So, outside complains and crying, what is your suggestion?
Merging every campaign and making it rating based sounds like a very bad idea for the Japanese faction imo. Like… Armor and weapon wise… They’re lacking somehow… True it is mentioned that certain rating will represent certain time period, but im afraid i might see a rating compression soon where tigers feast on shermans and crusaders in tunisia (the only surviving tiger is captured in africa iirc) just coz the allied infantry is kitted with thompsons and BAR’s. Or Japanese seeing shermans, or even the sherman crocs. Or even seeing a king tiger in normandy mowing down every armor it sees. Me personally? Would be very excited for that, its semi-historical. But people would complain about it and call out balance. (even tho allied strong suit is supposed to be their CAS that represent their air superiority, personal opinion) It would be great to have different characteristics to each faction like german with their armor, russian with their derpy guns and tons of rockets, the allied with their explosive galore CAS, and well… idk what to say for the japanese, amphibious tactics maybe? Isn’t that much more interesting than just making everything “level” with a rating to make it “balanced” while making every faction feels the same? This is my first time writing things, and im really sorry if it’s a bit much and hard to comprehend. I just love this game and want it to stay fun, challenging and realistic.
BANZAAAAI!
I already wrote my suggestion earlier in post.
Which is add season where you for week or two get incresaed xp in a specific campaign, and get bonus unique squads, weapons, cosmetics for that campaign to sweeten the deal. Then have more mini events for dates of specific battles where you get xp and cosmetics rewards to sweeten it.
That way you create rotation in the game and all are on one campaign increasing the number of players able to match against. that way you can play whatever campaign you feel like, but most will play the current season campaign because boosted progression and cosmetics/weapons/vehicles as cherry on top to make it feel interesting and worth it.
My suggestion is to NOT break and ruin the whole concept of the game but improve on it instead.
This new concept of a game is a completely different game, more like War Thunder which is a cesspool of garbage.
Constantly having to up and down their made up battle rating based on conceptual strength of vehicles/weapons and peoples rating with them, which is flawed to say the least.
a certain campaign with what weapons/vehicles tech they had there at certain time and point in history removes all this stupid nonsense.
You add what was available 1941 to battle of moscow and that’s it. no need to keep adjusting and spending time on made up battle rating.
At it’s core it’s terrible since it completely ruins the concept of the game, which is play battle of Stalingrad and use what squads/weapons/vehicles they had facing of against what they faced right there and then. Immersed in a historic event feeling like you get a chance at history.
1 Like
- I dont want to research 5 mp40
- I dont want to have 2 different progressions for 1 period
- I dont want to lose my t-50
- I dont want to play full against MKb/Ferdorov squads
- I dont want to see WP spam
- I dont want to see unequipped noobs in my team
- I dont want to research 50% of the game
Your suggestion doesn’t solve any of these problems.
And they are solved by new system.
You made me think of another question for the devs during Q&A!
- Since I DID research mp40 5 times… will I be credited “research xp” for the 4 additional times I did?
That would be great 
New system won’t solve this thought. It will be meta oriented, so we WILL see much WP spam, entire TEAMS of mkb Fedov users if we use even 1 of those, or unequipped noobs if we use low tier stuff.
I’m curious how that will be, that mm.
1 Like
- This needs to be solves in another way. as in unlock in one campaign is unlock in all german, a tech tree behind all campaigns.
- This is same as 1.
- why would you?
- You want? that ain’t a arguement
- Much you don’t want huh
- no one likes that, and the suggestion i provided would help with that
- this game is all about research.
none of your points are valid nor has anything to do with what, and certainly does not warrant a changing of the game to it’s core.
1 Like
I dont use mkbs and fedorovs, I use bolties
Because I spent gold order for it?
If you want it simple: I want computer game to be fair and fun, not suffering with mp40, kar98 and pzIII J against ppsh, svt40 and t34 because it is historically accurate.
Throw away every gun you ever got
Opposite.
Weapons will probably be worth more than what you obtain through selling them.
Because currency will change with update, and last time there was a weapon upgrade those who had a lot made “money” (bronze).
You’re better up STOCKING Weapons.
Especially since we don’t know how restricting mm will be.
1 Like
Historical accuracy may not be a “yes or no” question, and some sort of historical accuracy do not necessary make the game not “fun and balanced”. For example T-34, PPSH and SVT-40 in Moscow is not balanced, but they appear in Stalingrad is balanced and almost historical accurate, with counterpart having Panzer IV G, MKB42, and ZH-29.
However, Tiger and IS-2 in Moscow is inaccurate, and do not make the game more “fun and balanced”. So as I mentioned, add “Weapon only appear in map which battle happened after its year of production” as a flexible constraint is a solution to keep the game historical nearly accurate but not leading to less balanced. If the player count is too small, flexible constraint means it can be manually disabled or automatically disabled after certain queuing time.
2 Likes
But these aren’t historically accurate, especially ZH-29.
This is what
and
mean. For a game, “fun and balanced” is the major objective function, but we try to make it accurate to attract more player with different demand, so we should not “abandon” historical accuracy but achieve it in a flexible and compromised way, to satisfy both “fun and balanced” and almost “historical accurate”.
In the other words, the game developers are not necessarily historians and a game is never perfectly accurate, the point to make the game historical accurate is to satisfy more players. So my solution
is to make a “fun and balanced” game more “historical accurate”, not reversed.
That’s why I hope such system would be implemented:
1 Like
In case anyone missed this one like I did:
Keofox suggests those who want actual WW2 content in this game to not play the upcoming fantasy-WW2 main game and go organize custom games instead, proving that actual WW2 is popular
(G-translate. download = grind; online of such rooms = player count of such lobbies)
Yeah can’t wait to spend my free time proving to developers that I have been playing and financially supporting the project which will have abandoned the exact concept I liked it for.
13 Likes
But we also have this answer form helper:
1 Like
Darkflow, there are some additional suggestions and requests I’d like to submit:
-
Could we please have the ability to logout/login to our accounts on the PC version without having to quit the game in the same way we can with War Thunder?
-
Would it be possible to allow us to play the PC version using our PlayStation Network and Xbox Live accounts in the same way we can with War Thunder?
-
Do you plan on improving underwater visual effects?
-
Could you please add the ability for players to use their sidearms while swimming at the water’s surface?
-
Would you be able to implement squad commands for players who are on-foot while their AI squadmates are operating vehicles (e.g. attack position, defend position, need pick-up, and ability to set multiple waypoints for vehicle movement)?
-
Could we please get a drop down menu when right-clicking a position on the map that has commands/requests for teammates such as “Request airstrike at this position”, “Request artillery barrage at this position”, “Converge on this position”, etc.?
-
It’d be helpful if friendly vehicles were displayed on the mini-map/full map at all times the same way friendly infantry are.
-
Since there is no friendly fire in Squads mode, could you please change the map color coding of incoming friendly bomber and artillery blast radius’ from red to blue?
-
It’d be really handy if players had the ability to request healing, medical supply crates, vehicle/equipment repairs, and spotting of enemy positions from both teammates and squadmates.
-
If a weapon has a bayonet equipped at the main menu, could we please have the ability to remove/affix the bayonet in the match (with weapon handling being affected)?
-
Would it be possible to get authentic sheaths for the various bladed weapons? Also, it would be really nice for the blade and sheath to be visible on the soldier when not in use (especially swords), and even better if players could control the direction of the swing when in use.
3 Likes
I agree with you.
In a sense, it is true to historical fact that at a certain point, the Japanese army lost most of its weapons against the U.S. tanks and moved to suicide attacks using landmines.
It is also historically true that German Tigers and Panthers mowed down most of the American tanks on the Western Front. In the historical past, the U.S. Army rarely thought of destroying German tanks in tank battles, and the Sherman existed solely as a tank for supporting infantry, and when the Tigers and Panthers appeared, they were dealt with by close air support. It has several excellent CAS aircraft for this purpose. This is a unique asymmetric structure that is replicated in the current Normandy campaign.
I believe that asymmetry is one of the game’s most appealing features. If the characteristics of each faction set up for each campaign could be unified and expanded more for each nation, I think this game would be more palatable. Perhaps the fun of cultivating factions would also increase.
2 Likes
some huge maps with like 20 cap points would be awesome! and would make half tracks, troop carriers and strategy more important.
4 Likes
Thanks so much feedback comrades, now we going to analyse it c:
9 Likes