-A very important suggestion is something called as player balance. In War Thunder and Wargaming games, we had what seemed to be a balanced system, in which players that chose a vehicle of a particular rank faces players of similar rank. Now, to translate this to Enlisted, imagine this.
In a matchmaker, there are people of all levels combined. What I propose is basically in a team, there are people from level 26, 14, 9, 7 and 2. The enemy team should have teammates that are around level 26, 14, 9, 7 and 2. This way, there is fun for everyone. Whether one is new or experienced, they at least have a fighting chance.
The main reason why I wanted a level system like this is because of the inconsistent matchmakers. You might play as the Germans in Berlin, and because of magic, you’re facing an entire team of Russians armed with the most powerful PPSh they can get (meaning that their team is filled with level 26+), while your team has no one with the powerful FG-42 (therefore, your team is probably of lower level).
And as I play the Soviets most of the time, I feel the exact opposite. My team rarely had more powerful weapons, such as the PPSh, while I feel like the Germans are always happy in their Pz IV/70 and Panther. And of course, the FG-42 spam, everywhere. And my t3eam are composed of mostly inexperienced players.
This issue is very very exemplified in Tunisia. You will rarely see Axis teams with more powerful guns or tanks, such as the Gewehr 41, or the Semovente (which is necessary when you have to face Grants, which literally a very common sight in Tunisia). And the allied team always run around with the latest M1 Thompson, M1 Garand and the dreaded Grant. And these feel like a common sight these days, and shows the matchmaking issue, that most of the Tunisian axis players are matched with more experienced weapons with better guns.
Fixing this issue is not only beneficial to the players, but also retains the players, especially newer ones with inferior weapons. This also fixes the issue with overpowered weapons ravaging the battlefield, everyday, and gives everything a challenge to it.
-Hitboxes. Yes, one of the biggest issue I had is when I want to mount my weapon onto a wall, I had to be absolutely precise as to where I want to mount said weapon, which costs me precious seconds. This is not an issue with rifles and SMGs, but some LMG needed a proper mounting, or else it is uncontrollable. One of the best way to fix the gun issue is by doing what is called as an auto-mount. By aiming your gun to a wall or a rock, and so long as the gun is directly on top of said wall or rock, it will automatically be mounted even you are too close to said mount.
And the next issue is with rifle mounted bayonets. I hate this issue, as I feel like rifle mounted bayonets don’t really give any advantages over a knife. And so, my proposal is to extend the range of bayonets to the length of the rifle+bayonet times 1.3. This gives a good reason for people to use a bayonet other than for quick melee.
-Switcheroo. In Tunisia, the Grant is considered to be the most powerful tank, and then we have the Crusader. The issue with the Grant is that it is a tank that most Italian tanks simply could not penetrate. Yet, it could penetrate you with both of its guns. Then, we have the Crusader, which isn’t that hard to penetrate by an M13. While its gun is very very penetrating and fast firing, it still shoots solid rounds and lacks the armour the Grant had.
The suggestion here is to switch the Grant with the Crusader. This makes sense. And as a compromise, give the Grant the M61 APCBC round to make it worth the grind.
And no, don’t switch the Semovente with the Pz III. This is because the Pz III has similar armour, but has an actual turret with MGs and a better penetrating gun.
This are my suggestions and ideas. I am free to extra suggestions or changes. If you do not agree with any of my stated points, give me a good reason why. And I expect everyone that stumbled upon this suggestions page read the while points before replying.