Enlisted mechanism development

  1. Both sides must have manpower limitations.

  2. The occupation speed of both sides, the progress of special mechanisms, the manpower required for the rebirth team, the amount of manpower restored, and other manpower mechanisms should be roughly close. (When the weapon levels are relatively close, there should be no difference in troop strength values)

  3. The map is expanded and the target point becomes larger.

  4. Use armored transport vehicles as carriers so that they can assume the responsibilities of resurrecting points, transferring targets, and transferring soldiers.

  5. The vehicle limit has been changed from only two vehicles regardless of category to separate restrictions based on different vehicles. For example, the limit for armored vehicles/light tanks is 4.
    [Low BR is still 2]
    The number of medium tanks is limited to 2
    The number of heavy tanks is limited to 1

How will defender replenish manpower? and how much are we going to give to them?

Go play cs2 if you want that absolute balancing. If the game change to your saying that limite defender’s manpower then this means defender will have a natural disadvantages.

can’t agree more

we might need this when we have a large battle field mode. Like really large. the entire Moscow map large

I dont know but I guess this is a bad idea.

  1. how?do you define heavy armor? kv1? in this case the german will only have 2 tanks vs 3 Soviet tanks in tier3
  2. tier 5 for german are mostly heavy tanks.
  3. this also means the need to purchase more squad slots if you want to use armor when you have to
  4. This might work well when we have large battle field. but unless they make the battlefield few kilometers square large or we will still have head on tank battle.
1 Like

No defender limits, that’s how defenders have a shot at winning any match. Take away infinite defender lives and matches become a LOT shorter on average

The equalizing of capture points I’d agree with. As is the ebb and flow of players means the devs absolutely need to keep a leg up on how the playerbase is moving and adjust accordingly. Having flat rates across both sides would help remove the need for that, plus would help lengthen the matches where all 5 points are captured in 5 or less minutes because points only take 30 seconds


1.The defender loses the control point, and failure to restore troops is the best punishment.

  1. Doesn’t the defender have a natural advantage by relying on the target point?

3.Of course kv1 is a standard heavy tank, 2 pz.4 tanks vs 2 T34_1941/1943 is it unbalanced?

No - attacker progression towards winning is jsut fine.

A little - but it is also a hinderance - attacker knows exactly where to put artillery, bombs and rockets, and where the defender is concentrated - tanks can spam HE into teh point too, plus mortars…


1 Like

1.I don’t know what you say
2.Can’t the defense do the same?
3.NO FOR WHAT? Can’t you make it clearer???

When an attacker takes a cap they make progress towards winning - that is enough

Not until the attacker is taking the point - the attacker can attack from anywhere - the defender always is on the point.
When hte attacker is on the point their location is known - but they are also capturing the point

No for this, ie no it is not unbalanced because tanks do not solely define hte balance of hte game:

That is when they have infinite manpower. But when defender have a manpower limite the advantage is the attackers since they have a wide range of directions and defender have to go every where to defend. plus it is easy for defender to just snipe out the manpower of defenders we see a lot of this as defender when attacker find frontal conflict is too difficult.

So you mean there is no way to restore manpower for defender? they can only rely on their 1000 manpower?

does german have heavy tank at the same time?. If not then its 2 t34+ one kv1 vs 2 panzer IV

Same applies to defenders. Its not like they are sitting there and wait for the attackers to pop up.

We probably need more then this. Like restore manpower on killing attackers. And restore some manpower when attacker progress on their objective while defender’s manpower is below a level.

But I personally does not agree the idea of defender have manpower l.

Defenders having infinite resources promotes rushing mentality on attacker side.

When the defender has unlimited human resources, the following situations will only happen:

  1. The attacker gives up the attack after suffering several setbacks.
  2. The defender has unlimited vehicles. The attacker will never be able to destroy all aircraft and tanks. , on a small map like Elisted, vehicles will kill everyone who tries to enter the control point.
    And what does the defender have? Each rebirth consumes human resources, and the same goes for vehicles. If you put this It’s called balance. I only think you are a vested interest on the defensive side.

This would only be the case if defenders were actually capable of utilizing defensive strategies effectively.

Fortifications are currently a joke.

  • They are destroyed by almost every nearby explosion, that alone rendering them almost useless.
    If they made fortifications immune to FRAGMENTATION damage, that would swiftly change.

  • It requires an engineer to spend time an materials to build them, yet they can be “deconstructed” by ANY unit type, for no cost of anything other than time. This is absolute BS and needs to be fixed immediately.

  • The vast majority of objective locations are too easy from a baseline to capture due to the number of entry points, and also that many of them allow you to capture from OUTSIDE the area that SHOULD be the objective.
    The Monastery map on Moscow is a good example: Attackers don’t even have to push through the wall to capture the objective, they just have to cluster up on their side of it, which removes the “defender advantage” entirely.
    Likewise, many objectives for BUNKERS don’t even require you to go INTO THE BUNKER. Instead, you only have to cluster up outside of it, and you can capture it. Again removing the “defender advantage” entirely.

  • Defenders are not told in advance where ANY of their fallback points are going to be, nor are they actually given TIME to fortify.
    This means that to get any kind of advantage at all from fortifications, engineer players have to abandon the front line, GUESS where the objective is going to go, and hope the remainder of their team can buy them enough time to set up fortifications.
    On top of that, if they guessed WRONG about the location, there is no good option to clear those fortifications to then build them at the new location.

If they fixed it to where defenders could more reliably hold the objective and the vast majority of the fight took place in front of the objective on the attackers side due to efficient fortifications, only THEN I could maybe see limited tickets for the defenders.

If the defender cannot defeat the enemies attacking the control point, then any fortifications built by the defender will be just the icing on the cake and will not affect the situation of the battle at all. (Because then the defender will lose no matter what)

The issue is that right now, all of the fighting takes place directly on the objective, rather than fortifications being put in place to help control the flow of the battle. If fortifications actually held properly, then you would see about 50% of the fight be moved to the front edge and flanks of the objective.
This is important because due to lack of friendly fire damage, players just spam explosives and MG fire into the objective.
While this can technically be done by both sides, the issue is that (on invasion mode) defenders cannot reverse the capture of the objective. Meaning it is nearly impossible to fend off the attackers forever, despite defenders having infinite tickets. Every time a little bit of progress is made, it is permanent.

Overall, shifting the way that battles are fought by changing the viability of defenses will make for a more entertaining, dynamic gameplay experience, both for defenders AND attackers.