thats interesting opinion
considering the fact under whom they make this game also
Objection
lol
and you’ll look at that
i mean its same desert map but lets us be honest here how often we see this front?
2 Likes
I really wish the developers would implement this instead of bullshitting around with more meaningless changes
2 Likes
: O amazing TT wanna see the italian counter part : )
1 Like
there is topic about italian tt that was made by this author (well turned out not the same but anyways)
5 Likes
thank you bro : )
Like me?
Is this a monthly thing now?
Anyway…
The core aspects of these faction threads always miss or downplay three major issues these things create.
- Split of the player base
- Balance issues
- Increased research
- (limitation of choice)
Two of those issues were the main reason for the merge. We would create many new queues, especially if some moron demands Italy- or UK-exclusive maps, that we might as well re-introduce campaigns. At least they were consistent.
It would cause balance issues contrary to the claims, such as the US having no domestic (BR1) ATR and no suitable BR2 MG (not including foreign and port weapons).
And by looking at this very “British” tech tree of yours, I can say one thing for sure:
UK does not work ass all without adding foreign weapons to the point it is comedic. Even the goddman BAR is there. It makes me wonder what is even the point of this split if these tech trees still have so goddman many copies and foreign weapons in them, not even talking about the protos and WW1 Fed zombies. It’s the MP40 all over again. There are also A LOT of event weapons that DF so far has never put into the tech tree, excluding the M2 Mortar, IIRC (which they announced in advance). (What the heck is the AN/M2 doing here? The Brits never used it, but it was modified by a couple of US Marines).
And I love the complaint about cluttered tech trees because 40% of the moderate-filled Allied TT is British, but then this TT is overloaded with filler junk that was partly even stolen from the French or the Burgers. If there is too much junk, add folders.
If you want more British stuff separated from US stuff, demand more and separate sub-TTs within one main TT.
But don’t demand a splitting standalone TT. That would make the current German TT look tidy and ordered, filled with tons of stuff that is not even made by the British Empire. Transfers are like an insult to injury, especially since the devs used to charge for transfers, which I would find hilarious if we had to pay to transfer weapons to make the new new order as painless as possible…
Many people want to have more interaction in the main set, but the more realistic approach would be to demand the ability to buy squads and/ or be able to buy soldiers and select their nationality. That seems to be more realistic than Tunisia 2.0
Add folders or go harder and make sub-tech trees.
Who cares? There are no campaigns anymore.
What new side? Brits are already here, and we have three Allied map setups where they operated, four if you include Pacific and the Aussies.
So why did they never bother to come to Tunisia, where like 3/4 guns were British?
Yeah, because we all know true commandos fielded fast firing heavy machine guns after parachuting with them. And Enlisted is a commando shooter and not a WW1 trench assault parody.
Weird and pointless mandatory complain about HLL I guess.
Oh you didn’t dare? Just for fun have you seen your tech tree proposal?
Who the hell is this target group? Never heard of them. Is this association related to the Enlisted Historical Accuracy Facebook Group?
1 Like
And worst of all. No sketchy Centurion.
Nope, just the Germans at that point. The Italians surrendered in 1943 and switched sides, and although some Italians continued to fight for the Axis, they were mainly relegated to fighting for the puppet state of Italian Socialist Republic in Northern Italy. Essentially, by that time, Hitler simply didn’t trust the Italians’ fighting spirit or their allegiance.
1 Like
Hopefully if we keep asking we’ll get it eventually
1 Like
Ethiopia and East Africa saw a minor contingent of German troops, mostly sailors but they did work along side the Italians. I will grant they were so small it was basically a non-factor, but they were there, which is good enough to let the Germans in for this game.
If you truly did play before the Merge, you will know what the last few months before the Merge announcement was like. Half of all the factions in game were deserted leaving the rival faction to stomp all of them. That was part of the reason we got rid of so many independent grinds, and adding new factions will just completely destroy the entire reason the merge happened.
It seems that you are just giving yourself reasons/excuses to hate/not like the whole idea
You asked for a proof i gave it to you, there wasn’t even german Field-Marshalls or some sort of any high command from Germany
Also even french had greater impact there than those germans forces? you mentioned, France into the game?)
(somehow even the best article-italian one, somehow managed to forget about those german troops in “belligerents”, so i take it as their forces there were so small that they had null impact there, so no reasons for germans be present at Ethiopia)
1 Like
No, I’ve had this discussion a million times already, and am just going through the motions again.
Scroll further down the Wikipedia article and you will see that there were Germans in the theater. Again most of their contributions were naval, but they were there, and they did help the Italians. If the devs let the Aussies in Guadalcanal before the merge for basically the same contribution, no reason the Germans can’t be in Abyssinia.
ah yes 300 germans were very useful when compared to those numbers
welp first of all campaigns, they basically had to add them because pacific without aussies is meh
also will you look at that
seems to me aussies were somewhat of great help there if they were included there
1 Like
But to be honest i can not see any further arguments, you still will be stubborn about german so called/nonexistent impact there
If they were there in any way, there is a justification to add them to the campaign, full stop. All your whinging about the role they played during the campaign is irrelevant.
If you actually read the wikipedia articles instead of just looking at the flashcards, you will find that the Australian never actually set foot on Guadalcanal, and provided naval support instead. This is exactly the same type of support the Germans provided in Abyssinia, which you would know if you also read that article. However, you only want to read the first couple paragraphs and look at the graphics for some reason.
“What new side? Brits are already here, and we have three Allied map setups where they operated, four if you include Pacific and the Aussies.”
Where’s these Aussies you speak of? There are no New Guinea or Dutch East Indies maps, nor the parts of the Solomon Islands where Australians fought.
DF refuses to even add a single slouch hat/digger hat to customisation options. ‘Event’ and ‘premium’ squads dont count for representing nationality. (if they did then one would argue that France is already in game purely because of that one Moroccan squad from years ago which of course is nonsense).
We have some Commonwealth weapons yet not a single squad or uniform of a Commonwealth nation even though as Ive pointed out many times before, the Owen gun, Ross rifle and Vickers-Berthier were only ever used by Australia, Canada and British India respectively.
In regards to your other points:
I completely agree that the M1 Garand and BAR amongst others shouldnt be there.
But if you actually read other people’s comments instead of just hating on the idea, youll see various valid suggestions for replacements.
Indeed I find it rather immature of you to nitpick the one or two weapons here and there that are copy paste when looking at the tree as a whole shows PLENTY of British and/or Commonwealth tech.
I myself wrote about folders. How many folders do you want? Ive said it before, if we add all these folders it will turn the tech tree into an Iphone photo album. New players wont know they are there. I dont understand why every tech tree needs to be CHOCK A BLOCK full of stuff, you yourself admit a long grind is a problem.
Spacing it out over one more tech tree would be a help, not a hindrance. We can still have some folders within the USA and UK tech trees and it means players will be able to grind the faction they want.
Its interesting you mention sub factions or sub tech trees since whenever myself or others have even mentioned those words we get hated on.
When Ive said sub faction for Commonwealth all I meant was one or two squads here and there from different Commonwealth nations and then appearance options based on national uniforms. Eg. The Owen gun squad would have default Australian uniforms and then within customisation you can choose to make other squads Australian as well.
Regarding balance youre clearly just prejudged against this idea and will shoot it down at any cost.
For example you claim USA wouldnt have a BR II LMG. The answer is M1918 BAR. This has been stated on multiple occasions by many players. The M1918BAR is no where near the level of the BARA1 or BARA2 which are BR III weapons. USA could also have the Benet Mercie or American Chauchat for BR I/early BR II. (these were both in 30.06).
Im sure a low rank American AT weapon could be found, and either way I fail to see why we should throw out the entire idea just because of one weapon in one class in one BR.
I disagree with increased research. Its like the current trees, I personally dont want to grind USSR so… I just dont. Players usually want to play as a certain faction for their weapons or personal reasons (eg I played Germany because they have the best weapons and I play British since thats the closest I can get to playing as Australians [Im Australian]).
As has been said before its annoying having to grind stuff for an entirely different nation you have no interest in playing. Not to mention having like 50+ squads youll never use.
Splitting the trees would fix many of the leftover issues from the merge, like how we have all these dual or triple squad types or cases where youve only got American or only British for some classes and then multiple British AND American for other classes.
As for the playerbase. As I said in my earlier comment which you presumably ignored due to your bias against this idea all of the current ‘campaigns’ (in terms of theatre of war) feature USA and UK anyway. So they would queue together.
Now in future I would suggest adding maps which were just UK/Commonwealth (I gave a number of suggestions) or just USA. I questioned the forum whether people would accept Americans/British playing on maps where the other nation wasnt present, like British in Manila or Americans in Greece.
Queuing them together could be an option, personally I believe splitting the trees and adding more variety in maps (especially theatres/battles not usually covered by WWII games) would encourage new players and keep existing players engaged so thereby increase the playerbase to the point it wouldnt be an issue.
Not sure what you mean by limitation of choice. Once again as I said before, using weapons for factions that never used them (which you yourself recognise in the BAR and M2 in this proposal for example) is wrong. Likewise I question how many players actually care about specifically running British AND American squads in the same lineup.
Splitting the trees would give more choice, choice to be specifically American or British but also play as the various Commonwealth nations who deserve credit (India, Canada, and Australia are reasonably big markets being able to play as one’s countrymen is always great in a game and it would make Enlisted unique amongst WWII games)
2 Likes
Negative, British squads just joins with U.S. and the Italian join with the Germans. “Player base” remains unsplit, matchmaking is largely unaffected (with the exception of the additional Italian and British identifying gamers, who will inevitably decrease MM times)
No more so than what we already have, since many British Squads already exist. How does moving them to their own research tree make them unbalanced if they remain otherwise unchanged?
You misspelled “increased content.” Unless you think the new research tree should just be given away then duh, more research. More research/increased grind is a non-argument. What is a “grind?” If you have to unlock anything at all do you count that as a “grind?” If you aren’t unlocking things every 10 minutes, and therefore not fast enough, is it a “grind?” If you don’t like earning new stuff, and instead feel it should be simply handed to you (especially after the rework for research requirements and XP gain drastically increasing unlock speeds) then you have a problem that goes much deeper than the amount of time you have to sit and play Enlisted.
WhAt?? How on EARTH could more content, more squads, more guns, more ways to play… amount to “limitation of choice?”
If I’m grinding out the U.S. tech tree, and my very British friend is dedicated to the brand new British tech tree, absolutely nothing changes about MM compared to us both being on the same nation. Same with Italian/German. So, in reality, it gives you more ways to play without drastically changing anything about matchmaking or BR.
4 Likes
Hear hear!
Also just to carry on from your point about research, presumably DF is going to add new content in some form every now and then which means grinding said content.
We wouldnt be grinding the same gun in two trees so whats the difference if a new gun that we have to grind is added to a USA-UK tree or just a USA tree? Still gotta grind it.
Indeed its worse if you want to play as British/Commonwealth for example and now youve got this Yank gun added you dont want and vice versa. Separate trees avoids that.
I wrote elsewhere I get the impression some people are just against any new content (unless its random very late war prototypes for their oh so precious BR V).
1 Like