Although I appreciate the Q&A, at least answer most important questions actually being asked, not space fillers…
Such as:
Will you give people who want to play the game on a specific campaign in customs the opportunity to earn XP? (Some of us don’t like the proposed randomness to our battles)
What is the penalty for desertion going to be?
How will customization work in new update? I have spent gold ensuring my troops look how I want… but if it’s desert map will uniform change?
I dont know who wasted more time… the person that wrote that list of pointless Q&A, or me reading and then responding to it?
I so want to like this game and keep playing, but DF are making it so difficult to care anymore.
Intersting that there are nearly no real questions are about BR system
Why is it balanced?
Because its balanced and most players are not whales.
Sure, whatever.
Jesus. Not even single squad for Soviets? Lazy .
Q: Will the Soviets face the Japanese whether in Khalkin Gol, Lake Khasan, Manchuria, Sakhalin or Kuril Islands?
Q: Any plans to introduce summer uniforms for Soviets or winter uniforms for US?
As for the BR system, it seems nothing answered about it as this was designed with only vehicles in mind considering the system in War Thunder despite some real egregious examples like R3, PT-76, BTR-80A, etc in WWII era BRs. Small arms are not like tanks where an STG holder can still be killed with a bolt action rifle or a pistol.
Do it, do it, do it!
apparently in russian version of the qna paratroopers question was about them being part of the general progression
Give them all slots unlocked. That will be enough.
Ussr paras asap please, or you need to think about excluding german lineups with paras from fighting the soviets until this is balanced.
While it is always good news to see some Q&A, the lack of questions about the latest progression rework proposal is worrying, and some answers are just moronic:
As others pointed out, this was a big discussion at one time. Like, the MAIN discussion for an entire week. If anything, if you don’t see leaning as an issue, is because at this point discussion has shifted to even bigger issues (ahem progression rework ahem).
Wtf. Like, there is no reason to do this. Just add F2P paratroopers why block an entire type of Squad?
That’s basically a non-argument. How is the game “unbalanced” if F2Ps get a second vehicle slot? If anything, I’d be in favor of making the standard be 3 infantry, 1 ground and 1 air slot, with premium being 4 (or 5) infantry, 2 ground and 2 air. Locking vehicle slots to ground and air prevents multi-tank spam and gives players the flexibility to use planes when needed (right now almost every F2P would pick tanks because they are more generally useful).
Again, glad to see a Q&A after so long, but we really need to address the bigger issues and give better argumentation other than “yeh pay us for slots and buy our paratrooper premiums”.
I disagree. I prefer currently how Premiums are just like any other squad added to our collection that we have to choose to add to our lineup. I’ve never viewed Premiums as P2W, sometimes you just feel like playing them just like how sometimes I feel like playing Sniper. Yes I know theoretically it would just be one extra slot but
I just like the current system as is
adding a second slot to f2ps wont bring them more money from people buying premiums, easy
Huh Even better because then you need to play events or simply buy them to own one.
ikr
Still waiting to see any answers about better balancing defensive mechanics and fortifications.
There are many of us that came to the game because of the promise of strategic gameplay, not just run-and-gun like Call of Duty. However, as it currently stands, it seems like it is drifting further and further away from a game that values strategic gameplay.
Even smaller changes like the recent removal of double stacking sandbags. I understand that there was an exploit that some people were using with it, HOWEVER, taking it out completely and not giving players a chance to make decent cover or fortify MG nests in a FAIR manner seems absolutely ridiculous to myself and others!
Especially when you even mention that the MG nest is used considerably less.
Building them faster and letting them angle more to the sides is great and all, but major issues are still there.
ONLY the American MG nests can angle down, meaning all the others are almost useless if they are put in a 2nd floor window or higher.
Without the ability to stack sandbags, the sides of the MG nest are always exposed, making it incredibly easy to kill the player or break the MG.
A single bullet hitting the gun breaks it. So again, without being able to put sandbags beside it, a spray in its general direction will normally break it.
A fortified MG nest is a really good reason to take a sniper. However, right now snipers are only really taken when players are actually sitting back sniping. Otherwise they are just passed over for more automatic weapons.
OVERALL
My summed up questions are as follows:
Do the developers care about making the game incorporate strategic elements going forward, or just run- and- gun elements?
Will there be better mechanics implemented for defense side getting an opportunity to play strategically and fortify ahead of time?
As engineers are a staple in every squad, and more squads are getting unique structures, will the ENGINEER squads themselves be getting better defensive fortification variants to make them a worthwhile squad to take?
Have the devs considered giving the currently existing MG nest to Engineer 1 squad, and a windowed sandbag version to Engineer 2 squad instead?
Will the devs be bringing back the ability to stack sandbags?
Regarding the AA guns, there has been a lot of chatter about the damage against aircraft no longer being viable. Do the devs plan on fixing this?
Given that several campaigns now have SPAAs, as well as HMG options, plus the old model of AA has been changed out for single barrel versions, Will you be adding the ability to aim down to the ground with the AAs (autocannons)?
Since they won’t beat HMGs against infantry, and won’t beat AT field guns against tanks, there is no longer a claim that they will be “Overpowered” as an offensive structure.
i’m not sure if we are allowed to " debate " or not.
but…
half of this game it’s not historical.
i don’t see why add customization for weapons ( as long are realistic. for example rags, engraved marks of kills / names / places / campaign ) just to make a few bucks isn’t going to be a thing.
but literally putting prototype that never saw combat is ok.
Except, also in other battles it’s arguable important to learn from other players, get cool cinematic in times and above all ( more for personal use )
allow PVEs to take place and let another team spectate.
which it’s great…
but still no medals on the chest ? 
but for the rest, more or less, it’s all good to hear.
and i definitely can’t wait for:
and you get all my praises 
.
what do you mean by that lovely fox?
i’m glad you liked it 
( it was kinda hard to put the lights on the opel accurately haha )
Thanks for the rewind!
But please bring back Vertical movement of camera 
And Fixed cam for vehicles would be nice
I do not like this and I think it’s unhealthy for the game.
I’m so disappointed. It seems that you people don’t even have a decent long-term plan for the game at all.
You didn’t answer the question, is it that hard to give old GO-soldiers max stat?
Sure, but what can you expect if the reporting system that Enlisted uses right now is worthless?
I agree that there should be a global chat, a group chat and a general team chat (like the current one), but first fix the problem with the reporting system.
