It took literally 10 seconds to get me aboard the hype train.
6 Likes
So will the initial Pacific Campaign follow the traditional campaign setup where it centers around a specific battle/period; therefore we’d have multiple Pacific campaigns over time
That wasn’t my point. My point was to have a rework of progression, and have weapons be where they were historically. I don’t want to see weapons issued in 1944 or 1945 depicted in a place that takes place in 1942 or 1943. They could easily fix this by allowing all weapons to be grinded in a nation specific progression tree, and have the squads unlocked stay in a campaign specific tree.
1 Like
None of this seems like it’s going to be fixed since they keep putting out new content that seems to be getting simplified more and more. I want to play a WW2 game, not an FPS with a WW2 skin on it like Call of Duty: Vanguard. There were issues with the weapon choices in Stalingrad that were not fixed. The captured Italian LMG for the Soviets should not have been the first LMG. That makes it the most common LMG for the Soviets for that campaign. Lend-leased equipment or equipment purchased long before the war, like the Madsen in Moscow, make more sense to me than a bunch of looted guns.
1 Like
Before the Pacific was even announced I was personally hoping for a Sicily Campaign, but I got myself into the Pacific mood and I’m really hyped
The more campaigns the better!
Actually…I’m gonn rely on the 7 Assault troops inside of it.
To heck with the Cannon, Charge!!!
The only grey zone ill be in is the Americans!
isn’t it HESCO barrier?
4 Likes
I think, devs should focus on improving already existing campaigns, rather than making new ones. Also it will disperse online even more, what is not good for current campaings.
1 Like
This “no paywall” could just be a euphemism for “let’s paywall the same percentage of levels and do everything else virtually the same, but call it full access”.
well many people would like that. idk why they didnt even try to copy WT in progression (maybe we are lucky somewhat?).
also pacific is more complicated. if they did campaigns and e.g. did guadalcanal now, tell me why would anyone want to play iwo jima? what weapons would be different from guadalcanal to iwo jima? m3 and m3a1 came into battle service in 1944 and that is it from infantry weapons. you could only argue for some vehicles and there is only ronson for iwo jima. you could add pershing and m18 if there was okinawa campaign. idk about planes, didnt really look at them.
so even if there are few extra weapons it will not really break immersion cause there was not much difference between 1942 and 1945 in US weaponry. if you really want immersion most soldiers would have BA guns.
You should get your Money only for beeing in Forum 24/7. That heals so much Wounds. atleast for the Time you answer and beeing here for us Consuments
1 Like
I presented my full suggestion to fix everything here. It would be better than writing a whole post about it to get buried.
People don’t tend to give it credit, but WT progression is very well thought out. You can’t just “try to copy it”, you’d have to put a lot of thought and work into doing that. What we have here, on the other hand, is a bunch of stuff lazily slapped together with minimal effort. The very approach is antithetical to anything like WT.
it is not that hard to copy WT progress with weapons. have some mix of weapon year and BR and you could make MM that puts you in tunis if you have selected weapons in squads that was used in tunis or before. BR could be used as multiplier for xp (so how hard you have to grind for something) and later maybe even for MM (so that you dont have BA vs full auto players, or m4a2 vs tiger).
this would be somewhat optimal solution to have historical accuracy, playing different campaign maps while having unified grind. and you could add filters for people who dont want to play specific modes, campaigns or maps.
this would unite playerbase and you wouldnt need to grind axis 5 times (or more in the future) for mostly same weapons.
well there are dozens of such threads on forum, i may have read it or not. people would want unification and progress rework.
I mean, people already do that with the T-28 and the Grant, so…
lol, yes, wtf
1 Like
You can’t Jettison the Pontoons?
No Rear Facing MG usage option ?
I would expect no, just like you cannot change the armament on your plane, and the only MG modeled in WT is the hull one so I don’t think so.
I wounder why they did not go with the :
Given they have other 44/45 stuff in the Campaign already then,
2 Likes
future content?