Tell that to the owners who make all of the “big decisions” that are affecting your quality of gameplay.
If you’re not aware, the world is driven by the Corporations. And their bottom-line is M.O.N.E.Y.
If there’s no M.O.N.E.Y., then there’s no game. So whatever complaint you have about this game mechanic or that game mechanic would hardly be relevant when there’s no staff being paid to read your bug-report or suggestion. 
Feel free to browse and read through the topics I’ve posted on the forum. If you want to know “why” I’m here, and what position I stand, all you gotta do is click on my username 
You delve into things that are a little out of context. Your point of view, which you presented here, is a little bit from another topic, completely unrelated to Enlisted. The goal of every business is to make money. Everyone understands this. Enlisted team, this is not an Apple corporation. There are different rules in the computer game market, what kind of “big decisions” are you talking about here, when the players themselves have expressed their desire for this game to become free.
If you think their “big decision” was to monetize the free game and make money from it so that the game could exist. That’s great. That’s what all the game companies do. Welcome to gaming world. I’ll pay as much as I have to, if it’s worth paying. It’s not about the money, here is the point, and about not having a real connection with the community, and not knowing what kind of result they themselves want the game to be.
Let’s see:
-The owners who gave the Go-Ahead for allocating 12+ months of time and resources towards The Merge
-Giving the Go-Ahead for elite spec-ops paratroopers being implemented into the game, with minimal restrictions towards their combat effectiveness/deployment abilities.
-Deciding how events are implemented, and how players are rewarded.
-Giving the Go-Ahead for any major-change you can think of.
-Deciding how to “market” specific premium products, and “how” to achieve the highest number of sales as possible (for example: Stalingrad, and “what” was once promised to everyone who purchased the bundle(s).
Any changes made to the game, first has to be approved via the chain-of-command. So when we start anaylzing the-game-as-a-whole, and start looking at specific issues that have NOT been resolved for such a long period of time (example: bi-pod mechanics, lack of creativeness for engineer defense-options, grey-zone issues, weapon dispersion and animation issues, team-communication issues/lack of options etc…)…
why do you think certain things *have never been resolved or addressed? Is it because the devleopers lack the abilities to develop/code the game correctly? Or is because the owners have not given approval to allocate the time/resources required to address/improve these issues? Given the number of people who have created posts to complain about these problems, and a lack of transparency/communication from DF…
When is it okay to start looking further up-the-chain, than to simply blame the developers for not giving the players what they’ve been asking?
Not necessarily. From my perspective, everything is connected, and I enjoy having discussions about things that are related and affected by one-another.
Well. You can still basically do that for Germany. Take two assaulter squads armed with STG-44s. Take a sniper squad as your third option. Three non-scoped STG-44s, one engineer and one AT trooper. But yeah you will have to manage 1. Three soldiers without vitality. 2. Reduced squad size from 5 to 7.
Just answer me the second part of my question that I asked in my previous post.
Are you for or - against the merge policy? And if yes, how do you think it will affect the future of the game in terms of maintaining the WW2 immersive gameplay style.
Here’s my position that I wrote in @AlexMason66 's thread. Regarding being pro, against, or neutral.
So we’re clearly on the same page, it’s just that certain ends of the spectrum don’t seem to connect. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but personally for me, merge, - will be a moment when I will either stay in the game or quit. Hit or miss. I am patiently waiting.
Likewise
but there is a lot to fix. if they spent next 2 years fixing i dont think they would be out of the job…
Have you heard the pay-pigs squeal?
Personally, I think they should make it so you have infantry and specialized infantry, where specialized infantry, either has a unique soldier type that no other squad class can use, or has a unique upgrade (radio rapid artillery, machine gunner heavy MG, etc). Then, make specialized limited to 1 squad to take into battle (And remove the premium squad bypass of this restriction). The Normal Infantry squads should have no limit … This (I believe should have 4 types … AT Gunner, Rifleman, Assaulter, and Sniper) … I think they should give AT Gunner the ability to build either recoilless rifles or a higher caliber AT Gun then standard Engineer Squads and move them to specialized … this would leave 3 squads … A “CQB” in Assault, a “mid-range” in Rifleman, and a “long range” in Sniper. This would make it so you have a squad class that can fit majority of playstyles that is unlimited, while those squads that are restricted at least have something offsetting their restriction … IE you can only bring 1 BUT you can do X.
This still gives premiums a bump as desired as their engineers can make pseudo engineer squads however will be a better system than what DF has proposed, IMO.
Haha that got me, I won’t lie.
But yeah. Squad limits are great. The only problem is premium squads aren’t included so you can still circumvent it and cycle squads. But other than that, there’s literally no reason why this should be a game breaking change for some people.
Unless… you’re one of those people.
Lol
Hit the nail there for those who joined in the early days like myself who came for the campaigns in the first place where they feel like a different game when playing different campaign. We could’ve had different fronts but keep the nation tech tree so nobody has to grind for the same faction a couple of times.
I’d argue that whales don’t have this problem as there is no actual problem.
In the case of Assaulter preference, run 2x Assaulter and then a rifle or engineer squad with some gold order weapons or… something.
All of the people acting like the world is ending likely have some solutions in mind to keep playing a silly one dimensional version of the game but they will still come here and act like someone just stole their lunch money.
I have mostly premium squads anyways I like playing so it doesn’t really affect me tbh.
I do sympathise for the f2p players though. Imo premium content should only affect rewards (and not having to grind out that specific squad’s weapons/skills). I also don’t want to have less than 3 infantry squads in my German line up. Not because I wanna spam the same class but because I wanna be able to chose which squad I spawn in that moment. 3 of 1 class doesn’t mean you’re gonna spam it, it just offers more choice when you have 9-ish squads to pick from.
Therefore I’d say remove this restriction for everyone. F2P and Premium.