Enlisted Future -> World War One (WW1) Campaign?

Suggestions
1

I would not mind if they did expand Enlisted into WW1 down the line (would be interesting for Gajin as the Russian Empire faced both the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires on the Eastern Front), especially since some of the current weapons already fit that period too. What’s more, the game mechanics of Enlisted - the squads, those large, nice looking maps, the moving frontlines (when an area is successfully captured) and the action (with explosions, men running, etc.) - would work great for a WW1 campaign.

As there was some confusion about that: The WW1 Campaign should be its own campaign, with its own 1914 nations (i.e. Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire,…), its own WW1 tech tree, its own progression and BR ratings, its own WW1 squads, its own WW1 battles, etc.

I would love to play a WW1 Enlisted for sure.

11 Likes
2

Big no. way too complicated.

3

If that were a different game that repose on same mecanic it could be interesting but not if it was in the same game.

4

What do you mean with “too complicated”? As in too complitated to play? Too complicated to make? Too complicated to understand?

Like I said I think it would work very well with the current overall mechanics. One addition that would be needed is the addtion of chemical/gas warfare (though one has to keep in mind that there were no more than about ten gas attacks in total on the Eastern Front by the German Empire, but due to the lack of proper countermeasures it was devastating).

1 Like
5

WW1 is definitely better than anything post war.

10 Likes
6

too complicated to balance because a tiger 2 would feel non-appropriate against renault tank

7

Oh no you understood me wrong there: Most definitely NOT a mixed mode → I meant Enlisted WW1 as its own, seperate mode, following a WW1 tech tree! It would be like it was before they merged all the old theatres of war into one, back then each theatre also each had their own tech tree, with their own battlefields and their own squads, etc.

So a French Renault FT Light Tank from WW1 would not face a Tiger from WW2.

If you play the “WW2 Enlisted Campaign”, you would play what we have now (including all the other WW2 battlefields they might add down the line).If you play the “WW1 Enlisted Campaign”, you would play a new one with WW1 battlefields (Eastern Front, Western Front,…) with their own WW1 squads (Russian Imperial Army, German Imperial Army, Austro-Hungarian Imperial Army,…).

Hope that clears it up.

6 Likes
8

I’d rather move forward into Korea personally

1 Like
9

Sounds like how I envision them moving into the Cold War if it were to ever happen

10

I get what you are saying but for me personally Gajin moving beyond WW2 in War Thunder was not a good move (for people wanting to play a solid WW2 flight simulator and then facing jets is wrong on so many levels).

In any case if they decide to go a step back and do a WW1 campaign, it needs to be its own campaign, with its own tech tree, its own squads etc. (same goes for a move forward in time).

4 Likes
11

Plus going to the past and doing WW1 might be easier than postwar since a lot of existing guns could be used for it

1 Like
12

True.

Just on moving forward, for myself I argued that way in the future after doing WWII to a reasonable amount they should add the Korean War.
But just that. Korea, no more. It would be a tier V map rotation. Unlike even the First World War, like 95% of the weapons in the Korean War are already in game. Those that arent were still WW2 vintage.

I proposed that Japan faction would have high rank North Korean squads (since Korea was under Japanese occupation from 1910-1945) and ‘Japan’ is already set up to fight USA-UK-Commonwealth. The USSR could have high rank Chinese squads since the PRC used Soviet weapons. I dont think the queues for that would be a problem since USSR isnt queued with USA-UK anyway.

The only main difference as you allude to is jets. Now when I made my post about Korea I argued that since jets would be controversial, just leave them out.
After all, Enlisted is an FPS where aircraft’s main role is strafing and bombing. You couldnt really do that with jets very well and in Korea (and Vietnam) this tended to be done by propeller aircraft anyway.
So like the Corsair and Mustang are already in game and would not be OP.

To answer this thread’s suggestion though. I fully support this idea. I think the devs may have said theyd never do it but personally I see no reason why not.

As you said the squad system and so forth is perfect and the game is largely infantry based anyway. Just replace a Spitfire with a Sopwith Camel, a Sherman tank with a Mark V and youre good to go.
They even had tenders (veteran trucks) in WW1 so we could keep the ‘APC’ slot. Maybe even use omnibuses.

I wouldnt bother with gas/chemical weapons myself.

The only critique Id say is how would objectives work. The desert war such as fought by the Australian Light Horse under Harry Chauvel would work fine.
However the Western Front as we know was largely static so how would you capture multiple objectives?Or would it just be king of the hill?
You could capture multiple trenches I suppose. But my point is it would be kind of weird in a First World War game to be taking all these objectives when the real war was just stuck in trenches advancing barely a metre in months.

Aircraft would work fine for a tech tree but what about tanks?
The French and British to some extent you could have progression. But Germany to my knowledge only ever had the A7V. (and not in very large numbers).
One could add the Austrian Motorgeschutz as as premium (never made it off the drawing board) although Im assuming Austria-Hungary would be its own faction.

And that still leaves the problem of Austria having basically no TT tanks and Germany only one.

There are armoured cars of course which could fill out the trees but nevertheless there could be a balance problem. For myself, I accept thats the history but there are a lot of Thanos players out there.

My final thought if I may would be for DF and everyone here to consider interwar conflicts. For example the Chaco War, Spanish Civil War, Sino-Japanese Wars (the second of which fed into WWII).

Again a fair amount of tech already in game could be applied to any of these and the squad system would work well. Unlike the Great War, these 3 (and others) both sides had reasonably balanced tech (or at least both sides we can come up with various suggestions for tanks, aircraft and small arms)

1 Like
13

@CaptainBeel - Some good thoughts there!

Honestly I rather have historical, unbalanced conditions as it forces players to use their brains and tactics to still gain the upper hand. I like such challenges: War usually is NOT that balanced to begin with (and it is fun to still find ways to win or counter the enemy despite this). So if one side did not have proper tanks, do not give them any. As you said there are other options like a large variety of “armoured vehicles”. On the other hand make tanks “unreliable” and give them a chance to break down (as they actually did), limit the numbers that can be fielded, etc.

But it is not only tanks but other tech as well: The Austrian-Hungarians for example were rather slow to adapt new technology, they were in fact the last of the big nations to adopt helmets for their infantry, and then only managed to supply them in rather low numbers! At the Isonzo (Italian) Front the Austro-Hungarian soldiers coming in from the front line with helmets needed to give them to the guys going out. There also was a dearth of machine guns for the Austrians: One officer, commanding at a fortified position in the Alps, was so desperate that he went to Vienna to get and bring back a Russian machine gun that his unit had captured in the weeks before…

As far as the objectives go: I think it could work and even would be able to depict historical conditions actually. Have you ever been in am Enlisted battle with an uncoodinated team against a well coordinated one, where you are somehow unable to gain the initiative and break out to the first objective? Now THAT is exactly how it would be on Western Front maps. Mind you the trenches and overall map design would (and should) make attacks difficult and counter attacks possible. → If you loose a trench line you fall back, maybe shell them and then counter attack to push the enemy out again. So Western Front maps would be more like a tug-of-war, fighting over small areas, trying to push the enemy out. By the same token, if you are successful (even if our historical counterparts were not) you should have the option to move on and attack the next trench system.

Sorry for the wall of text :wink:

1 Like
14

BR 0 for events, why not?

15

Not an event actually, but its own campaign set in WW1 (i.e. WW1 tech tree, WW1 progression in the tech tree, WW1 battlefields and theatres of war, WW1 nations, WW1 squads) so it would have its own Battle Rating connected to the WW1 technology and progression.

As I mentioned there would be and should be no WW1 squads being mixed with and facing WW2 squads and technology.

1 Like
16

Fair. Not sure whether players would accept that though and I would have to disagree with tanks breaking down. Yes it happened a lot but I feel like that would be a buggy feature plus just piss off players which is the last thing you want.

Thanks for sharing info about Austro Hungarians thats really interesting. Ive been to the Austrian Military Museum in Vienna which was very cool. I saw their anti aircraft gun was a Schwarzlose on a tripod bolted to a sideways cart wheel. Just that. Likewise aircraft early warning system was… a giant gramophone that you listened for the engines. Makes Will E Coyote look advanced lol.

Likewise I hear you with objectives but would players actually like that? I hate battles where we just cant capture the damn objective. If I understand correctly a WW1 Enlisted would be like Confrontation every map and I would HATE that. I HATE confrontation mode. The game lasts way too long. A solution though would be to give matches a time limit of say 25 minutes.
I think for a WW1 game a time limit is necessary lest the match basically turn into the real war where its just stalemate for 3 and a bit years. Move back and forth and at the end of 25 minutes see how each side went, like you suggested with tickets holding the point and so forth.

In current Enlisted we have full objectives as each ‘point’ in Confrontation, in WW1 Enlisted these points could just be trenches.

The desert war was a lot more interesting in my opinion and easier to implement/use armoured cars and aircraft.

How would you add horses? If a WW1 game doesnt have the Australian Light Horse Im not playing XD.

Id also assume since we are having armoured cars and tanks the battles would largely have to be late war. Because then wed either be having battles with tanks where there were no tanks on either side in real life, or likewise battles where there werent really armoured cars (plus armoured cars would be able to do next to nothing in a trench-based Western Front battle)

1 Like
17

Indeed some of the equipment utilized was mind bogglingly weird to our modern eyes, but sometimes they just had to improvise to catch up to modern techniques. The Austrian Military Museum in Vienna is great (btw. if you ever get the chance, make sure to visit the “Styrian Armoury” a.k.a. “Landeszeughaus” in Graz, as it features the world’s largest historic armoury and is thus quite unique and in my humble opinion simply breathtaking).

Horses → absolutely, in a WW1 setting we need horses and horse drawn equipment, etc.

And of course subnations/units like Australian and New Zealand troops and the Ottoman Empire should be there, to properly fight famous battles like Gallipoli.

I honestly never liked time counters in games, sometimes they take too long, sometimes they are too short to make things enjoyable → so most of the time they suck one way or the other. It should probably be more holding “areas”, not single points → so attack, and take/ hold or counterattack a trench line (depending how well the defenders do their job and how well the attackers can coordinate their attack, the attack would stall or work out and push the defenders from their position). This could work very well with “tickets” that both the defender and attacker have at their disposal. If they run out you are out of reinforcements and will loose.

WW1 Enlisted would also utilize a progression system: from early war (BR1) equipment, means of transport, weapons and uniforms up to late war and more advanced (BR4) equipment.

For example: the early stages of the war (~ August 1914) saw only sporadic use of “tear gas” (the French were the first to give this a try), at the start of the second year (~ January 1915) the first attacks with deadly gas started (the Germans appear to have been the first to use it). By the same token the countermeasures lagged behind, early devices were crude (sometimes nothing more than a piece of cloth drenched in urine or other detergents) and it took a while for proper gas masks to be developed and issued. As mentioned chemical weapons were not used on all fronts (some only saw very limited use, others even none) but they were a big part of WW1 and should play a part.

Various vehicles & horses should have their part to play (if the terrain allows it, in certain areas it should be up to the players to deploy them and suffer the consequences if they get bogged down, etc.) and players should also have the ability to expand/repair trenches, put down/repair/cut razor wire and build/destroy other obstacles (that would/could make the trench warfare really interesting). Even more so if you allow mining operations (tunnel warfare) → would promote teamplay, working together to get this done.

1 Like
18

What’s more there were other intereating conflicts that would work nicely for events within a “WW1 Enlisted” and would fall roughly into the same technological time frame:

For example the “Second Boer War” (a.k.a. Second Anglo-Boer War) from 1899 - 1902, a conflict that (as far as I am aware) has not really been covered by any FPS games to date: Here the British used Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles and the Boers used Mauser, Martini-Henry and Krag-Jorgenson rifles as well as various hunting rifles. The Maxim machine guns were also put to good use by the latter. The German-made Mauser Model 1896 self-indexing automatic pistol also saw extensive service.

1 Like
19

Excellent idea!
Event squad of I forget the ship name but Royal Navy personnel operating a field gun. (see the film ‘Young Winston’).
Young Winston Churchill as gold order soldier with C96 Mauser
Breaker Morant gold order soldier.
Jan Smuts gold order soldier

1 Like
20

Guns are not the problem since dev made them regularly. Problem is vehicle, since they rarely make their own and mostly use the one from War Thunder.