I’d love to see further enhancements to the environmental interaction and destruction in Enlisted. Specifically, I think adding the ability for players to more actively interact with the environment could elevate the gameplay experience.
Dynamic Destruction: It would be great to see more battlefield changes as the fight progresses. For example, craters left by bombs or tank shells could alter the layout of the battlefield, creating new obstacles or pathways that require adaptive strategies. This would make the battlefield feel more alive and reactive to the combat happening. Tanks able to destroy buildings and other things like that.
Fortifications and Environmental Defense: Adding more materials or tools for soldiers to interact with in the environment would allow for temporary defenses to be built. Players could fortify structures or create sandbag barricades, reinforcing positions and adding a deeper level of strategy to controlling areas.
These additions would not only enhance immersion but also give players more options for tactical play. Whats the opinions gang?
This is definitely a good thing. The destructible terrain allows large - caliber artillery to play its true role. However, for this game, increasing terrain destruction is too difficult.
Implementing more dynamic destruction and interactive environments would offer several key benefits, both in terms of realism and gameplay strategy:
Enhanced Tactical Depth: A battlefield that evolves with the combat would encourage players to adapt their strategies on the fly. For example, a bomb crater that opens up new cover options or blocks off a main route could force attackers to take alternative paths, requiring more planning and cooperation. This would reward adaptability and quick thinking, making each match feel fresh and unpredictable.
Immersive Realism: The ability to see and interact with the environment as it changes would deepen the immersion. Buildings collapsing from tank fire, craters formed by heavy artillery, and trenches dug in response to shifting fronts all contribute to the chaotic, destructive nature of warfare. It would make players feel more like they’re part of a living, breathing battlefield, rather than just a static map.
Increased Replayability: With a destructible environment, no two battles would be the same. Each match could play out differently depending on the level of destruction, where players might need to adapt to new cover or hazards created by the fighting. This would encourage players to return for multiple plays as they experience the battlefield in new ways every time.
Strategic Variety: By allowing players to impact the battlefield directly, such as creating barricades or breaking down structures for tactical advantage, the game would introduce more variety in terms of defensive strategies. Teams would need to think creatively about fortifications and how to use the environment to their advantage, leading to more diverse, engaging gameplay.
Historical Accuracy and Immersion: Destruction was a key part of many major battles in WWII, where cities and landscapes were altered by constant bombardment. Implementing a more destructible environment would honor this historical reality and add an extra layer of authenticity to the game, making it feel more like a true representation of wartime battles.
For all these years, they haven’t even added motion capture, making the soldiers as stiff as wooden figures. Due to their long-term inaction, our suggestions now are extremely conservative. I don’t think they have the ability to create good terrain destruction effects.
I belive they do they just are busy doing other things yet. If a tank can go through a wall like they do in game they can definitely collapse a building. If artillery strikes make craters so can tanks and grenades. Its easy done theirs just so much going on at the minute.
Random objectives which consist solely of a singular building, or even some random collection of outdoor background props would be unlikely to hold up in the face of the outstanding amount of explosives the game can throw at you.
The very fact parts of the map are indestructible is what makes them relatively fair against vehicles.
I get what you’re saying about fairness and the need for some indestructible areas to maintain balance against vehicles, but I think there are ways to implement destruction without making objectives unplayable.
For example, destruction could be partial rather than absolute—instead of completely erasing a building, maybe only certain walls, windows, or roofs can be destroyed, changing how cover is used but not removing objectives entirely. Battlefield games do this well by making some structures destructible while keeping key areas intact for balance.
Also, craters and debris from destruction could create new forms of cover, rather than just removing it. A blown-up building might leave behind rubble that still provides protection for infantry, shifting how fights play out rather than making areas completely exposed.
I think if done right, destruction could make battles feel more dynamic and immersive without sacrificing balance. What do you think about a system like that?
