It takes absurd amount of time to fully upgrade same higher level squads. You will have to grind it out with basic riflemen while you don’t have any useful soliders to impact the game differently. This is one if the reasons why you don’t see people building rallies, because of they do not have engineer slot unlocked yet and they wish to use recently unlocked squad. After fully upgrading one squad you aren’t incentivized to repeat the same painful process with bigger xp limits for token unlocks.
One engineer slot needs to available by default for every squad and xp level limits for upgrade tokens needs to be reduced to make the grind more enjoyable.
This will prevent best-use, purpose-built squads though. If every squad had access to an engineer you’d see a massive change in the way matches work. I think the devs did this for exactly that reason.
Every infantry squad get access (pretty much) for engineer so I don’t belive it would turn the game inside out. They are the best way to get gain more easy xp. They would just need to limit the amount of engineers you can have max 2, just like we have currently (for every other squad than ”engineer squad”).
I think this should have been the title of your post.
The grind is what it is, I’ve been playing WT for 11 years and Gaijin didn’t care then, and certainly doesn’t care now. Whilst DF has made some comments about improving the economy lets park this issue for the moment, because the allocation of the engineer slot by default to any given squad makes for a far more compelling argument.
As Enlisted settles into its dynamic, a couple of things become apparent, even for new players. There are some classes essential to the let’s call it “playability” of the game.
In this particular case, based on whatever passes for game balance and design decision making process in DF, the engineer is the only one to build rallies.
As rallies are essential to the flow of the game, the devs have painted themselves into a corner… The current access to engineers in the avg progression tree is senseless, players should start with a default engineer squad , not a frikken sniper squad. Access to an engineer should be the first unlock in any upgrade tree.
If the devs are determined to make ppl play cannon fodder for a few games before they gain some level of tactical utility and contribution to the team, that can’t be helped, but they can certainly reorganise the upgrade tree, and bring forward the engineer role as the first unlock option after the root XP slot at the very least.
Playing without an engineer, without the ability to replenish one’s ammo (noting that most new players will not have ammo pouches) and at least some degree of broader contribution to the game (as not all new players are actual FPS noobs) is a shit intro into the game.
Until someone on the dev team takes some time out to think about and understand their own game mechanics, the real grind is getting new players into the game.
anti-tank rifle grenade
He can quickly earn individual or squad experience
The only shortcoming is the US military being persecuted by the official
Their anti-tank grenades are too high-rated and can only be used against Tigers
I don’t think it’s difficult to look up information
Instead of being like some groups who didn’t check the information or study countermeasures and then were massacred and then came to the forum to cry.
But I agree that all (necessary) early basic squads must be made more obtainable or directly obtainable
Instead of giving free snipers like now, newcomers will habitually become passive people hiding behind
At least in 70% of the U.S. military confrontations, all I encountered were tigers.
Anti-tank grenades from other camps are only level 3
There is no reason for the Garand grenade to become a level 4 weapon.
This is obviously unfair
If the official believes that Garand rifle grenade can only stay at level 4
Then they need to at least give the US military another level 3 anti-tank grenade
Can I ask some questions about post get flagged?
Is this from a moderator or an ordinary user?
If it comes from the moderator, then I want to “appeal” against this penalty:
I don’t think my post contains anything offensive. The only thing that comes close is calling his complaint about the US BR3 ATGL cry, but a little reading of the context reveals the first use of this term. This attitude can be found in many places on his post on forum (Calling those who complain crying)
Instead of being like some groups who didn’t check the information or study countermeasures and then were massacred and then came to the forum to cry.
So after I found out he was complaining about something, I asked him back if his behavior was also a form of crying and made further sarcasm.
I even kept showing that this was sarcasm and had nothing to do with what he was complaining about, just a simple reductio.
So if this punishment is approved by the moderator, I will be very shocked.
Old post
Can this be applied to your own words?
Maybe you should look for some other way to replace the ATGL spam you rely heavily on, rather than cry on the forum that you can’t simply click to spam explosive against Infantry and vehicles.
(Not my true opinion about USA ATGL, just using your own thought against you)
I rarely save game pictures
But I guess that should be enough to judge?
in addition
Most of the high mortality rates come from team replacement and frontline suppression.
I like to use vehicles to commit suicide attacks
Because it is very useful whether it is to deal with negative people who can’t think or to give up those negative allies.
But that doesn’t mean my ground skills are as bad as the guys I slaughtered.
Maybe you can try not presupposing other people’s abilities next time
It will only appear that you are discriminating against a specific group without sufficient reasons to refute the main composition of that group.
