It is not recent that we have been facing a historical and unrealistic misconception of AT soldiers carrying with them exorbitant amounts of handheld anti-tank guns or large quantities of ammunition, which is completely unrealistic and far from the reality of the time. Beyond being unrealistic, it is also unfair and unbalanced compared to armored vehicles in the game. Below, I have presented my arguments as to why this is incorrect and should be corrected.
Historically, during World War II, particularly towards the end of the war (1944-1945), German anti-tank (AT) infantry soldiers used weapons such as the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck to combat Allied armored forces. However, it was neither practical nor wise for soldiers to carry more than one or two of these weapons or large quantities of ammunition due to the weight and size of these tools. The Panzerfaust, for example, weighed about 6 kg, with bulky and heavy ammunition. Carrying too many of these weapons or rounds would compromise the soldierâs mobility, which was crucial on a constantly shifting battlefield. The primary goal of an AT soldier was to neutralize tanks at strategic moments, not to engage in long-range combat, making it unnecessary to carry an extensive arsenal.
And for those who think that without this absurd stockpile of anti-tank hand cannons, armored vehicles would be impossible to destroy, I must remind you that there is an item called âExplosive Package,â which definitely destroys anything. I think itâs high time to balance this issue once and for all. Itâs disheartening to see a soldier running towards a tank, firing rockets that penetrate 210mm in succession, and even if by some divine luck you survive, youâre destroyed by a ridiculous Explosive Package
Just a reminder, there are premium AT squads, for example, Germans, that carry 10 units of Panzersfaust. I stop to think about where a human being would carry that much weight in combat, and at the same time, the weight of their equipment and weapons in general⌠Well, leave your opinions below, but for me, the closer to reality and balanced, the better.
I kindly ask that you take a look at these gameplay clips and let me know what you honestly think about a Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger, historically a monster on the battlefield, feared by all Allied forces, being completely destroyed by an explosive package that anyone can carry. Or a T-34 being bombarded by rockets in seconds by a soldier carrying 31kg just in Panzersfausts plus approximately 20-30kg of equipment. Be honest
Theoretically AT soldier has so many PzFausts because it represents what the whole squad would carry with it. On the other hand where is my spare 1000 ammo for MGs a squad would carry.
So yeah, itâs purely so players can easily counter tanks. The same is true for the magical explosive packs.
I advice you to not think about realism nor historical accuracy/authenticity in enlisted. You will be much happier in the long run.
Grey zone should be removed. Spawn camping could easily be countered by removing fixed spawn points entirely, grey zone is an absurd concept that people constantly abuse in order to be immune to flanking strategies.
Agreed. I will never understand the defence of it. Out of Bounds should be either enforced or removed entirely.
The only people who defend Grey Zone are noobs who cant get kills with infantry so expect to be able to sit back in an area they cant be killed and lob HE at everyone else getting hundreds of kills for zero skill.
âUse planesâ they say. Yeah well not everyone has planes, nor should they be forced to use them. âUse AT gunâ ah yes, the same AT guns that we have from reserve level to BR V which usually struggle to pen tanks except from the side. The same AT guns that can rarely get a good sighting on tanks in grey zone.
âUse infantryâ Yeah, except the noob grey zoner is on the other side of the map and even if one did get there successfully, you are physically prevented by the game from entering the grey zone (i.e you will get killed within a few seconds of entering it).
I just dont get why we NEED a grey zone. Fight like everyone else you fools, including all those tankers who DO do the right thing and stay within the map.
Now, if we were to make it ârealisticâ, we could make it so that AT-Trooper get only 2 shots + he can get extra one launcher from each squad member once, or do it like it was IRL, any soldier can have one PzF, but if that was the case, I feel like tankers wouldnât leave spawn ever again.
I feel that the community playing this game has a childish side, perhaps supporting the idea of a more arcade-like game with more ease in various aspects. On one hand, itâs understandable that the slow and delayed growth of Enlisted may partly be due to the community. Just an observation: games like HLL, which can be considered somewhat expensive to buy, have their servers full without needing to be filled with bots due to the level of realism. It would be a pleasure for me to see Enlisted growing this way, but while the focus remains on ease of play and trivial suggestions, I believe it will still take some time.
Just a reminder, I donât speak English, so if you want me to understand what youâre commenting and discussing, please comment without too much sarcasm or other complexities.
âRegardless, there are matchmaking schemes, with one side being open with different hosts and providers, and the other being a matchmaking system, and this is far from the topic discussed here. Of everything I mentioned, was that the only thing you cited? The fact is that a paid game with mechanics not very different from ENLISTED exploded in a short time, while a free game with incredible graphics and gameplay continues to require filling matches with bots. It doesnât matter if the game is Hell Let Loose; it was just an example of a game where realism was taken seriously and succeeded.â
Lol this is a bad example in the first place. Using server browser can easily get you a bunch of full server since players will more likely to join a server with more people.
Just have a look at the player count on Steam, it is similar for both game, so your statement doesnât make sense.
Not to mention the player count for Enlisted will be higher than this since there is also PC player using Gaijin launcher.
âIn fact, first they will look for a game with low ping, and second, a nice map with a minimum number of players⌠Another thing, the Steam count is irrelevant since both Enlisted and HLL have other counting methods through different means and login platforms. I wonât continue with this, especially because my new computer parts are arriving, and I no longer need to stay in this game, Iâm just giving suggestions aimed at improvements. The fact that HLL is 2 years older than Enlisted, is still active, is a paid game, and has more players is enough. To clarify, the discussion isnât about what HLL is or isnât, but rather about the future of Enlisted and its gameplay.â
Using this logic you will never have full server since player always want server with minimum player number.
Lol now making weird excuse and run away. I literally give you the data and you say they have different counting method? Where is your source then? Or you just made this up to cover your embarrassment of being discover that your statement make no sense.
Older than HLL, is a paid game, and has more player than HLL.
This means nothing lol, not to mention Enlisted most likely have more player than HLL.
Enlisted is not much better if you ask me.
Iâm still waiting for the advertised feature where I lead a squad of soldiers instead of a squad of lemmings.
