I would like if the game at least tries to keep some HA with maps and BR while keeping the game fun for everyone because it really brings in the immersions
2 Likes
the game has zero HA and its been that way for a long time
1 Like
idk I think the weapons and vehicles are somewhat historical and the names of maps/campaigns being related to ww2 makes it historical as well to a certain point. if it wasn’t they wouldnt care about prototype weapons like how WOT is
2 Likes
No.
You go find another ball to not get so hurt over other people’s opinions.
Also, can you read?
3 Likes
They’re putting out WW2 stuff, they are clearly still interested in WW2.
Just because you are personally not interested in WW2 prototypes and blueprint stuff. It doesn’t mean those things aren’t part of WW2 history.
The problem is not with devs. But with your purist view of WW2.
As for the BRs not reflecting the Year of War.
Well it’s obvious that BRs are primarily built on power level balance. So unless you want to have high performing last ditch weapons (with stats not reflecting theirs historical performance), the two concepts just don’t go together.
Developers just started prioritizing game balance more than HA with release of merge.
And there is literally no solution that can solve this problem, other than the game getting totally outclassed again. Which is extremely unlikely.
I’m not even talking about the fact that you have a completely obvious double standard.
Otherwise, you’d have deserted literally every low BR match already just because of the fact that it’s full of late war vehicles/weapons.
But you don’t, othereise you wouldn’t be able to play the game for quite some time already.
The opposite scenario on other hand, in which late war maps are on low BRs, that bothers you terribly and you’ll desert every game because of it. What a pathetic hypocrisy.
1 Like
Adding a proper map preference system would let me to improve my chances to play in Tunisia - adding Berlin to low BR reduces it.
Adding what @WidowMakerUk73-psn suggested (BR + theatre) or what I suggested earlier would allow me to use SVTs in Moscow where I grinded hard to unlock them just to get merged and get practically removed from there right afterwards. (Poor me.)
This is not HA, this is simple my preferences for gameplay that was there before and there’s no reason not to wish to get it back.
Let me set up my squads for multiple BRs (and maybe with theatre-specific equipment for HA fans), add a proper map preference system with battle theatres and preferred BRs and then my Moscow + Tunisia BR 1 - 3 Axis/Allies lineup will be plenty of choices for the matchmaker.
While there - I don’t think it’s stupid to wish multiple loadouts available in-game. When attacking I’d prefer smoke grenades, when defending that’s mostly pointless. I’d just right click on my squad and switch between the loadouts, maybe limited to only one change per squad per match.
5 Likes
We already had it. It was called campaign system and it led to imbalanced matches with plenty of bots. Far worse situation than now.
No, thank you. To implement proper “preference system” is to go back where we literally already have been. And it was not a healthy place to be in.
Just deal with th3 fact this game is based around MM system, it is not server based one like ARMA or HLL for example. You won’t ever be able to play only the maps you like - outside of customs.
I would rather have ±0 MM than some totally artificial limitations based around maps.
1 Like
For one, did I ask “to play only the maps I like outside of customs”?
I said map preference system. I want to be able to tell our holy MM what I want to play, and expect that it will try and may fail. Right now I CAN’T tell my preferences. (Or if I can I can’t switch easily after 3 matches to pacific Jap/US.)
For the “we already had it” - we definitely did not have it. We had split tech trees to be researched repeatedly, we had totally unbalanced weaponry without BRs, and players gathering on the winning side with braindead bots on the other.
Current situation is better, and these suggestions don’t feel like going back. You’re correct that if the map preference system is a forced one and the multi-BR squad setup is not implemented then it will be splitting the playerbase again. My current “BR2 / Join any” is not much more than a “BR1-3 Moscow/Tunisia Allies/Axis + BR2 Pacific USA/Japan” that I would actually prefer currently and I don’t think it was ever an option.
6 Likes
Totally unrelated to question about map pool in MM queues.
Plus playerbase balance is far more important than equipment balance.
That’s already how it works now so I have no clue what are you btching about.
Unless you want to cherry pick like 3 maps and 1 game mode out of every other possible option.
But that’s simply totally unrealistic demand, lol.
1 Like
Oh was impatient.
So… How do you set up e.g. Moscow + Tunisia + Pacific BR2 for 2 matches allowing both sides, then switch to Berlin + Normandy BR3 allowing both sides with a few clicks? This is what I want to easily set up, and don’t understand what is your problem with it.
Bad news. Before doing so,we need an effective map selection system.
7 Likes
All your other points are unrelated to the discussed issue. I am not going to overspam news topic with debating every point individually.
Bad decision. You can be angry or happy, but it just shows how desperate they are to try to maintain the number of existing players playing Enlisted, balancing it with the desire to keep some maps from dying.
Not be a smartass but a valentine did take part in the Battle of Berlin during the final assault on the Reichstag😂
1 Like
If there’s evidence of that, I’m ready to take an L on that one 
But the point about the other 99.9% still stands – T-26 is as impossible for Berlin as Tiger 1 for Korean war.
There is video footage of at least one there, though I can no longer view said video in my country so welp.
And tbf, the T-26 is exceptionally rare to see in game as is, unlike the Pz2 or other starter tanks.
BT-7, T-28, T-28E, T-60, T-50 were all also either destroyed or phased out by 1945, not to mention I-153 biplane over Berlin lol
1 Like
BT-7 was there, certainly the BT-7M.
T-28 is yeah, … going to be annoying but until the BR2 soviet tank line is fleshed out, that wont change.
Look sure its not ideal, however its not the end of the world either, Not once have I disagreed some of its wrong, but considering Normandy is a BR1 map and how fucked that is, this honestly feels less so.
Not trying to make this a dealbreaker but I would really like to see the source for this, sounds really unrealistic to me
I still believe we should protest against this instead of being happy “this time it doesn’t hurt as much as before” 
1 Like
Honestly I would if it werent my day off work, because I will have to sift through a mountain of shit to get a proper source for it, AI has fucking ruined online research. Then you have the general issue of shit soviet documentation at best, like it amazes me how bad it is. And just top it all off, you get the issue of region locked content, like the video of the Valentine in Berlin as well.
However Ive not seen a single source stating that BT-7’s werent used in the recon role even in 1945, and I have seen sources directly stating it served such a role in both the far eat and west in 1945. However having to recall a book I read maybe 5 or ten years ago just isnt working.
What I will say though is, it was no longer sent to western units post 1944, it was merely retained by some units.
But whats not realistic about it? It shares massive commonality with a lot of other in service equipment, from engines to electronics. Not to mention the soviets were renowned for their fieldwork to make just about any pile of scrap work.