this is my thought, but creating a separate campaign for about two maps at a time is killing the game, the current development includes adding 2 campaigns a year
last year they were berlin and tunisia
this year they are stalingrad and guadalcanal
next year probably Kursk and Bastogne
following the order of one with Soviet and one with American
speaking honestly, the playerbase cannot support all these campaigns that additionally have one or two maps for months and months after release, and this shows that not even the development team is able to support all these campaigns by slowing down the development of the game, to this time we should already have things promised a year ago that due to slowdowns due to the absurd enlargement of the game have not yet arrived, in my opinion if we do not want to find ourselves next year with 8 campaigns more than half of the new content copy and paste and a number of new maps between two to four, we should write a nice letter to the development team (or via keofox) to let them know that we prefer to see first what we currently have on our hands done and finished, than new content half done.
I don’t think we should getting Americans or Brits in Germany, at least not until they can find a way to not spread the German playerbase to the point of breaking which IMO it already has, but that is besides the point. I would much prefer we get something like Okinawa or Burma, maybe even replace the Soviet campaign with a pacific one to keep the German playerbase from fracturing even more. Also, Kursk doesn’t really work in the same way El Alemein doesn’t work, and since they turned that down, I don’t think Kursk will a campaign any time soon.
We are fortunate if after guadalcanal they do sevastopol [romanian vs soviet] but knowing the developers the next one after the Japanese is leningrad, anyway the point is 2 campaign every year and in 2 year the playerbase is so fractured and the game development is so slow down that only masochist keep play
Yeah, odds are they add Leningrad as copy paste Moscow, Warsaw as a copy of Berlin or something dumb like that, but one can dream. Sevastopol might be interesting if it is only Romanians, but even then there is going to be a lot of copy and paste.
At least no german, i dont have problem with copypasted weapon in the tree for longer the grind but playing as german soldier with the same uniform and skin for 4 campaign is exausting, tunisia for this is a fresh air with italian and brits
I think releasing any new campaign would be bad idea: fragmenting even more the barely enough playebase would result more “me and a lame company of bots” kind of battles that everyone hates.
Expanding the present campaigns with more maps could work better. For example at Stalingrad we have the city center but there are many iconic locations missing from the game: the factories, the grain elevator or Gumrak/Pitomnik airports.
Personally I would love a new pacific campaign and maybe one more but…
Dude, the game is dead. Playerbase is spread thinner than a mayo on a sandwich, grind is atrocious, prices are overblown (ie. 45 euros for a prem squad/vehicle LOL), implementation is lacking , game interface looks like it’s 2005, developers are lazy and/or incompetent and on top of that the game itself trolls you ( the booster “situation”/daily rewards ) and with “updates” being further and further apart. And also the silent nerfing of stuff. And let’s not forget the russian bias, comrades!!
I mean what can we expect from a developer who cannot keep accurate patch notes ffs? They got ahold of some little money and they think they got it made and don’t realize that the game is slipping out from under them faster then they can nerf stuff. Too much snow probably.
Everything you said here could be applied to numerous other games, especially gatcha mobile games. Why would anyone buy 500 dollars worth of coins to spend on gambling for a rare skin? The fact is, Enlisted is one of the least monetized free to play games that has come out recently.
Comparing it to games like Warships, the Enlisted grind and prices for things is very competitive and has more value to the consumer.
You also can not for sure say if the playerbase is too spread out without any sort of daily player statistics or any statistics about how many people play what campaign at what time.
Dude the point is
to much campaign=splitting to much player
And result in faction beign abbandoned like axis moscow + the development slow down for give something to each campaign in every update
Neither, would work because it would split the Soviet or German playerbase respectively, and both of those playerbases are quite split already. Pacific is the only real option as the American playerbase is stuck in Normandy with a few playing Tunisia, and no Japanese campaign.
If you actually played a lot of games on Moscow every single day, all day, like I do, then you will see that it can look bad for one side or not based on your sample size(how many battles you play) It is fairly even, but sometimes there are 3 man squads that ruin non squaded teams. Sometimes, those players who squad stay on a faction for a day and can skew people’s perception of the balance of teams and a faction
