Clausewitz wrote, “Defense is a strong but passive form of warfare, and it is only necessary to use it when the power is weak and requires it”
This raises the question of why in Enlisted, the defenders are the ones with unlimited manpower? Shouldn’t they consume enemy forces with as little manpower as possible?
(Taking the eastern front battlefield as an example, the German army quickly divided and surrounded the enemy through Blitzkrieg in the early stage to wipe out the Soviet army’s effective forces;
In the later stage, the German army lacked manpower and used flexible defense, relying on fortifications, attempting to gradually deplete the Soviet army.)
In the BF series, attackers have more vehicles to balance the game, because everyone knows a truth: defense is easier than attack, with fortifications and terrain advantages, and shorter supply lines, so it is necessary to strengthen the attackers.
I’m curious why Enlisted doesn’t do it?
The current game mechanics often make attackers less inclined to attack at any cost and instead use vehicles and snipers to save manpower; On the contrary, the defending side often leaves the fortifications and advances to attack the enemy. Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse?
I am thinking that perhaps the attacking team should have more manpower, but they can only win by attacking all strategic points within the specified time (or exhausting the defending team’s manpower); The defenders have less (limited )manpower, but as they hold on longer, they will receive reinforcements.
And defenders had some time to build fortifications before the battle begins!
These are some of my immature ideas. I hope everyone can put forward their own opinions and have a friendly discussion. Thank you.
I dont like the implications of “unlmited” manpower or tickets. Its the thing I like least about the Invasion mode.
Im all for different resource pools, just not unlimited.
I think battlefield had different ideas like attackers started with tanks and defenders didnt until 2nd capture point, and planes came later (BF 1?). I much prefered this form of allocation.
But yes, There have been many suggestions on this type of dynamic, I made one a while back borrowing some of these ideas, but yeah. There is a split opinion on the forums of which team has the advantage, and each side of the argument thinks the other inept.
personally I am more of the red orchestra 2 style, Tickets depend on how well you have attacked the previous point, defenders and attackers have tickets and certain points (like Grain elevator) cut all tickets in certain points @Conscript_Joe you know what im talking about
I like the prep phase before the battle starts idea, It would soften the joining the battle a few minutes later than others thing that happens. I think limiting defenders tickets somehow is interesting I do wonder how it would play out in game. I honestly feel like most games I’ve lost as an attacker did’nt have much to do with unlimited spawns for defense though and more to do with numbers of actual players playing the objectives being unequal on the two teams.
In my experience as a defender, against a powerful enemy, it is possible to wear them down with desperate, constant attacks, and sometimes even to turn the tables on them
I agree with you completely, I think both can be true. A solid defense can damage the other unlisted team resource that is player morale lol. If you have 5 guys constantly attacking and your defense causes 1 or 2 to say I’m done with this and switch to sniper or pilot or even desert the match entirely. You can really feel it when the team gives up, you go from leading the charge maybe to being the only one leaving the spawn.
I dunno I mean I have seen that same scenario on confrontation mode where defenders do have limited tickets, usually team collapse happens after failing on the first objective waaay before ticket drain is a concern.
true. But its taking a while for players to cotton on to how to play that mode. Can easily bleed a team out while appearing to be losing caps. Attrition warfare…I love it. balanced, both sides have the exact same tools, rules at their disposal. Managing it comes into play in a big way.
Oh yeah I think it’s my favorite gamemode the more I think about it. Engineers and tanks really shine in that mode when the two sides really dig in and keep the fight between the same 2 obj. I like to really fortify up in those cases its a lot of fun to build stuff like at guns because they stay in a good spot most of the match. Like you said attrition becomes big thing, so I guess the limited tickets for everyone is a big part of why i like that mode.
I think the system is fine. Your capability to take an objective has less to do with the defense’s “unlimited resources” and more with the quality of your team or the flow of the battle. Sometimes Defenders are the ones getting curb stomped. Sometimes you just have a not so good offensive
The reality is that currently, defensive fortifications just don’t hold. They get destroyed far too easily and it leads to them getting slaughtered in bulk on most objectives. Which is why they have unlimited tickets.
If the issue of weak fortifications and lack of a chance to fortify objectives adequately (show where ALL objectives are to defenders via the map at all times), then I could possibly get behind your suggestion. However, as it is currently, that will have to be a very hard NO.
I disagree. Fortification isn’t main parameter while defending. And if you relying only on them, it’s no wonder you are not good defender.
Camping behind one sandbang wasn’t even thing irl, you have to constantly changing position, be active. Retreat and attack again, that’s what real defense is. Lure enemy into trap, annihilate them and then take your position back. Not really reflected in Enlisted. Confrontation is closest to it.
It’s really good thing gameplay wise there’s not really bug difference between attackers/defenders in enlisted.
It would completely boring if defenders would be getting more kill from mines than their primary weapons. That’s not what this game should be. Passive gameplay is not healthy for the game. Hiding behind nearly indestructible fortifications and shooting through ultra small hole isn’t good way.
In reality you would be completely knocked out from combat after shelling such position, bleeding from your eyes, ears and so on.
Even current way too fast gameplay is eay better than your imagination of perfect defense. It would extremely ntoxic for anyone who do not enjoy play in this manner.
I still think defending is more easier than attacking. You just need to know what to do.
And building fortification shouldn’t be the most significant part of defending, never. Being active should be always more rewarding.
Fortification should be always used only in the support manner, your whole defense should never rely mainly on them.
In my experience there are some places on certain maps where its very easy to mount a great defense.
Take Stalingrad corner shops as an example, its not uncommon to see attackers bleed dry 800+ tickets in that one cap point.
At least if defenders could run out of reinforcements (even if only until that one objective is captured) that would make games a little more dynamic and a bit more exciting for defenders as well.
Solid defenses that made attempts to take it absolute hell.
Tell that to the MG nests of D-Day that slaughtered hundreds each.
The lines of barbwire HAD TO BE BROKEN THROUGH before the Americans even made it to the bunkers.
The beach was the hardest part to get past!
Yet in game, its rarely an issue. The beach usually doesn’t see many losses for attackers. There is rarely any issue for them to get a rally point down and bypass the beach entirely. Due to lack of players able to intelligently cover the flanks, the bunkers get flanked with ease.
Additionally, all the bunkers just HAPPEN to have a big giant hole blasted in them for attackers to flood through!
So even the most “heavily defended” scenario in the game doesn’t offer much defensive difficulty against attackers.
Completely made up BS not related to defender/attacker differences.
It’s all because merican faction is still in favor of better players currently.
I remember few months back, when Normandy allies were filled only with casuals. Not a single time they make it out of beach.
You’re being just intellectually dishonest.
(Btw. It’s really surprising tight corridor is easier to defend on D-day map than vast aread with lot of flanking options. But it doesn’t have to do anything with premade defenses. Defense is not a line in enlisted. That’s why it is easier defend later points it’s not because your sandbags are destroyed by pretty much any explosion)
And what’s problem? Do you want realism? I would drop one bomb on such bunker and everyone inside would be completely unusable, if not dead.
Plus non-flexible defense will always fail. That’s why slaughter on beach wasn’t something exceptional. Mericans predicted they will lose lot of soldiers.
D-day defense wasn’t a good defense. And it wasn’t successful one neither.
And if you think being defender is more difficult than being attacker. You just don’t know how to defend and you are not good at it. Sorry, but that’s reality check for you.
ofcourse made possible by having unlimited manpower.
it’s not because your sandbags are destroyed by pretty much any explosion)