There is an issue that bothers me and other players alike. I call it the mechanism of the game. I rush into the game, meet the enemy within a minute, there is a shoot out and somebody gets wiped out. We then get new troops, rush into the game… again and again. Some players will enjoy it, some may not. I think that there are already too many games that work exactly on this basis. Would it not be a good idea to equip ENLIST with some unique and original elements that make it stand out? The maps are beautiful and there are many of them. Everything stands out only the game mechanics are lacking. ENLIST should have more than the usual Slam-Bang-Killed-You battle. There could be two sections, one with the present form of battle for players that have very little time and look for some quick entertainment. There could be another form of battle that tries to be more realistic. Usually one side is defending and the other side is attacking. These roles could be allocated randomly. There are different types of defense/offense battles
Defender is entrenched and just needs to hold the line
Defender is on the run (like the Soviets in 1941 and 1942) and the attacker chases him
Logistics and housing were extremely important, particularly during the Russian winter. The defender has the housing and the attacker must capture a village/part of a city to get it. Otherwise attrition will weaken his troops. Having a road/railway in your posession will enable sufficient supply, otherwise there is a penalty. These issues can be resolved on the map or randomly decided by the computer.
I understand that the developers of this game may not be amused by my suggestions because it means more work. It is your choice whether to make this game stand out or just one of many Shooters.
Not fun. After first a few hours playing the game and without buying any P2W or P2Progression stuff.
Also for players like me, suffers from all kinds of bugs.
There is really no use in having a thread like this. The bottom line as to whether it’s fun or not will be in the number of players that are playing and paying.
While it is certainly fun to ponder over what this game could be, you gotta understand one thing: implementing the said mechanics is difficult. It’s a massive amount of work from the development perspective. And there is no guarantee that this mode is going to be successful.
I really-really want people to understand one thing when they offer such massive changes: someone will have to pay their hard-earned cash for all of this. And that “someone” is the playerbase.
Plus, let’s not forget, the game still suffers from many “infancy” bugs. Imagine you are making a car, and you just finished the frame and the engine, it’s just barely drivable, and there’s a swarm of guys arguing over what colour it should be, as you are trying to fix the broken gearbox. There’d be wrench-throwing and name-calling.
That is a very rudimentary understanding of history, my man. Believe it or not, but the Soviets were counter-attacking and defending places till their last soldier (Brest, for example), it wasn’t just a run and chase, wasn’t a walk in the park for Germans even in the first couple of years, and wasn’t fought mainly by “general winter” on the Soviet side.
My quote (Patton): “Men this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”
