Historical Equipment+ Ammo loads

Suggestions
1

I am enjoying my experience with enlisted so far. One thing that I think would increase immersion is historical equipment for your soldiers. Real soldiers in WW2 were not riding into combat with only suspenders and a belt. As far as I know, all militaries had a set of individual gear for carrying ammo, food, personal equipment, etc.

image
image3500Ă—2553 2.23 MB

Historical ammo loads- I know that the amount of ammo carried by the soldier in enlisted has to do with balance, but I feel that having historical ammo loads would make more sense, and with most individual gear systems being modular one could still pick and choose how much ammo was carried.
I am going to use the American infantry in Normandy as my prime example for this. This is my area of the most expertise.

In the Normandy campaign, most soldiers appear to be carrying just a pistol belt, or a pistol belt and suspenders. Most infantrymen were riflemen, and therefore carried an assembly based around the M-1928 Cartridge belt. This would commonly be worn with suspenders, either an M-1928 haversack or (possibly) a M-1936 Musette bag (commonly used by paratroopers) or the M-1944 combat/cargo pack assembly. Also commonly worn on the belt was a Medkit pouch, a canteen, and perhaps a bayonet. An entrenching tool was also commonly worn on the pack.

The M-1928 cartridge belt could accommodate 80 rounds for the garand or 100 rounds for the Springfield. Pistol belts with different ammo pouches were worn for guns like the M1 carbine, M3 sub machine gun, etc.
Bandoliers were also used to carry additional ammo for the Springfield, M1 Garand, and M1 Carbine.
An M1 general purpose ammunition bag also existed for the purpose of carrying ammo. This thing could hold about anything you wanted it to (bazooka rockets, grenades…)

M1 Garand- 80 rounds carried. Addition of small and large ammo pouches could be added in as a half-full or completely full bandolier.

M1903 Springfield- 100 rounds carried. Addition of extra ammo pouches could be worked in as a bandolier.

M1 Carbine- 60 rounds carried. Addition of “small ammo pouch” could be represented as an additional pouch on the stock. Addition of “large ammo pouch” could be represented by a bandolier.

This is all of the information that I can strongly back. I am not an expert with other guns and their carried ammunition.

18 Likes
2

They really shouldn’t balance weapons by its ammo capacity. It is not fun at all to whom uses the weapon and whom faces the weapon.

2 Likes
3

Uniform/Gear overhaul please omfg. So tired of naked soldiers running around constantly.

9 Likes
4

Overhaul the uniform, make them bulkier. But don’t really change the ammo capacity. They’re fine right now imho

1 Like
5

Really so fun only having 3 gewehr 43 mags because flametroopers and radio operators can’t carry ammo so I’m basically forced to give them fg42s or bolt actions for longevity

1 Like
6

but ww2 battles didn’t last 15 to 30 minutes

1 Like
7

Immersion in Enlisted?

You msut have a different definition… this is an arcade game, with bad “history” and worse gameplay (historically speaking - it’s a fine arcade game).

If you are getting “immersion” out of it then I don’t think it has anything to do with WW2

8

So true…. Hate having 3 extra mags on the Gew. 43

9

You mean uniform is too skinny now, right?

10

It’s something I srsly don’t care at all. I don’t even see my gear, I just see my weapon and hands… It’s only lobby worth

Imo… Never understood the need of soldier costumisation if I can’t see it at all. Someone tell me so I can understand it.

I could understand camos if I could select the map I where to play
I could understand gear around the soldier. If it added something besides visual.
I can understand all the above. If, had a porpose and or I could see it /use it.

If it’s just extra stuff a soldier can carry without meaning just to make one easy to be spotted, nah
Hard pass for me.

11

They even make fun of that themselves

IMG_20220109_115043
IMG_20220109_1150431080Ă—1285 155 KB

6 Likes
12

Me either. I cant understand the need of legs and appearance of soldiers. Beacuse we only can see the hands and guns.
Thoses are also worth in lobby.

I could understand existence of legs if I could destroy the obstacles and doors with my legs
I could understand the appearance of soldiers if there were something besides visual.
And this is the real, ultimate minimalism.

13

You don’t see yourself but you see your bots, your teammates and your enemies.

8 Likes
14

The old American playermodels from when Enlisted was in pre-alpha looked monumentally better, even though they looked more…simplified.

15

That’s great, all the more reason for those of us who enjoy seeing extra details to get what we want. No other WW2 game has soldiers running around in pajamas.

3 Likes
16

Not even vanguard did that! At least they have gear (although probably completely made up)

17

Unfortunately COD games go too over the top with that stuff :confused: