I like the gameplay very much and its fun to grind for getting better weapons. But what i cant understand is that there is no straight progression. The different campaigns do not get together, Why should i spend tons of hours to unlock everything in the Normandie only to unlock some of the same weapons in another campaigns, where i have nothing from my progression from normandy. It feels like the whole game will not get together.
Would be much much more longterm motivation if you do progression Nation based and not Campaign based. I dont want to play hundreds of hrs just to start in another campaign and get nothing out of it. It just makes no sense to me how Developer could decide for this model. Dont know what you think of it but i stop here playing…
The equipment might be the same but not necessarily the division a.k.a squad.
The campaigns are currently time and location based, which a lot of people criticize.
The progression system as it stands his linear and boring.
Personally I don’t have a problem with it as I see every campaign as a own game but the grind is absolutely hard for someone new.
they need to make money.
I understand and have no problems with grinding in games, i like it much. But if i start a new campaign, everything i fighted for feels to be lost. No one can see what Rank i reached, all my progression is gone, the soldiers are dumb as at the beginning…
In WoT or WarThunder it was wonderful to play hundreds of hrs and unlock everything. But now? They see only one time 9 Dollars from me, i played 80hrs in a short time and have the feeling that i dont want to even see the other campaigns because of this splitted progression system
Another campaigns means as well another atmosphere. Tunisia ain’t Moscow and Moscow ain’t Berlin. But I get your point, absolutely.
if we all think the same, but I’ll tell you what the developers told me; just have fun and do not focus on raising everything to the maximum because you will get bored and you will create a routine, play the campaign that you like the most, with the faction that you like the most and that’s it.
They should merely switch from a linear tech “tree” to… a tech tree, with ramifications leading to sidegrades and or grind focusing on one type of thing.
Sidegrades would be an enormous advantage for the devs: they could easily pump new content in, keeping players hooked and this without breaking balance by inducing power creep.
I totally agree. All factions in each campaign should receive a regular tech tree.
There are many problems in this idea, one is weapon unbalance. It will let certain faction get higher level weapon more quickly. And this will also cause imbalanced to player base of each faction because people would like to stay in the faction that have the most shared unlock like Germany.
That’s why they need a separate campaign tree. And no shared unlock. Even now, for example, Mp40 needs to be grind everywhere. So that wouldn’t change.
the major question is how it would work…and how long would it take for nation to completely run out of equipment with such possible nations being Italy, Romania, the commonwealth nations, France, Hungary and technically the Dutch since they used the johnson rifle
Nation based trees could work but this would move players into a chronological context - difficult to achieve if different nations entered the war at different times. You could use a progression unlock mechanism, but it means that you’d have to play a country you may not like initially to unlock said campaign…
But if one had to take a shot at it, it could look something like this:
Tech trees open up Rifleman I, Assaulter I, Radioman I etc… as well as Theatre appropriate historically correct weapons and equipment. Two starting options
- 1939 - 40 Early East/West Campaigns - Key nations: Germany, France, Britain, Russia Finland & Poland.
2 1940 - 41 Early African Campaign - Key nations: Germany, Italy, Britain, India and ANZAC.
Tech trees open up Rifleman II, Assaulter II, Radioman II etc… as well as the appropriate historically correct weapons and equipment
- 1939 - 42 Early East Front Campaign - Key nations: Germany, Finland and Russia - new unlocks Romania and Hungary.
- 1942 - 43 Late African Campaign - New equipment and vehicles. Key nations: Germany, Italy, Britain, India and ANZAC - new unlock USA.
Tech trees open up Rifleman III, Assaulter III, Radioman III etc… as well as the appropriate historically correct weapons and equipment
- 1943 - 45 Late Eastern Front Campaign - New equipment and vehicles. Key nations: Germany, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Poland and Russia.
- 1944 - 45 Late Western Campaign - New equipment and vehicles. Key nations: Germany, USA, France, Britain, and Poland - new country unlock could be Canadians.
Optional Theatre…
7. 1941 - 1945 War in the Pacific - Key nations: Britain, India and ANZAC - new nations unlocked Japan and China.
This gives effectively 3 campaigns (Early/Late Western Front, Early/Late Africa, Early/Late Eastern Front), with a potential 4th being the Pacific. There will be some dilution of the player base between early/ late games so in all a 7 tier split of the playerbase - is that sustainable ?
Anyway that’s just a suggestion of how this could be done, so that a player can firstly unlock the nation they want to play within a historical context and then have options to play that nation against the appropriate campaign. Clearly some nations like the Germans, Soviets and British in particular would have the lion’s share of the available map content. Each campaign period could then have the maps which represent the key historical battles of that campaign.