It is a nice thing to want, however, it is just unrealistic at the moment. The very last thing I want to see in the game is 10v10 and 90 bot squads thrown in as filler. Not to mention hardware part of problem with this. (And no, I don´t remember devs promising 100v100, at best it was meant as 100 soldiers on the battlefield including your squad which is realistic and makes sense.) As for Lone fighters that feel empty… that gamemode is so abandoned, that higher number of fighters in match is not going to save it.
So to sum it up, sure there are more people who want higher number of players in same match but 100v100? That´s just too much to want from live game AND completely unrealistic in current state of development.
1 Like
Pretty sure the discussion was about Lone Fighter. The #1 reason no one plays lone fighter is because they completely botched it and just ported over the exact same missions, progression, and chocked the lobbies full of bots instead of real players. They put in 0 effort or thought so of course people dropped it in a second. This led to absolutely nobody wanting to play it. I feel that this could, and should be remedied, because frankly, I have my doubts that the bots are going to work out. Power to them and maybe they’ll be great, but currently I can coordinate a group of my friends more efficiently than a bunch of AIs purpose built to follow my orders.
the lobbies filled with bots because 0 people played.
I doubt they would redo a mode that they only added to test whether people would enjoy Enlisted gameplay without AI bots more, which people clearly did not.
They are not going to rework all maps, all modes, etc etc, get rid of their AI squads that are the main selling point of the game, just to please a handful of people who want 100 humans instead of 100 soldiers.
Listen, I think we all would like the bots to work out, but right now they just flat out are not. They’re is no depth, no interesting tactics you can use them for, no reason for them to exist besides as a pure gimmick. In the future, I expect the bots to have basically RTS levels of control, or they are totally useless to me as a squad leader since I can’t order them to fulfill basic maneuvers like I can real players. As another commenter pointed out, Darkflow has had four years to make the bots an interesting gameplay mechanic, and after the first public Berlin test they basically had to completely rework them already. This alone should tell you how little thought they have put into the mechanic. If I can order a squad of real players more efficiently than AI that are slaved to my will, then there is basically no point in having them as anything more than background canon fodder that follows me around like in Titanfall 2.
I guess I just don’t really understand people clinging to the bots as if it’s the only interesting thing about this game. What about the armor penetration system, interesting open maps, progression system, the fact that this is one of the only modern fully combined arms ww2 shooters on the market, the art style, or simply that it is free to play.
The reason people hated it was because it sucked. It’s basically the equivalent to an android user giving an Iphone user a headset with a 3.5mm headphone jack. Just because the game works in one game mode, does not mean it will work automatically work well in a completely different one. The lobbies being filled with bots that were using real player’s names in Lone Wolf was either a cheap trick a total lack of caring. I’ll point out as well that they could have at the very least adjusted XP gain in lone soldier, but they didn’t. My conspiracy theory is that they never wanted Lone Wolf to take off, but the community wanted it so they half assed it just to tick a box.
Who knows though, maybe I’m wrong about all of this and they have this really cool intricate bot command system that is both complex and intuitive, and Lone Wolf mode is getting completely reworked for open beta. Only time will tell I guess.
1 Like
While you are right here, Enlisted really does not have much else going for it, so it really is better off keeping the bots, as the issue here is that all the other factors you are mentioning do not redeem the game in any way, shape or form:
This is bugged (shooting through log buildings with SMG rounds, but can’t reliably penetrate the 15mm side of a pz3 with a PTRD)
They cover less than 10% of the actual map (all the maps of a single campaign are interconnected) and could be way more open and interesting. Even heroes and generals offers bigger maps rn. Not to mention the spawncamp issues, random chokepoints that hamper playability of certain maps, the lack of ragdoll effect on tables etc to let you push them aside, how clunky windows are, how tanks can’t cross trenches, etc.
That’s pay to win trash (starter player without vs with prem squads: 800% DPS, 135% health, 115% movement speed, double perk capacity and more) which requires 3+ months for a F2P to catch up to the paying player but even then they don’t get the unique weapons or double perks of premium soldiers.
But not the only one, so it has competition, which happens to outperform it in terms of playerbase. Both during their closed betas and during their current released states.
So far the only good thing, but post scriptum etc doesn’t lose out. Not to forget that art ages and is not something you rely on to keep people playing. In 2 years a game can come out that has drastically better graphics. People still enjoy old games with old graphics too, but that is solely due to their game design aspects.
It’s a freemium game, where you practically NEED the premium squads in early levels to be fun. Free to play does not make a game better. It only raises the need for other ways of monetization to counterbalance the fact that it is free to play, making the progression much more predatory.
No, it was a lack of people actually being interested in playing without bot squad mates that lead to the gamemode dying and being filled with bots to get matches in the first place. And I highly doubt they would rework the maps to work with the gamemode if the gamemode died immediately on arrival. They don’t see it as a sustainable gamemode and I actually expect it to be removed in OBT.
Highly unlikely, taken how they are preparing Normandy for OBT release later this month.
As a german main I don’t even play Normandy anymore and won’t be making any premium purchases towards that campaign until its rebalanced.
the main thing that governs who wins and loses is how many players are on each side.
I’ve been in allied invasions where we never even get a soldier into the first objective - me and the other non-bot player that is…
conversely the 2 German players facing an invasion of 6-7-8 allied players don’t last long either.
Very occasionally you get a tight game where it’s all decided on the last objective (for both invasions)…
so by boycotting the campaign you’re making it worse for all axis, and fulfilling a circular argument.
1 Like
You make a good argument. I’m usually in the top 3 axis players on a normandy campaign mission.
Damn, you make a good point or just want more things to shoot at! 
Well the thing is now too that I make a point of treating this as a test and not a substantive game - the more player data they have to contrast bots with the better it will be… I hope!
1 Like
I legitimately like the way you think and I may have lost sight of the fact this is CBT. I appreciate this.
Edit: so painful, just got absolutely destroyed on the normandy campaign. top slot belongs to me though
lol - yeah - well it’s painful when it’s the other way around too!! 
Well to answer your complain, it’s pretty much based on player count
Just like he said:
German side just lacks players to be competitive and we have to wait for OBT to see how competitive Germany actually is
But I think Germans will be very strong on Normandy because after using “join any team” option, I have to say MP-34 after buffs is now better and more accurate than the M3, for rifles, I still love M1 Garand more but only because it has better Medium-Range sights than G43 while G43 is better at long range
For Auto-5 shotgun, this shotgun is very underwhelming
But I do have to say Americans have better premium equipment and AT weapons
Yup. This has been proven many times:
- Winrate of Germany was too high because of higher playerbase when only Moscow was around
- Soviet guns get a ~20% damage buff across the board - Does not improve a thing, but drives away German players. As such, the buff was reverted (and we got a ghost nerf of the Pz2 instead).
- Normandy gets introduced. Soviet mains generally stay in Moscow, while most German mains move to Normandy - Massive spike in winrates for Soviets.
- A lot of players switch to America as well, however, and combining that with the German playerbase being split across 2 campaigns result in the Americans having a larger playerbase for Normandy, alongside higher winrates
- Due to the higher winrates for the Americans, and having experienced high winrates in Moscow, a lot of German mains moved back to Moscow, leading to mostly balanced matches there.
- LMG premium squads get introduced, further drawing German mains from Normandy to Moscow, leading to an advantage in playerbase again, which in turn results in the higher winrate for Germany there, while further tanking the winrate for Germany in Normandy, leading to the current situation.
Overall, this has proven that USA and GER are mostly equal in terms of how many people play them, while the Soviet Union is at a disadvantage. The solution would be to add a campaign where the USA fights a different axis force, either Italy (invasion of Italy campaign with Battle for Sicily or Battle of Monte Cassino, aka attack on Rome), or Japan (pacific campaign), to make sure there are an equal amount of campaigns that are playable by USA and Germany.
Also, reducing the separation between campaigns is a must as it will otherwise split the playerbase too much. Simply starting with the ability to queue by a selection of campaigns/nations instead of only “any team” would help a lot. This selection would be a grid of check boxes, one for each campaign and nation. That way, you could queue for for example Normandy USA, Normandy GER, Moscow GER, while not queuing for Moscow SU.
Your statement is semi-true
True, but don’t forget the Win-Rate kinda jumped from side to side. You are looking at the situation like every player is like you, most players play every nation and (nation)boos are a minority, not majority
Never happened, never drove anyone away
Again, playerbase finds the more stronger side, most of them are just having fun. The biggest reason why Germany was so competitive then is MP-41
This is true and the nerf wasn’t needed
Not really,
It was unbalanced, I played Germans a lot during that period and had hard time not- loosing
Now win rates are 50/50 because…MG-30 happened
It seems you look at playerbase like some fanatic group of (nation)boos but most of them just want to pay for the better weapon and use it
Americans are popular on Normandy because they are new in the game
Germans are popular on Moscow due to p2w weapons
Soviet union is full of medicore premium weapons and bad netcode SMG’s
You have to understand that this playerbase is smol and Win-Rate “jump arounds” are perfectly normal when some nations are new or more interesting than other
Even if they were a minority, it would still be enough to sway winrates.
Sure 
German bolt actions definitely did not deal 13 damage for a while vs Soviet 15, Soviet SMGs definitely didn’t have both the damage per shot and rate of fire advantage over German SMGs (which toghetter make up for like 80% of used weapons), on top of that Soviets definitely didn’t have to PTRS vs the PzB, and the Madsen didn’t have much better recoil than the MG34.
No need to deny or discuss it. What happened, happened.
So did I. If the USA players had any competency, you would get stomped.
As far as I noticed in the few matches I was able to play without throwing up about the premium P2W shit, Germany had the advantage.
“Jump arounds” are exactly what I explained here, dunno why you want to try to “debunk” the stuff you agree with.
I was talking about the CBT
Than I was lucky
You were referring to players as they all main one nation, I was telling you that is not true