JP makes a valid point.
I think you are conflating the concept of a simulator vs historical accuracy, particularly when it comes to understanding the fine balance between what works in the game and how a game needs to introduce a competitive milieu vs gross historical inaccuracies, historical misrepresentations or outright fabrications. Now the Devs certainly have taken liberties in how they have created their squads and how they have decided to address the “balancing” of a largely bolt action equipped German/Soviet army vs the semiautomatic equipped US army. Similarly the broad brush approach to equipping squads with LMGs or SMGs as well as the cornucopia of other esoteric weapons will also go through to the keeper as long as those weapons roughly fell into the respective period of WWII, and by and large the Devs have stuck to that formula. Most educated and moderately mature players will tolerate this since the current squad make up are universal as is the seeding of bolt action vs semi autos or SMGs. The vehicles is where the wheels fall off the common sense bus and the old skool Gaijin biases we all know so well from WT begin to creep out through the seams. So please don’t defend stupidity, please simply request that the Devs, do better research, and think harder on how to balance historical orders of battle within the constraints of their game - particularly IF you are marketing the game on the basis of historically accurate CAMPAIGNS. To this point the Normandy CAMPAIGN ends in August, which is some 3 months before either the Jumbo or M24 see action in the ETO. This is not a Sim issue, this is just a lame representation of history.
…That was honest advice, just in case you haven’t play it. I don’t fancy looking for profiles in my free time.
Hope to see you there, though I mostly only fly.
This post shows: You cherry picked questions nicely - why is the first question some social justice Bullshit nonissue? You have REAL problems with gameplay.
This Q&A only shows that you have no specific direction outside increasing transactions. EG your spurious half serious rebuttals about historical accuracy - damage models are retarded don’t talk about realism (flamethrowers are legit garbage - planes are legit god mode). You know what is also realistic? Bots not running into the center of a road while being straffed with machine guns AFTER being told to hold inside.
Stop talking about ‘adding features’. Prioritize FIXING BUGS. This game is a travesty - have some pride
While this had a lot of info that’s a nice insight into various things we’ve been asking about. Like soldier classes, female soldiers for factions that DID sparingly have them, the ability to remotely destroy rallies, and stuff on vehicles as well. There are also a lot of aspects of this that were… Off putting to say the least.
Like casting historical accuracy to the side for the sake of trying to pad things out more, or even for “balance” reasons. Which I kinda find hard to believe when we see Wehrmacht squads running around fully decked out with FG-42’s and the like. And even trying to justify this standpoint by saying that if it was made in the year of the conflict, it can be there in the in-game battle even if in reality it wasn’t even there. That alone was fairly off putting, but also the questions did seem fairly cherry picked.
One area where they seemed EXTREMELY cherry picked was with the AI section. I truly believe that there should been more questions and answers in this section. As that’s one of the BIGGEST issues that the game is facing rn. Well that and arty, which I find insane that you guys didn’t address either. But both of these topics are definitely things that people have been asking about all over the forum so there’s no way that more questions couldn’t have been pulled for these subjects. Overall it feels like the main issues of the game were kinda ignored in this Q&A. It really would’ve been great if these things were properly openly addressed and discussed with the community. But for the info we got, I suppose it was nice to read it. It gave us a bit of insight into the future of the game, but I do wish that you would’ve talked about some of the more pressing issues that the game is facing atm.
Nobody is going to use this function if they dont make unlocking thing in other campaigns or faction faster.
“At the moment, we already have a Premium account that speeds up progress in all campaigns. We also plan to add boosters to the pool of Battle Pass rewards.”
Premium is not helping much and progression is still depressing.
“add boosters to the pool of Battle Pass rewards”
This is the problem with this company, they first think how to monetize gameplay, THEN how to make the game good. If you put as much effort into making a good game, the money would come anyway.
The progression is just bad in general and you end up stuck in one faction/campaign, the solution is straight forward, them creating extra steps we all know is bs. They focus on $ so much that they will just kill the game at some point.
I will say this again, the abusive monetization worked in WoT or WT because there was little to no competitors due to game’s genre. In the FPS world you can’t get away with something like this. You have AAA developers who make bigger games and shower you in rewards and ways to make you play their game instead of others.
By the time they get this, it will already be too late.
I know I sound negative, but I just dont have the patience to sugarcoat bs and beat it around the bush. Negative? Sure. But realistic.
Sure, they must be very careful with the business model in an FPS.
“if you think Jumbos in Normandy are asinine, wait until you see what we add at level 40!”
Dear Kerofox,
i very much welcome the idea of such Q&A!!
But why only pick the “easy stuff”??
None of these Questions have any merit to the game development, as they provide no significant information nor do they solve any of the obvious issues.
We all realize that a game has to be fun and be fun for a diverse audience, so yes no one wants things too Historically accurate. But on the other hand who whats to play just another COD, Battlefield or so on!
The whole game seems to be heading in that very direction more and more.
Maps are build in such a way that you can barely do anything but rush for A to B.
There is practically no space for any kind of tactical game play, most Maps seem to be made by the same pattern.
New campaigns don´t bring much in terms of new game play, just the same hit and run, bunny hopping CoD style game play.
Back in 2020 you so proudly proclaimed that your game will be so different and free of all these Arcade Shooter features and you asked and still do ask for a shit load of money if one wants to play your game.
Every single campaign that you add is costing us 30-40€, and for what… So that I can snapshot people with a LMG or some kind of Submachine gun from a couple of hundred meter?
In game you got people jumping of Rooftops ,turning/spinning 360 degree while shooting 2 or 3 guys! Which by the way is just a visible, as me walking on water…
Let me explain a little further what I mean by that:
You claim that the game is supposed to be Historically accurate and NOT just the next ARCADE Shooter !
In Battle of Moscow you have the Russian T60 vs the German Pz II C
As far as I can see the specs of the T60 are pretty much the last production spec!
The current Pz IIC are based on the production spec of 1937-1939 and NOT on the technical spec of the last production run, which had a much stronger Armour.
The Turret front was made of 30mm curved Plate and NOT of 15mm Plate. The lower front of the armored hull was made of 35mm Plate and NOT of 20mm.
I wounder why you can´t just read up on those technical Specs?
Did you know the 20mm TNSh wouldn’t be able to pen this Plates, as the max Pen at 100m is about 25-28mm at 90 degree.!?
Now allow me to use this statement of yours as a other example,
Based on what, do you choose weapons and equipment for campaigns?*
For example, the M4A3E2 “Jumbo” was not used in the Normandy landings, but it is present for the U.S. side in the campaign.
The first weapons and equipment that appear in the campaign are those that were historically used in the battle on which the campaign is focused. They have absolute priority. However, there are situations when one of the sides clearly lacks some tool for good balance. Therefore, we use the following principle of adding content: if equipment and weapons existed during the battles reflected in the game’s campaign, they have a chance to appear in the campaign itself. To put it simply, the same Jumbo was created during Operation Overlord, which is the theme of the “Invasion of Normandy” campaign.
Does your statement apply for all Nations?
If so, please implement
The 2nd ** -Panzer-Division „Das Reich“ with their Tiger
The Panzer-Lehr-Division with Pz IV, PzV, Jagdpanzer IV/L48 , Sturmgeschütze III and Tiger II !
9th ** -Panzer-Division „Hohenstaufen“ incl. their Sturmgeschütz III & IV
These Units are just a very small part of the German Forces which took part in the fighting during Operation Overlord. So perhaps you want to consider which way you truly want to go and stop telling us what YOU LIKE to be “ Historically correct”
I really like your game, but I just can´t stand this thing of “ we make the world the way we like it to be”.
Well please go a head and walk your talk!
Normandy: M1 Abrams and m4a1
Berlin: T90 and kalashnikov
When I think about the pacific, I think of naval battles with lots of aircraft.
I can dream :B
I am enjoying the game a ton
Wow, I’ve spent like 3 months now? But it was fun, and I enjoyed it.
My SU side almost 100%, and GE side on Normandy is mid way.
Great WW2 FPS, lots of fun. Keep adding stuff, and mayhem going.
No it isn’t because the Jumbo was actually used in combat during Operation Overlord, I should know, we ran the entire campaign in War Thunder Custom Battles. All others weren’t used during Operation Overlord at all making your point entirely moot. To prove that I know what I’m talking about, the Centurion production itself only began in January of 1945 meaning that they weren’t even used during the war itself barring perhaps the very very end in extremely limited numbers, the Black Prince was only ever experimental, as was the Maus, with only two prototypes ever made, the T30 tank also only ever had two built and the IS-3 was famously only built in time for the Berlin victory parade (great Squire video showing such). Compare this to the around 254 Jumbo tanks built and used in battle which is possibly more than the number of Tiger tanks involved in the operation, so please, get some basic information before commenting about a perfectly decent justification since they were actually freaking used as stated!
Evidence?
Everything I’ve ever seen says it wasn’t even tested in the USA until 8 June, at Detroit, and then at Aberdeen in September 44, with the first arrivals in Cherbourg on 22 September.
Eg see
Being an amateur interested in the subject is not actually a “quotable” qualification - even being a professional does not give you the right to say your qualifications are evidence!! 
It was quite famously used during Operation Overlord, but not on D 'Day as is said in the Q&A, perhaps again, you need to actually learn some history before making a point which in this case is utterly wrong. Again, though I cannot with a quick Google search verify this since I couldn’t find the number of Tiger tanks used, it is possible that more M4A3E2’s were involved in Operation Overlord than there were Tigers. It was a tank specifically modified and rushed out for use in the invasion of Europe, in particular the Siegfried Line, source:
This happens to be the same source that you used, so how you don’t understand that it was used in Operation Overlord which ran from 6th June - 30th August which, by your own admission is after the ‘Jumbo’ was used in combat, I don’t know.
Seriously, I don’t get what you’re trying to prove here, the above quote literally proves they were used during Operation Overlord and hence make sense to be in a campaign centred around such unlike every other example you gave.
This is also along with some 100 Sherman’s that were converted in the field towards the ‘Jumbo’ design:
Edit: Okay, minor mistake here, but the point still stands that the tank was designed, tested and in production at the time of Overlord, seeing action just a month later so it is perfectly reasonable to add it for balance.
When we extensively researched the operation and planned it for months to make it as accurate as possible it does. In reference to the second part, by definition of being a professional, you have the qualifications which means that you can most definitely use such as evidence 
, especially if you extensively research that particular period. Plus your points clearly show that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are trying to prove a provably wrong point. Besides, you are trying to argue against devs whom have extensively researched each campaign compared to your basic viewpoint with obvious minimal research, making an obviously wrong argument.
Edit: Wrong comparative to what the devs actually said and in our campaign we went further than the official end of Overlord, hence using them there, bit of memory issue there, but again, does not particularly change the point.
Guys, remember this is just a game!
I always find such discussion about whether it is 100% authentic to add variant X of vehicle/weapon Y somewhat, hm… “strange” in the context of a game, where soldiers suffering a potentially fatal gunshot wound survive by wrapping some bandage around their finger for a few seconds, or engineers running on foot over a battlefield miraculously pull a full anti tank and anti air canons out of their pockets, along with a few palettes worth of ammo and sand bags…
I always like an experience as closely fitting the real situation as possible, but getting overexcited about those topics I find exagerated.
I understand it more in WT, where the gap is sometimes huge, but also there I understand it, as contemporary vehicles sometimes just have almost zero possibility to operate competitively next to each other (with some extreme cases, especially mid range where WW2 meets modernish missile technology). But let’s be honest, for example an Aufklärungspanzer 38(t) should historically be operated alongside Tiger and Tiger 2, but is set at BR 1.3, compared to 5.7-6.7. Who would drive a Aufklärungspanzer at 6.7?
What?
Last time I checked September comes after June-August. If I’m wrong please enlighten me, maybe time runs different in the place you live.
Jumbo was not present in Europe until 22nd September 1944, so it is impossible for it to be used during Operation Overlord itself.
That is true and my mistake, however makes little difference to the overall argument, the tank was designed, tested and in production at the time of Overlord, seeing action just a month later so it is perfectly reasonable to add it for balance, unlike the other tanks that @Josephs_Piano mentioned earlier, i shall amend my above post.
True, one month doesn’t seem like a much time.
But the point (at least for me and I believe many others) is that those time-travels would be unnecessary if devs would go for diversity over neverending armaments race.
There were many vehicles that could fill the slots in the campaign: M10, M18, some British tanks; Stugs for Germany; some halftracks; list could go on.
But istead of that we are getting heavier and heavier tanks that are justified by devs as “needed to ensure balance” but they themself are the cause of said unbalance. And it will not stop on Jumbo with its one month later deployment. M24 Chafee saw combat in December 1944 for example.
Soon we will get Panters in Normandy - US will need something to counter it. Devs said that they plan to introduce +/- 40 campaign level, so Tigers are likely to show up too - what will counter them? Pershings that weren’t present in Europe until January 1945?
That way instead of promised historical accuracy, that is one of the main points in advertising Enlisted and that brought many of us here during CAT and CBT, we get mix of everything “cool” that comes to devs minds, even if it basically throws accuracy into a trashcan. One Jumbo wouldn’t even be such a problem, if it was the only accuracy violation. But there are much more of them (FG42 and M2 for example) and even more on their way. And all that “justified” by “balance reasons”
And one more thing: by throwing everything into one campagins devs basically murder the potential of the future ones. We already see that in Berlin, where in 20 campaign levels for Germany there are only few really new things. The rest is just grinding for the exact same weapons over and over. Jumbos, Chaffees etc. would fit perfectly into some later campaign in appropriate time period. But why do that if they can just time travel to Normandy.
It’s not an arms race, just balancing, as the devs said, it was designed and produced at the time of the operation, arriving only a month later, such is an extremely small difference for a modification of a tank used in the operation. They are also designing a wide variety counters to vehicles other than simply other vehicles, from explosion packs to AT guns to AT rockets and even mines! There are no shortage of such counters. If it is unbalanced then perhaps, but still there are said other counters.
Errr, yes it will lol. The Jumbo was designed and built during (and partly for) the operation so it makes some sense to use, the M24 was not, it was in production, but was a new tank seeing action later and not simply a modification designed for the invasion of Europe coming just a month afterwards.
The Jumbo is capable of handling them, but is definitively needed if they show up and as stated above here, there are so, so many counters to Panthers and Tigers in game already, especially in urban environments where the tanks are particularly vulnerable to infantry and cannot manoeuvre as easily.
Pershing obviously won’t ever be present in this campaign.
This doesn’t say that it will be 100% historically accurate, nor does it anywhere in information about the game because it is not a milsim, it aims to reproduce the atmosphere whilst having balanced gameplay, if this were truly a milsim, Germany would be trounced in every campaign announced so far, so other supplies are used to create the atmosphere in a balanced fashion, whilst I will agree Enlisted has gone too far with the balance weapons against each other, blame the community, not the devs for shouting at them constantly to do so.
Mostly same points as before here, but further that the game has to have value long term for playing each campaign, whichever you choose, and with many people already nearing completion of one if not two of the current campaigns, they clearly need more content to encourage people to play more, playing towards something is always more motivating than simply playing the game in this fashion. The point of the different campaigns is some new things, but in case you didn’t realise, countries didn’t just use new weapons for the sake of it, many weapons and vehicles were used pretty much throughout the war because why waste perfectly good equipment and it is tough to change production to new ones.