Did you commit plagiarism from Reto because they had the same idea and the result was that M2A2s shredded Panthers in seconds?
- Personally my biggest concern is that with this system players are going to push right down the lines of Assaulter, MG, and Flamethrowers. This issue is ALREADY bad and that is just going to make it worse.
The reason that this is going to be so problematic is that it forces one type of gameplay far too powerfully. Much of the rest of the game will fall behind because nobody uses it, as its not as spammable or powerful.
Probably the most powerful direct counters to this type of gameplay is strong defenses that force choke points, create hazards, and limit the attacking forces abilities to get within the range (short range) needed to make full use of these lines of weaponry.
We’ve seen an utter LACK of the ability to set these fortifications up till now. Most recently being the removal of the ability to double stack sandbags. Other core defensive mechanics such as knowing where to pull back to, having time to pull back and regroup let alone build up, and the sheer ease at which fortifications are destroyed all play a key element in this.
Not even to mention the improper usage of things like Czech hedgehogs and landmines, which again is due to lack of the ability to properly fortify, weakness of fortifications, and in the case of mines, the inability to place as many as players should be able to in order to make them a valid defensive tool. (Grenade pouches allow characters to carry 3 grenades, which are MOST useful on offense, yet mines are not allowed the same option of increase, despite really only being useful on DEFENSE.)
Proper defenses would be along the lines of sandbagged structures to prevent easy access as well as preventing easy line of sight to those sheltered inside, barbwire and Czech Hedgehogs outside as hazards to slow the enemies approach, and fortified machine gun nests to thin out enemy forces on the approach. None of these currently occur because of the lacking elements that I described.
So in conclusion, by letting players go straight down the lines they chose rather than branching out, the gameplay will quickly become a boring run-and-gun reactionary shooter, instead of the dynamic, strategy infused, large scale combat game that it has the potential to be. There are plenty of other games that focus on the run-and-gun, but that is specifically the reason my buddies and I quit playing those games to come to Enlisted.
I don’t see the grenades, mines, or pouches on the list. I strongly urge you guys to consider a couple of things.
First of which is rather than just keeping small and large pouches how they currently are and assigning “x” amount of BR to them, to change how they work a bit. INSTEAD of being limited to a single backpack regardless of size, allow the 1 LARGE pouch OR 2 SMALL pouches in that slot.
This would greatly help with balance as well as make small pouches valuable again by allowing for much more versatile setups of pouches.
Secondly, I ask that you consider removing explosive packs entirely. The concept as a whole is overpowered as it not only functions as a grenade, but enables all character types to do the job that would otherwise require an AT soldier, or preplanning with mines, or teamwork with a teammate to spot and eliminate it.
Explosive packs have made it far too dangerous for tanks to push up and support their team, leading to many problems of them sitting in the back of the map acting as artillery.
All in all, it ties back to the same issue as the first part,
- by allowing players to only work down a specific line of play, my fear is that all the other unique elements of the game will be forced to take a backseat just to appease those character types. Balancing will go completely out the window, and it will drive a lot of players away from the game. The only ones left will have turned it into another trainwreck like CoD or Battlefield 2042. (Which we came to Enlisted to get away from.)
Hopefully you guys actually do get a chance to read through this @ChuchaDrucha, I know there are a LOT of posts to comb through, but I took the time to chat with my other buddies (about 15 of us total in the direct group) to compile the main concerns into this post to hopefully cut down on repeat posts.
- An acknowledgement that it has in fact been seen by the devs would be greatly appreciated.
5 Likes
I don’t know what RETO is 
But I don’t consider mechanics close to realism to be plagiarism.
If it is designed properly, there will be no situation where the M2A2 will destroy the tiger before the tiger will destroy the M2A2.
Such an M2A2, in order to penetrate the tiger’s frontal armor from a distance of 100m, must position itself perfectly, and secondly, such a projectile should not cause great damage inside. And from a distance greater than, for example, 1000m, it would have to hit the same place at least a dozen times to penetrate or deform the armor.
As for the damage to the electrics or hydraulics, they would also be much less frequent and smaller than when hit by a 75mm shell, which from a distance of 300m had no problem penetrating the frontal armor of a tiger or panther.
1 Like
I think it will be much better if different sides will be balanced with more historical accuracy. Each nation must have stronger and weaker sides.
Germans can have their MGs, and MP40s at lower ranks with semi-auto rifles only at higher ranks. Soviets can have their drum smgs at lower ranks, because soviet MGs are bad. US can have their semi-auto rifles and powerful planes at lower ranks.
2 Likes
The principle of rock-paper-scissors would be appropriate in this case. And more variety on the battlefield, not a copycat on both sides.
5 Likes
I assume it’s just them only allotting two slots per BR and running out of space, but some more missing items are:
- G98 Sniper
- AB-41
- A13 Mk II
- M14/41
- Daimler Mk II
- Panzer IV/70(V)
- Panzer IV/70(A)
- M2A4
- M3 Stuart
- Ke-Ni
- Ju-87 D-5
- Bf-109 G-14
- Bf-110 G2
- C-202EC
- Fiat G.55
- OVP M1918
- Pz. III B
- T-60
Might not be entirely comprehensive.
3 Likes
This was a big letdown for me as well. There is more than enough gear to fill a British and Italian tech tree.
3 Likes
Agreed, I think there needs to be some compressions for rifles. Tier 6 bolt-actions and Tier 8 semi-autos makes no sense whatsoever. I propose Tier 1-3 being the standard issue bolt action variants (Springfield, Mosin, Kar/G98 etc.), Tier 4 being very good bolt/lever actions (Lee-Enfield No. 4, Winchester etc.) and underpowered semi-autos (M1 Carbine), Tier 5-6 being the regular semi-autos (SVT-38/40, G41/43, Garand etc.) and keep selective fire at Tier 9-10. While not ideal given the gaps in Tiers 7-8, with how things are currently balanced in the game semi-autos are much more comparable to the bolt actions than their selective fire cousins. This also allows them to be more accessible to newer players that like later-war weapons but won’t need to go all the way to the end of the tree. Semi-autos will be at a similar level to same era SMGs and MGs like the MP40, Browning, PPSh-41 (box), MG34 etc.
Without nesting, this could be achieved by splitting rifles into two separate research lines, similar to how machine guns have been split from the other heavy weapons. For western allies and axis this could be separate lines for US+Britain/Commonwealth, Germany+Italy that split then converge later on. This has the added benefit of allowing for a smoother transition if/when Britain and Italy receive separate trees. For the Soviets carbines can be split from rifles if needed, though there appears to be enough space for one line. Japan has no need to split.
6 Likes
RETO MOTO is the creator of the game “Heros and Generals”. Which is also a WW2 game.
T34s are overperforming anyways, even long barrel Panzer IV and Stug stand no chance, fighting with Pz III wouldn’t make a difference.
what a stupid argument to begin with, T34 has still very strong side armor
4 Likes
no, there is 2 t-34e “stz” one gold order and one you needed the cbt Stalingrad pack to get
The differences are their skins but its the same tank at the end.
This looks interesting. Only thing I’d really ask for is that it doesn’t take a year just to grind for the next level. I don’t want to have to play this game for 3 years just to get one tank.
1 Like
The side armor on the t34 is not strong. I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about.
1 Like
throws japanese in trash…
no. it is better to have year of service as separate attribute and when there is BR 1 or 2 match, if there is mp3008 in the match, just put map on berlin.
ffs dont use this color for text in future.
The T-50 in the picture is called T-28E
And where are the event vehicles and weapons in the whole tree? Will they be special or will they hit trees?
1 Like
The fact that AP and AT mines are at tier 5, while explosive packs are at tier 3 seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
Personally I think explosive packs need to be removed entirely as they make it far too easy for just any infantry to run up and start spamming them at tanks.
That said, IF you guys decide to keep them, the fact that they are able to kill tanks, have a large enough blast radius to kill infantry, cost half as much as mines, and can have 2-3 carried with grenade pouches should make them SWITCH with mines. Please keep in mind that the Anti-tank LAUNCHERS don’t even kill infantry upon IMPACT, so why do you allow a grenade that has the tank killing power of an AT launcher and capable of a decent sized lethal blast radius to be such a low score?
3 Likes