To be honest, I hope to see the Chinese battlefield
There have been several large-scale and brutal battles on the Chinese battlefield, such as the Battle of Taierzhuang, the Battle of Nanjing, the Battle of Songhu, the Battle of Taiyuan, and of course, the Burma Campaign in cooperation with countries such as Britain and the United States
The scale of these battles is definitely not smaller than the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Moscow, but the reality is that most people in countries are unaware of the existence of these battles, which is difficult to understand
I definitely think it would be interesting to see them test different things on the test server. They can’t just treat the test server like early access for new things. They have to actually experiment
One of my ideas is that they should test a more historical based BR
I get it, but I somewhat disagree because I’d just prefer historical maps
It’s simple, they should just let you be able to customize Premium and Event squads however you want
In general they really need to overhaul and work on customization
I’m not entirely on board with adaptive camo unless you mean just being able to choose our skins ourselves. They could have it like soldier appearance where you can customize for various maps
The Ho Ri is definitively controversial. I never minded prototypes but usually most of them were at least physically real designs as in they actually exist. But now they have started to treading into paper designs.
Some would say well if you accepted those prototypes then you have to accept paper (because prototype is prototype). It’s a conundrum. I almost say they should scrap the Ho Ri and give the Chi-Ri instead
One thing is for sure I don’t like seeing Italian paratroopers dropping in Normandy and Berlin. Yes the British also fought in the Pacific but it wasn’t shoulder to shoulder with Americans. Otherwise one day we will literally have the Brits storming the beaches of Iwo Jima
Making them a separate faction may be the only real solution, but we have to experiment
Like I said they should experiment with more historical BRs or some other history minded overhaul
Ah, I remember you. I have also read your post and it was written very well and in great detail. I just hope that the developers will not let your efforts go to waste. After all, I firmly believe that joining the Chinese camp will have a more positive impact on the game than a negative impact, especially since it is an international server game, not a Chinese server game
I don’t understand how the Chinese government can censor and ban gaming even if there are political issues. In fact, so-called censorship only occurs when a game wants to obtain a copyright number in China, and Enlisted doesn’t need to worry about this from the beginning
I’m just gonna post this here. This is from someone else on the forums in regards to the people wanting ‘historical accuracy’.
Extremely flawed and exploitable system here… You can pack high tier gear and skewer the matchmaker by throwing in a “Stalingrad preferred vehicle” and face low-level players with a huge advantage like it was pre-merge… Just say you want map/campaign selection to come back, because this is essentially what you’re asking here.
This is counterintuitive to your 2nd and 3rd things on your list.
None of the vehicles you listed are Japanese + none of the vehicles currently in the game are wooden mockup vehicles.
This isn’t how the tech tree is supposed to work. Germany has the most powerful tanks in the game, making it easier for them to obtain these HE-slinging death machines won’t make the game better.
Again, what “fake and prototype tanks” are you trying to reference here? Britain and Italy have vehicles like the Comet, Challenger, P40, M43 SPG they can add without issue.
Whenever people ask for “historical accuracy” in a game like Enlisted, it’d typically result in the Germans having the biggest advantage powerhouse in the game, which I can’t help but notice you haven’t listed any of their weapons in this final topic.
I want historical maps as much as the next guy, but knowing history hurts in this case.
For instance, I really want a Kursk map, but I know well that there were Panther, Tiger and Ferdinand on the German side, yet no T-34-85 or IS-1/2 on the Soviet side.
So this looks impossible to balance in terms of BR, unless you make it only up to KV-1 and Pz IV G somehow but then it’s not really Kursk, is it?
Instead of “however you want”, I’d rather still say “accodring to the map/theater”.
If one wants SAS boys to wear shorts at the Bulge, they shouldn’t be able to do that.
I mean by default your tank changes default camo in accordance with the map, unless you unlock/buy a different (fitting) one
Simple:
What?
I’m talking about a BR3 loadout right now:
This would have more chances of going to Stalingrad or Tunisia
And this would have more chances of going to Normandy, Ardennes or Berlin because Pz IV J is 1944
What high level gear and skewing are you taking about? It’s still the same BR3.
I don’t think it is. Elaborate.
Did I say “now I will list some Japanese vehicles?”
Did I say "this vehicle currently in the game is a wooden mockup?
The Ho Ri will be though.
Please do some basic fact checking before engaging in flaming.
Potential Italian BR5 tanks. You got any real ones on your mind?
Not even going to engage in “you main faction X!!1” discussions.
Because some campaigns are locked to a certain range of BR. Say you’re at the top edge of one of said ranges, you have gear that’d usually be seen in Normandy (As your screen shows), but yet you head to Tunisia where earlier gear is more prevalent simply because you swapped a tank. Now you’re fighting lower tiered players who possibly aren’t using Normandy gear.
Your post is implying you wish for more historically accurate matchmaking and maps, etc. “Without exact battle dates” goes against this and causes things like how you said you dislike Panthers and Tigers in Stalingrad.
You said “Japanese-quasi prototypes”. Plural, then listed several tanks afterwards.
okay, the Ho Ri possibly existed as a prototype and dumped into a lake, though I won’t argue about this bc that’s a whole other topic. Your concerns for “wooden mockups” implies there is a pre-existing problem that prompted this in the first place, which there isn’t.
“Flaming” Elaborate on what you’re trying to say beforehand.
M43 not ‘real’
I didn’t refer to any “you main faction-” discussion at all. I’m stating a fact that Germany would be overpowered by default.
You know how BRs work, right?
If I have top gear from Normandy, that means I have BR 4-5, and I can’t go to Tunisia to low gear players.
I do like historical accuracy, but it’s not easy to keep it 100% authentic with the BRs system.
And since the BRs are here to stay, I would rather have generic new maps so that we don’t have any more blood-from-the-eyes situations like KTH in Staingrad or Pz IV J in Tunisia.
Yes, Japan has a lot of prototypes including “Tokyo SMG” and the wooden tank hunter.
The list that follows are the vehicles that would be nice, historical additions.
The problem is trying to stretch Japan to BR5 whereas it can be limited to BR3-4 and be both more or less authentic and playable.
Better Ai, better maps, better graphics, etc. are all welcome by default.
I’m trying to list some more specific things that can be done right now.
Yes, I do. I’m saying that if you’re using gear on the top edge that is considered for Tunisia, you can practically increase your chances for Tunisia and face lower tiered players and gear.
It wasn’t historically accurate to begin with. Armies smashing into eachother like the Death Korps of Krieg, Medieval time period with battles that took weeks irl only taking 5 minutes in game. Not even to mention the gear present in the game even before the merge took place.
Because they didn’t really have anything else that’d be considered competitive. Otherwise they’re the designated seal clubber faction.
Do you mean that taking BR3 with Pz IV J (late war) will more likely land you in high BR late war so people would take BR3 with Pz IV F2 to be more likely to go to Stalingrad or Tunisia on low BR?
Yes, I see now how that might be an issue.
Will need tweaking. Maybe Pz IV J to BR 4.
Historical accuracy is subjective to everyone’s taste.
For me it’s lack of time travelling items like KTH in Stalingrad or weird prototypes that were never built like the Japanese tank.
That’s why it would have been a much better solution to keep them at BR 1-3.
And allow them to be the seal clubber faction facing gear in tiers they can’t even reach…
I don’t think people who complain about seeing things in Stalingrad really care as much as they claim to. I seriously cannot understand why this is such a problem people constantly bring up. Who really cares?
Maybe you’re from another culture/generation/education system (no negativity here), but to me (and many others) Battle is Stalingrad is well known down to street names and officer names, people visit the city and know the history of the battle.
Maybe for you it would be like M1 Abrams put in Vietnam War or Shermans rolling across the Somme in WW1 level of insanity.
That’s not how the BR system works Not to mention cause the issue of having Tier 3 being the only tier to really play and 1-2 would be pointless if you can simply equip Tier 3 gear and have the best advantage possible.
You’re comparing vehicles to battles that were 20-30 years apart whereas I am comparing vehicles that were 2-3 years apart. Big difference.
I suppose in order to satisfy the historical accuracy people, most deaths in this game need to be from artillery and mortar fire, aircraft bombs and mines. Tanks like the Tiger, Panther, especially with low level crews should break down and require a toolkit every short distance. German APHE shells have their ammo cut into a fraction of their actual capacity due to tungsten shortages and need to resupply often. Japanese only wield Type 38 and 99 bolt actions with Ha Gos and Chi Ha 57mms. Battles in winter maps have reduced stamina due to food shortages and lack of proper winter gear. Guns on Berlin will often malfunction for the Germans due to poor headspacing, mixed bolts and parts on certain guns, or outright kill the soldier due to a cartridge backfiring, jam casings often on full automatic guns or failure to feed… Grenades can outright dud or instantly go off in your soldier’s hand… Volkssturm units can only level up once due to little to no military training… Soviets get 2000 troop/reinforcement count due to having more manpower and Americans are allowed 5 tanks at one time rather than just two due to production industry power and numbers.
But yet Tigers and Panthers on Stalingrad maps are a big problem and need addressed immediately for historical accuracy.
That’s basically like saying while play anything besides BR5 if the best gear is at BR5?
Well, I play BR1, BR2, BR3 and BR5.
For fun.
In terms of WW2 3 years is like 30 in peace time (like T-72 or M1 Abrams are still used today, but in WW2 no one was mad enough to use T-28 or Pz II in 1945, similarly Tiger 2 makes no sense in Stalingrad.
Yes. They break the immersion and purpose of having actual historical city maps.
Not as much as you think. A full-blown war effort on the part of multiple countries puts technological advancement into hyperdrive. Look at the vehicles and aircraft in use at the start of the war and those at the end. That really was what would otherwise have been perhaps a few decades’ peacetime work compressed into six years.
After all what I just stated?
You forget how the game consists of two teams smashing into one another like it’s the medieval ages and territory that took days irl to advance and capture takes like 5 minutes in this game.
But yet a tank on the wrong map is a big nono.
Irrelevant. Advancement of technology doesn’t mean anything when something like a Panzer 3 built 2 years prior to a Tiger 2 has literally nothing wrong with it during wartime. A Tiger 2 in Stalingrad seriously isn’t as big of an issue as it really is.
how about less ambitious
BR 1-2, 3-4, 5(with maybe extra 6). you are basically suggesting that they go from 2 queue per nation to 4-5 queue per nation.
agreed
bad idea. you would just make it complicated and could possibly make some players dictate maps they would be playing.
map veto system would be better idea.
they announced that this should come with merge…
somehow i think this will become new fix bipod meme.
not gonna work… people would just demand specific soft rules for every weapon e.g. volkssturm weapons making those rules irrelevant.
not gonna work. you would basically have berlin whenever 1 player has volkssturm weapon equipped. too much power for one player to have.
The higher number of queues isn’t really a problem with a “1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5” system,
because BR 2, 3 and 4 players can each service two queues at the same time.
So it should have more or less the same strain on the matchmaking system as the “1-2, 3-4, 5” solution.
