Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
User avatar
Michael_Z_Freeman
Posts: 82
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 16:37

Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Michael_Z_Freeman »

Image

I was reading about the Tetrarch. I had the impression from BK gameplay that it could outmanoeuvre german tanks even if it was outclassed by them, but it seems that this never actually happened even though I suspect its what the tank designers were thinking of. I can sort of "swarm" them around german tanks in BK and they can be quite effective. Reading about this I found the M22 Locust that saw even less combat then the Tetrarch. Only 20 Tetrarchs got to the battlefield and even less in combat. Only 4 of the M22's saw combat but I wonder if the tank could be included as some kind of later game upgrade in order to have a light tank with somewhat better armour.

Consti255
Posts: 1155
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Consti255 »

Model,reason, why brits and not US?

I think the Tetrach is enough and the Locus armor is similar.
No reason for it.
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Michael_Z_Freeman
Posts: 82
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 16:37

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Michael_Z_Freeman »

Consti255 wrote:
18 Jul 2021, 16:05
Model,reason, why brits and not US?

I think the Tetrach is enough and the Locus armor is similar.
No reason for it.
If you'd read what I linked you'd know the British ordered this tank from the Americans.

So, I disagree. The Tetrarch is very weak against german armour. They can be used in interesting ways, but an M22 would make it even more interesting because of slightly better armour.

Consti255
Posts: 1155
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Consti255 »

talking about a 10mm difference of armor in BK is kinda unnessesary.
Also the gun difference are the same. There will no sicnificant diffrence between the 2 pounder or 37mm m6.
If you want more penetration, you should go for the little jon adapters for the tetrachs.

Your reason you brougth up isnt a gameplay reason it is just a "it would be cool if we had this unit".
There is no balancing issue with tetrachs or desprite need of this unit.

Also, do you got a working model? Devs wont doing models so this unit will never be implemented without a model.
You can read further instructions about model request right here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Michael_Z_Freeman
Posts: 82
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 16:37

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Michael_Z_Freeman »

Yes they are minimal differences but the M22 could be like the little john adapter upgrade but you get a different tank. The M22 was designed specifically for delivery by glider so it could have a quicker build time for example. In my understanding of this doctrine play tactics, at least the way I play it, the light tanks have a certain type of tactics that could benefit from a new feature such as this. But if it does not fit into what the BK devs are doing, then that's fine. As to the model, well I'm always improving my Blender skills ;)

Consti255
Posts: 1155
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Consti255 »

I am not strickly against asding new models,
But what i can tell is that adding a new model or unit into the game often has serious impact on balancing.

If you are willing to add this unit quick tipps:

- Make the model,present it how good it is. ( animations,performance impact and so on)

- choose a better reason why it should be included. Your recent is still it would be cool.
There is no need of a unit right now since we have the tetrach and the little jons.
Nerf Mencius

User avatar
Michael_Z_Freeman
Posts: 82
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 16:37

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Michael_Z_Freeman »

Nah. You just won't consider what I've written. No where do I say "it would be cool". I was describing a way to fit it into the tech tree. Take my suggestion seriously or F off.

Consti255
Posts: 1155
Joined: 06 Jan 2021, 16:12
Location: Germany

Re: Inclusion of M22 Locust in British Airborne doctrine

Post by Consti255 »

Nop. Its not a gameplay reason.
What does the Locust better than Tetrach? WHY do we NEED the Locust as a unit?
Devs gonna say tell us GAMEPLAY reasons.

"I wonder if the tank could be included as some kind of later game upgrade in order to have a light tank with somewhat better armour."
This is not a gameplay reason for the 10. time... You even write it: I WONDER. Man get real, its just a wow it would be cool if i could build a M22 a light tank with better armor. You dont even consider balance effects of this unit. Your not better than the people which wants the maus. I wonder if the maus could included into the late stages of the game for a swap out with the Jagdtiger so you habe a heavy tank with somewhat better armour?
Its the same reason. IT WOULD BE COOL IF WE CAN ADD THIS ........ UNIT.
There is a reason why the Devs dont even answer about your thread, it is just another model request without anything. (no model,no gameplay reason, no balancing effects, etc.)

Examples why we dont need the m22 Locust:

We NEED a light tank which come via air glider = Tetrach 2 Pounder
We NEED a light tank with a better gun to kill maybe mediums or flank heavys via glider = Tetrach Little John
We NEED a light tank which works like a infantry support vehicle = Tetrach 76mm howitzer

We got 3 different fucking Tetrachs in the game and you even named it only 20 of them where even used.
Also there is a reason why the Tetrach gets damaged by AA canons to prevent cheese with gliders near the base.
Adding a M22 with somewhat the armor of a stuart would be a nightmare to balance.
The game and Devs don need another broken model with bugs, performance and desync issues which will be balanced awful.

If you want to get this unit inculded. Build a good model, get a gameplay reason, point out the balance effects.
I dont know why i even discussing it with you. You dont even have a model which is the first step for requestion new units...
If you are not willing to do that, i am asking the Devs to close this thread.
Nerf Mencius

Post Reply