-how many i will be able to use ingame?
-what will happen to 10 slots per side i own
-if there will be a limit on the number of the squads i can bring into batle, can premium have unique slots and be avaiable everytime to be spawned?
-what will happen to duplicates? i will be able to run just engineer squads???, multiple assaulters? multiple troopers? etc etc?
-if you guys intend to lock a number of squad per batle (player can only bring 1 tank for example) , will premium tanks fall inside that rule?
.
suggestion:
if you guys gonna merge the squads into just 1 or 2, can you please change the words so people dont pick this in the future as “they said no squad was gonna be removed and they removed my squads” ?
Try to always balance the teams by real human players, skill, level, etc.
Don’t ruin historical settings - they are the reason many people joined Enlisted and have been supporting it financially.
Remove unhistorical BS like mkb and pz 4 F2 in Moscow because it was never there. While at it, remove T-34 from Moscow because it can’t be countered. Stop the campaigns at around level 25 to avoid fakes and OPs.
Make sure that unlocking MP-40 in one campaign unlocks it in the others.
Finally, just divide the game bot by campaigns by by Theatres:
A. Eastern Front 1941-1942 (Moscow, Leningrad maps, etc).
B. Eastern front 1943-1945 (Stalingrad, Berlin, Bagration mals, etc.)
C. Western Front 1944-1945 (Normandy, Ardennes, Cologne maps, etc.)
D. And so on.
GIVE us a reason to actually use BT-7 and T-26 instead of always sweating the T-50 and T-34 instead of REMOVING any semblance of historical weapons and vehicles.
Will there be any point in unlocking for example Axis stuff that is pre Berlin.
Because if you keep your Berlin unlocks, why should you grind for older weapons?
I hoped for what they are about to change, but Im also sad that I loose so much unlock stimulus.
I saw this already in Warthunder when they added vehicles in the lower tiers…why should I unlock those?
One way to get around this, would be by revoke all unlocks and give you additional research Points instead, which you can spend freely.
Or at least give me the option instead of forcing it on all players.
My problem isn’t being forced to play certain campaign map sets, I already play every campaign as every faction. I’m fine with not being able to specifically play Normandy Allies or Pacific Allies.
My problem is the possibility of bringing absurd gear to a campaign (Weapons, Vehicles, Uniforms).
I don’t want to see US troops with Jumbo in the Pacific, wearing Battle of the Bulge winter uniform. (Yes we don’t have Battle of Bulge [yet], just using it as extreme example)
Players should have seperate gear loadouts for each campaign (loadouts the player will set up themselves).
This way we can have faction based queues, which is great and will combine the playerbase and make matches more lively. But you will be able to retaine some level of historical accuracy by restricting what gear you can bring for a campaign.
I.E you want to play as US and use a Tanker Squad? Great, you will queue for Normandy and Pacific. You want to use Jumbo? Great, you can put a Jumbo in your Normandy loadout, but you CAN NOT put a Jumbo in your Pacific loadout. For Pacific loadout you can use something else, that makes more sense historically.
Uniforms should work this way too, only have winter type uniforms for campaigns with winter theme, etc.
you would just make game PVE… with fronts you could make 8-9 fronts with time periods.
eastern front 1941-1942
eastern front 1943-1945
western front 1939-1940
western front 1944-1945
north african front 1940-1943 (and this is could probably be split in 2 campaigns cause of 1943 weaponry)
italian campaign 1943-1945
pacific front 1941-1943
pacific front 1944-1945
and then there are “minor” fronts that can easily number over 5. going into weapon tree is something that was needed for this game to unify playerbase and to give it MM.
only thing i would have done differently was to put weapon production/service date and enable historical accuracy by matching available campaigns with selected weapons loadout.
I should have specified that the Fronts system would only allow for allies/axis selection and not specific front selection.
The Fronts would limit the time travelling: i.e. by default you have MP-40 and you are eligible to play all fronts, once you unlock Pz IV F2 you can use it in 1943-45 fronts loadout but not in the earlier ones.
But no clownfest like Tiger 2 in Moscow would even be remotely possible.
Please don’t follow through with battle-rating style matchmaking. Enlisted had its historical inaccuracies but a large part of why I started playing this game and left War Thunder was because I could play in a semi-authentic representation of different battles across different years. Decisions such as introducing the M24 and the M4A3E2 into Normandy, and the MkB 42(H) into Moscow were obvious faults but the game still had restrictions on what you’d expect to face in whatever battle you selected in the menu, with bolt-actions and SMGs being prevalent in Moscow and Tunisia, early assault rifles in Berlin and Normandy, and vehicles being where they were supposed to be for the most part.
Complete historical accuracy will never be met as weapons and vehicles were developed to outcompete those of opposing sides but do not throw away what little we currently have. The changes to the progression is fantastic as it allows you to introduce side-grades to weapons like the M1A1/M1A2 carbine to the US with a different rear sight/appearance for paratrooper squads, and bypassing power creep that locks additions of say the SVT-40 into Moscow because the AVS-36 was introduced at some point before the current level. I heavily disagree with adding battle-ratings to the mix though.
I appreciate the restrictions currently in place that lock specific vehicles/weapons to campaigns as they are what have kept me in this game since the CBT, seeing Panzer IV Js and Hs in maps set 2 years before their inception because of their in-game performance differences to the Panzer IV F-2s in Moscow that are already bad enough would honestly be enough to make me leave.
First of all, I like the idea of a weapon grind system where you can chose what to grind. That being said, I am a little confused and worried about some parts of this changes and have questions on some:
Historical accuracy is, at least for me, an important part of the expierience. To have a kingtiger in Afrika or a IS II already in Moscow would literally kill the fun out og the game for me and for most of my friends.
On the other hand, if you matchmake according to equipment and also chose the maps according to it, that would mean, that if I heve completly grinded Normady and almost Berlin, that I will never again get a Moscow or Tunisia map offered, as my weapons are from a later period / higher rank.??? That would be another thing to kill the fun.
Captured weapons, adapted weapons. What will happen e.g to Suomi smg or pps smg, which German Soldiers used only at the eastern front but not in Africa or Normandy?!
Premium Squads. How will it work with premium squads? Some can’t be used e.g in Africa, as they did not exist. Same about camos of vehicles, unlocked through gold vehicle cards?? Will we see Africa camo in Russia? Or loose the 5 Star vehicles we grinded or bought (battle pass)??
Squad slots. I for my part have bought 10 squad slots in every campaign I have played. How will it be in the new system? Do I have no 50 slots for germany (5x campaignes 10 slots each) and 10 for the USA (10 slots from the pacific campagne). Or do I have 10 overall and how will i be compensated for the money I paid for these slots that I can’t use anymore, its approx. 50€ per campaign.???
So i would highly appreciate if you could clarify some of these points for me. Thx.
Ok, this is probably some crazy idea, but hear me out.
What if we divided all campaigns into for example two sets of campaigns. Set A: Berlin, Tunesia …, set B: Moscow, Pacific …
Now we could say, on Monday you can only play campaigns from set A, next day only from set B. Like a campaign rotation.
I mean, there is virtually noone who playes exclusively a single campaign, so this would only be a minor inconvenience for the players.
You could make this system even more interesting by adding more sets, that even overlapp, or even change over time. Possibilities are countless.
This would more or less solve the issue with the fragmented playerbase.
Please, Keo forward this idea to the devs and at least think once about it, before you turn the whole game upside down.
