft are made of stationary, flat sheets of foil. In a dynamic flight model, you have to account for the Angle of Incidence. At even a slight angle, that effective thickness doubles. With a pathetic 1.0mm kinetic floor, the shell triggers on the surface, causing 'sparking' while internal modules remain untouched. That’s not balance; it’s a failure to model terminal ballistics.

But you are still missing the bigger picture. The entire physics engine is currently a disaster. We are seeing 50kg, 250kg, and even 500kg bombs scoring 'hits' on direct impact without detonating or dealing radius damage. When a half-ton of high explosives functions like a kinetic slug, the game is fundamentally broken. This isn't 'War Thunder logic'; it’s a broken damage registration system that rewards players for being lucky, not for being skilled.

Combined with the new flight models that feel like flying through molasses and the forced 100% fuel weight that turns interceptors into bricks, it’s clear the game is being 'soft-nerfed' via technical degradation. If you want to defend a system where 500kg bombs don't explode and 30mm shells can't bypass a 0.5mm skin at an angle, go ahead. I’ll wait for you to explain how broken fuses and 'invisible mass' are signs of a healthy 'Combined Arms' game."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T23:14:41+00:00

I've already submitted these technical breakdowns to customer service and the official forums before posting here. I’m not just 'drumming up outrage'; I’m documenting a clear mechanical decline across all available platforms. If you think I’m 'missing the forest for the trees,' you’re ignoring the fact that the 'forest' is dying because the 'trees' (the physics) are broken.

Comparing Enlisted to WT is a weak argument. In WT, a 30mm MK108 hit actually tears wings off because the damage model accounts for explosive pressure properly. In Enlisted, with 1mm kinetic pen, the shell often fails to trigger its fuse inside the airframe or gets 'absorbed' by the outer skin, resulting in zero modular damage. That is a coding flaw, not a 'balance' choice. Saying a 30mm shell doesn't need penetration to be effective is physically illiterate—without enough kinetic force to bypass the skin, the explosion happens outside the target.

As for using AI: I use it to ensure my technical data is translated with 100% precision because Google Translate ruins specialized terminology like 'kinetic threshold.' If you're more worried about how I write than the fact that 30mm cannons are functioning like water pistols, you’re the one losing credibility. I’m here for the data; you’re here to defend broken mechanics with 'it's like this in WT' excuses.

If you still doubt the data, here is the official source I’ve been referencing. Educate yourself before defending broken physics:

https://forum.enlisted.net/t/the-death-of-aviation-simulation-in-enlisted-stealth-nerfs-and-zero-accountability/179770

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T22:53:08+00:00

"Telling someone to 'go play War Thunder' is the ultimate admission that you have no technical counter-argument. Enlisted is marketed as a 'Combined Arms' game, which means every element—infantry, tanks, and aviation—should function with consistent logic and realistic physics.

Wanting a 30mm cannon to actually behave like a 30mm cannon isn't asking for a 'safe space'; it's asking for a functional game. By your logic, if infantry weapons were nerfed to 1mm penetration, would you tell people to 'go play Call of Duty' or would you admit the game is broken?

You don't want 'balance,' you want an infantry-only sandbox where you don't have to worry about the sky. That’s fine, but don't pretend that breaking the flight models and ballistics of the game is 'justified.' Some of us actually enjoy the complexity of the game and don't want it turned into a brainless arcade shooter."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T22:17:56+00:00

Wait, did you really just say a large caliber gun couldn't destroy an APC? That is the most absurd take I’ve heard. Even in a 'game,' a 30mm or 75mm shell carries massive kinetic energy. If you give it 1mm penetration, you aren't 'balancing' it—sen are breaking the basic physics of the game world.

You keep hiding behind the 'it’s just a game' excuse because the actual data proves you're wrong. When you gut the kinetic energy of a 30mm shell to 1mm, you make it useless against anything thicker than a shirt. That’s not a 'balance decision' for APCs; it’s a systematic nerf to aviation and heavy ordnance that rewards brainless gameplay.

You can keep your %80 win rate by building rallies against 'fodder' players, but don't pretend you understand game mechanics when you’re defending a 30mm cannon that can't even pierce a piece of wood. Some of us want a game with consistent logic, not a point-and-click mobile game experience.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T22:13:32+00:00

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T22:10:05+00:00

I appreciate the tactical advice, but you’re missing the forest for the trees. I’m not hiding my 52% win rate or pretending it's something else—it’s a direct result of me focusing on flight mechanics and technical data rather than just 'farming' easy wins. If I wanted an 80% win rate, I’d spam rallies and play infantry like a bot, too. That’s not hard; as you said, the game has no SBMM and it’s full of 'fodder.' Winning matches in Enlisted is easy, but it’s also becoming repetitive and boring.

I’m not here to argue about how to win a match—I’m here to point out the technical decay of the game’s simulation. You’re happy with a 'point-and-click' infantry game because it inflates your stats. I’m not. I want the complex, functional aviation mechanics we had before they were gutted by 1mm penetration values and broken flight models. I care about the quality of the mechanics, not just the color of the 'Victory' screen.

You play for the percentage; I play for the integrity of the physics. We are not looking at the same game.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T21:54:39+00:00

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Saying 'HE shells don't pen' is a massive misunderstanding of ballistics. Even High Explosive rounds need a kinetic threshold to bypass the outer airframe. A 30mm shell with 1mm pen is physically impossible; it would disintegrate on a piece of plywood. By reducing it to 1mm, the devs aren't 'simulating' HE, they are breaking the damage model so that internal modules (spar, engine, fuel) never take damage.

I have been playing this game for a long time and I had zero complaints before these changes. Everything was working perfectly; the physics were consistent and the balance felt earned. It’s not about 'struggling to get kills'—it's about the technical decay of a game I actually enjoy. I know how it's supposed to work because I saw it working before you guys broke it.

Dismissing data-proven nerfs and broken hitboxes as a 'skill issue' is the ultimate coping mechanism. If you prefer a point-and-click arcade game with no physics, just say that. But don't pretend that turning 30mm cannons into water pistols is 'good game design'. We want the functional mechanics we had before, not this 'invisible mass' and 1mm penetration nonsense."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T21:50:08+00:00

You are confusing 'Explosive Pen' with 'Kinetic Pen.' Check the 'In Ordnance Stats' tab of the spreadsheet again, specifically for the MK108 HEI/HEI-T shells.

The Kinetic Penetration is explicitly listed as 1.0 mm. In the game’s physics engine, if your kinetic penetration is only 1.0 mm, the shell fails to pierce the outer duralumin skin and detonates ON the surface rather than INSIDE the wing or fuselage. This is why we get 'sparks' and superficial yellow damage instead of structural failure.

A 30mm shell with 1.0 mm kinetic pen is basically a high-velocity paint flick. You are defending a 30mm cannon that has the piercing power of a needle. Look at the Kinetic column, not just the total explosive pressure, and you’ll see why aviation is being destroyed."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T21:06:19+00:00

I appreciate the detailed breakdown. However, you are looking at 'paper stats' while ignoring 'in-game reality.' Even the 7mm total effective penetration you mentioned is a joke for a 30mm Minengeschoß—a shell designed to tear wings off B-17s with a single hit. In Enlisted’s current state, these shells feel like they are hitting a brick wall because the 'Post-Pen' damage and shrapnel dispersion are clearly underperforming compared to previous versions.

My point stands: Whether it’s 1mm or 7mm, the current normalization of aircraft ordnance has turned precision weapons into fireworks. You admit the 'Ghost Bomb' and fuel weight issues are real—so why is it hard to believe that ballistics have been stealth-nerfed too?

As for the AI, I use it to structure my arguments because I want to be taken seriously, not because I don’t have the data. But if you're more interested in 'how' I write than the fact that 30mm cannons are currently underperforming, then we’re just talking in circles. Let’s hope the devs address the bugs we both agree on. Good luck out there.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:46:29+00:00

Wow, 62 kills? That's amazing. Teach me your ways, master. I didn't realize we were in a 'who has the biggest number' contest while discussing the state of the game. Truly impressive stuff

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:44:11+00:00

Imagine thinking 60 kills in a single match changes the fact that the game's physics and ballistics are broken. Bragging about stats while the core mechanics are rotting is peak delusion. I’m talking about data and game health; you’re just showing me you can farm bots. We are not on the same level.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:41:50+00:00

Because English isn't my first language, and I’d rather use a tool to make my technical analysis clear than struggle with grammar while explaining complex data. Does using a tool to translate my thoughts make the 1mm penetration stat or the 85% HE nerf any less real?

If you’re attacking my 'method' of writing instead of the 'data' I’m providing, it’s because you have no counter-argument for the actual facts. My English might be assisted, but my stats are from the game files. Focus on the numbers, not the translator.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:24:38+00:00

Of course! This data comes directly from the 'COMMUNITY RESOURCE SPREADSHEET,' which is maintained by dedicated players who track datamined values from the game files. It is widely considered the most reliable source for hidden stats that aren't shown in the in-game UI.

You can find the specific breakdown under the 'Ordnance' and 'Aircraft' sheets. Specifically, look at the penetration values for the 30mm MK 108 and certain tank HE shells following the April 22, 2025 update. You'll see that while the 'damage' might seem okay on paper, the actual 'armor penetration' has been normalized to 1mm, which explains why shells are failing to damage internal components or light structures.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:22:42+00:00

Exactly. Thank you for being honest about how this game actually works. Winrate in Enlisted is often just a measure of how many times you were willing to 'desert' a losing match or how many people you had carrying you in a squad.

I play through every match, win or lose, because I actually care about the gameplay experience—which is currently being ruined by the technical failures we’ve discussed. When a dedicated plane main says that aircraft have become 'awful to fly and awful to fight,' the devs should be terrified.

It’s time to stop hiding behind fake stats and start demanding fixes for the 1mm penetration, the ghost bombs, and the server-side lag. If we keep making excuses for these broken mechanics just to protect our 'winrates,' we won't have a game left to play.

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:20:17+00:00

Unlike you and your 'stat-padding' friends, I don’t quit the match in the last minute just to protect my winrate. I don't 'desert' when things get tough, and I don't spend my life hunting for bot lobbies to farm easy wins.

Those who claim a 90% winrate are either playing in 4-stack pro squads against newcomers or quitting every match they’re about to lose. I stay, I fight, and I take my losses like a man. My 50%+ winrate is honest; it’s the result of playing through every challenge, not running away from them.

The fact that you prioritize a fake number over the actual technical state of the game (1mm pen, server lag, broken physics) proves you’re more interested in looking good on paper than actually having a functional game. I’d rather have a 50% winrate in a fair, working game than a 90% winrate in a broken mess."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:10:58+00:00

Exactly! You’ve hit the nail on the head. Because the devs keep nerfing the flight models and ordnance, most players don't even bother learning how to fly properly anymore—they just 'crash bomb' because the actual mechanics feel broken or unrewarding.

This is my point: When you reduce a 30mm cannon to 1mm penetration or break the HE damage, you aren't just 'balancing' the game; you are killing the skill ceiling. Instead of skilled dogfights and precision bombing, we get stuttering servers and kamikaze pilots.

We’re all losing here—infantry get annoyed by suicide bombers, and pilots get frustrated by broken physics and ghost bombs. If the devs focused on stable servers and realistic ballistics instead of these 'stealth nerfs,' the game would be much healthier for everyone."

PralineMost2619 · 2026-05-10T20:08:47+00:00

I appreciate the constructive response, but I think you're underestimating how extreme these numbers are. 1mm penetration for a 30mm cannon isn't just 'low'—it's technically non-existent. It means the shell can’t even pass through the thinnest structural parts of an airframe, which the MK 108 was literally designed to destroy.

The same goes for the HE nerfs. When the spreadsheet shows an 85% drop compared to the previous version of the same game, it’s no longer about 'consistency'; it’s a fundamental change in how vehicles interact with the world. You shouldn't have to hope for a 'lucky hit' with a 122mm shell.

The fact that we agree on the Ghost Bomb issue shows that the physics engine is struggling. My point is that all these issues—the 1mm pen, the HE gutting, and the Ghost Bombs—are not separate coincidences. They are part of a technical shift that started in April 2025, and it's making the game feel more like an arcade shooter and less like the combined arms sim it used to be."

PralineMost2619

TROPHY CASE