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.
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 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.
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.
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.
BT-7 was designed in the 1930s with thin anti-bullet armor and a 45 mm gun, making it insta-deadly vulnerable to German anti-tank weapons/Panzerfausts of 1945;
By 1943–1944, BT-7s were phased out of frontline combat units in Europe and replaced by T-34-76/85 in combat roles or BA-64 / T-70 (entered service in 1942) at best in recon roles;
The Red Army standardized its inventory in early war, only focujsing on proven mass-production and support, so that no resource was wasted on BS like 20 rifle models or 50 tank models: factories and workshops were tooled to only work with Mosin, SVT, PPSh, PPS, T-34 and IS platforms.
Surviving BTs were transferred to the Far East in 1945 against Japan’s weak army in Manchuria, which can create confusion seeing them alongside T-34-85, but for Berlin they would be useless death traps when you have tens of thousands of BA-64 / T-70 / T-34 at your disposal in Europe.
I understand mate and I’m not looking to have us both spend hours and weeks in archives here trying to check BT-7M track record just when Darkflow prepares their next “IS-3 in Tunisia” event.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t, it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things now.
Sure heres to the situation improving in the future, I did really like your suggestion for map BR’s there. Perfectly appealed to both sides of the argument.
so I have no clue what are you btching about.
