Yeah that’s the first thing I notice too. Especially since many of these differences are fairly arbitrary. Maybe 5 levels instead of 10.
1 Like
What about airborne troops?
Personally, I think that the actions of the airborne troops in Berlin will be a glaring deviation.
And I think that they should be reworked.
Yeah I don’t like that at all. I really enjoy the historical aspect. I also think having everyone at tier 10 only fighting on certain maps and only with the ultimate weapons will be much less fun.
3 Likes
Too many issues to count, so lets start over. Lets start at everyone is able to use whatever they want and pluck out a few tiers from that. The large capacity SMG, late war tanks, certain planes, and large capacity machineguns will be steam rolling everyone who doesn’t have access to them. So balancing tanks, planes and automatic weapons should be the prime factor in matchmaking, not squad type, or equipment. Having ten tiers is too many when you could get away with 3 at the least. See my post: A tier proposal and reasons. Eat my shorts
to see where I am coming from.
From my experience, so long as tanks and planes are fairly matched up and one team isn’t just steam rolling with large capacity firearms, the game should be more balanced and easier to cobble together a match than in its present form. Anything more complex like suggested will drive many new players away and hinder MM, which is one of the main reasons for this tiered approach.
In short, more freedom like we currently have, just watch out for vehicle and certain weapon matchups.
Thanks for considering.
1 Like
Yeah that seems highly unnecessary. Especially since the C96 predates not only the war, but the century. It would be silly to be bumped to a higher tier over a 40+ year old weapon that is barely different from the others.
I think several people already mention it in the 348 answers, but this is not a good idea:
“Lvl 1 Flamethrower” is as bad as the unfamous unerfed “lvl1 M13MGMC 50 caliber AA gun that can penetrate any enemy tank and house” we had at the release of Pacific campaign. It will create some bad gameplay element.
2 Likes
Image is WIP, refer to the sheet instead, first flamethrower is tier 5 and the second one is tier 8.
4 Likes
Will the current matchmaking mechanic without tier restrictions based only on vehicles and weapons appropriate for a given theater of operations still be available? Or only in custom mode?
I am pretty happy with the tree overall, didn’t expect it to be perfectly balanced on the first iteration. I think the bolt actions, submachine guns and semi auto rifles should have an overall reduction in BR. Looking forward to a version with the complete list of equipment so I can get a better picture of what each BR will look like. I am not a fan of some of the equipment being restricted to BR levels, for example the flasks and binoculars. Losing my big ammo pouches if I am playing lower BR will suck.
2 Likes
what the fuck is that name 
idk how they will implement retention of those squads. keeping squads could just mean keeping all soldiers with their equipment and having only 1 squad, or it could mean having 5 assaulter I squads for germans. they never answered specifics when asked in that topic.
Only that we will keep all of our stuff.
But then they also said that we won’t have Classes Tiers anymore iirc or that the Soviets still dont have any paratroopers and have no time for an event I guess.
The most basic version of all standard equipment should be level 1. Basic SMG, Basic MG, basic Sniper rifle, basic AT rifle, basic mortar. Engineers need to be available at level 1 for gameplay purposes. No BA rifle should be higher than level 3. Grenade types should not be limited. Backpacks should not be limited (Aside from the large grenade pouch which should never have existed in the first place). Flamethrowers should arrive later to prevent clubbing. Basing levels on soldier tier is such a ridiculous idea that it’s hard to understand how a human being could have come up with it.
There’s so much wrong with this nonsense it’s difficult to limit the suggestions.
2 Likes
Dam Japan is kinda screwed once Shermans show up,
Since their best tank rn is Ho-I I’d suggest giving it the Type 2 HEAT shell (二式穿甲榴弾 aka タ弾), even if Ho-I can’t compete in terms of armor at least it gets a chance with a projectile that can actually pen a Sherman.
Another change I’d suggest is giving the Early Type 100 SMG its proper rate of fire and with that proper rate of fire moving it up to tier 6, I wrote a post about this topic before for more info: Type 100 early correct rate of fire
tl;dr the Type 100 is firing too slow right now.
Lastly if the devs are still looking for more Japanese infantry AT weapons, there’s a HEAT rifle grenade for the Type 97 20mm cannon called Ji-Te Dan (ジテ弾) and also a 13.2mm AT rifle (十三粍手動銃) based on the Type 38 rifle with 5/10 round magazine (latter doesn’t have any images available).
1 Like
Instead of 1-10 levels, make a balance system with early/mid/late weapons, tanks, planes, paratroopers, etc.
And based on the statistics of the weapons, tanks and aircraft, you make requirements that they must meet and that they are approximately contemporary, e.g. early -1939-41 mid-1942-43 late-1944-45.
Items should be exempt from this restriction, you should restrict large pounches in such a way that they can be moved more sluggishly than light ones.
The USSR should also get the M9 Bazooka instead of the Panzerfaust 60-100.
Great work from you so far, I will definitely continue to support this project!
1 Like
I dont think that tree still stands, im pretty sure that the one linked is the current plan. Though it is really misleading that they would put that there
1 Like
Seems like somebody can’t understand written word…
At no point have I said that there is no Lend-Lease equipment in the Soviet progression in Enlisted. I’m just asking why did you bring it up in the first place?
First of all, it has nothing to do with the fact that separate nations should have separete tech trees, and second of all, you said it in a way that implied the Soviets should share the same tech tree with Western Allies.
Hi, I think these progress trees could need some modifications, to reduce confusion and make them more attractive.
- The aircrafts’ line should be differentiated into fighters and ground attack planes.
- Something similar should happen with land vehicles, differentiating, for example, main battle tanks, and other support vehicles (anti-tank, anti-aircraft, motorcycles, transports, etc). Everything on one line is very confusing.
- Finally, I believe that it is possible and necessary to separate the lines of progress of Germany and Italy, and of the United Kingdom and the United States. Missing are Italian vehicles and aircraft, which are currently in the Tunisian campaign, and furthermore this line could be supplemented with Romanian weapons and vehicles from the Stalingrad campaign. In the case of the British, it would be even easier, since many vehicles and weapons were in fact shared by both nations (UK & USA).
Kind regards
1 Like
I am but a simple patrician
1 Like
Semi-autos like the M1 Garand, G41/43, SVT’s level is weirdly high
4 Likes