Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

0.7.4. New Misconduct Punishment System - Why Not For Airfields?

1 comment in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,109 posts
17,295 battles


I just read the news item titled "Battle Discipline" about the revised misconduct sanctions. Regarding the definition of inactivity, aircraft carriers are specifically exempt from the 'distance travelled' criterion.


I have to confess this is a bit disappointing since it rewards the misguided assumption that aircraft carriers don't need to move in the game, while it is generally regarded as a crass tactical mistake by any more advanced player whose opinion I know.


If Wargaming want to reinforce that kind of behaviour, then they should introduce fixed airfields or air bases as a separate class of units. This would also be an opportunity to introduce whole different classes of planes, like multi-engined 'horizontal' bombers, reconnaissance planes etc., however ineffectual they may be. There are already prepared runways on many maps so the airfield players could just "move in" with some squadrons, logistical unites etc. Or this might even make an interesting crossover with World of Warplanes. Whatever.


But as far as aircraft carriers go, they should not be exempt. They should be forced to move, even if it is just a little bit. You could reduce the threshold, compared to the other ship types. But please do not reward this kind of play.

  • Cool 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.