I mean I think you are misunderstanding its use as armoured recon, I mean the stuart and the daimler and etc were still used in the role into 1945 too. And while its not ideal for it to enter direct combat, its not impossible at all. Same for the likes of the Ba-10/other armoured cars. If nothing else its a great platform to act as an artillery spotter, just thinking by pure logic alone there. (Not to mention by that logic the Puma shouldnt be there either?)
I mean every account Ive ever read of the war would dispute that, soldiers, even soviet soldiers were given a surprisingly amount of autonomy at the front, as long as they were fighting well, its rare a political officer would intervene in their own practices unless he thought it was cowardice or etc.
I mean there is good reason there was such widespread looting by frontline soviet units.
Though its not like they could request another weapon, but if they looted one at some point, there is very little chance they would be asked to abandon it unless it was actively impeding you, (ie, carrying too much and slowing you down).
And to the best of my knowledge the Red Army in 1944-45 used BA-64, Lend Lease M3A1 half-tracks and even T-70 in this recon/noncombat role but not 1930s designs like BA-11/BT-7 as those were all either destroyed or hopelessly defenceless and obsolete, without repair base.
Looting - sure.
But I doubt a Soviet private could say "comrade commissar, I like my 20-round PPD-34 without spares from the previous war, I would like to keep it and not return to sepo, I refuse to use the PPS-43 for which our division has a workshop set up
I mean they commonly used whatever they got, from captured german vehicles to lend lease Stuarts. A lot of their maintenance was done in the field and duty rigged. It was quite common to see frankenstein esk vehicles appear. And certainly the likes of BT-7âs and BA-11/10/etcâs wouldnt be completely out of place there. The soviets were good at common parts before, I mean the BT-7âs engine shared common parts with the KV-1, while the later BT-7M had commonality with the T-34 and even IS engines. And other components were more easy to substitute or just forgo.
Id agree 100% here, however looting or issuement of a PPD 34 from earlier on in the war are both legitimate options. Certainly not standard, but not completely impossible either. As for maintaining it? I mean weirder and more unique weapons were maintained through the war, I must admit my gunsmithing knowledge of the PPD 34 isnt great, however I imagine its parts werent impossible to replace or at least repair. I mean it did share a lot of common parts with the PPD 40.
I think what you are asking for is totally reasonable, I kinda agree some direction has been lost, whether it be since Keofox left, or pressure from Gaijin management we will probably never know. But overall, things have changed, I donât think we could have survived without BR presets and post merge, but at least give us a choice to wait in a queue if we donât want to play a map, not just ask us to dislike it.
@MajorMcDonalds said Devs will learn what we like on regards to preferred maps, but that is not entirely true, I like Berlin but only if BR5, I like Tunisia if BR3, but my like and dislikes will be different for different BRs, I hope they donât make rash decisions thinking people chose not to play Stalingrad, but if I was BR3/4 I donât mind Stalingrad, just not BR5
back then even with the merge the conversations were âwe try to balance history and gameplayâ, âBRs of weapons are mostly tied to the year of their deploymentâ, âthere will be no âTigers in Moscowââ.
But lately the attitude has changed to: âwhatever weâre going full Call of Duty and screw WW2â.
then please for the love of god find another game to play if enlisted is a doomed failure in your eyes instead of bothering everybody with your HA ramblings
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
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 wasnât they wouldnt care about prototype weapons like how WOT is
Theyâre 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 doesnât mean those things arenât 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 itâs 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 donât 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.
Iâm not even talking about the fact that you have a completely obvious double standard.
Otherwise, youâd have deserted literally every low BR match already just because of the fact that itâs full of late war vehicles/weapons.
But you donât, othereise you wouldnât 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 youâll desert every game because of it. What a pathetic hypocrisy.
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 thereâs 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 donât think itâs stupid to wish multiple loadouts available in-game. When attacking Iâd prefer smoke grenades, when defending thatâs mostly pointless. Iâd just right click on my squad and switch between the loadouts, maybe limited to only one change per squad per match.
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 âpreference systemâ 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 wonât 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.
For one, did I ask âto play only the maps I like outside of customsâ?
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 CANâT tell my preferences. (Or if I can I canât switch easily after 3 matches to pacific Jap/US.)
For the âwe already had itâ - 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 donât feel like going back. Youâre 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 âBR2 / Join anyâ is not much more than a âBR1-3 Moscow/Tunisia Allies/Axis + BR2 Pacific USA/Japanâ that I would actually prefer currently and I donât 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 donât 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.
weâre going full Call of Duty and screw WW2â.