Merging Moscow with Stalingrad and Normandy with Berlin

Suggestions
1

Continuing the discussion (⭐ High Caliber update - #54 by 1942786) about the player division issue.

Keo :fox_face: “We have plans. But it’s too early to talk about it. Just know.”

***

Been thinking about the obvious problem with splitting the player base with all the different campaigns/queues. Also read what many of you clever veterans been saying:

I think DF should divide all European campaigns into two blocks.

Eastern Front 1941-1943 and Late War 1944-1945

image (21)
image (21)1920×1080 159 KB

Eastern Front 1941-1943 - Obviously today’s Battle of Moscow and Battle of Stalingrad

Late War 1944-1945 - Obviously today’s Invasion of Normandy and Battle of Berlin

Within these two blocks there should be two sub categories named something unimaginative like:

Eastern Front 1941-1943

Operation Barbarossa (1941-1942) - today’s Battle of Moscow
Battle of Soviet Union (1942-1943) - today’s Battle of Stalingrad

Siege of Leningrad or let’s say Battle of Kursk will only become new maps sorted under those categories (no need for a new repeating campaign).

Late War 1944-1945

Western Front (1941-1942) - today’s Invasion of Normandy
The Final Battles (1942-1943) - today’s Battle of Berlin

Battle of the Bulge or let’s say Battle of Halbe will only become new maps sorted under those categories (no need for a new repeating campaign).

***

Now you got several opportunities if you want to rework the grinding system of weapons and reduce all possible queues.

I wouldn’t suggest that they force a player to queue both Moscow and Stalingrad or Normandy and Berlin.
Ofc that possibility is there, but I would rather suggest something like this:

Eastern Front
Eastern Front1920×1080 149 KB

Western Front (1)
Western Front (1)1920×1080 157 KB

Since both of these blocks contain similar equipment I suggest a big overhaul considering grinding/transferring weapons. The experience and level progression of the two sub categories in the blocks should be more intertwined to encourage players to queue multiple sides.

**
Conclusion:
Edit:

  • Solving the problem by adding new campaigns (using more or less the same equipment) and splitting the player base even more

  • A foundation to remake the grinding system (where armies of Soviet Union and Axis from different campaigns will be merge together weaponwise).

  • Reducing all possible queues of today and tomorrow.
    On top of this (you should also be able to queue all campaigns/side and get som XP-boost.

**

What do you say?
Working on some more slides to elaborate on what i’m thinking here.

18 Likes
2

Ideally, you can also enter weekly events-“alternative history” competitions in these blocks with nominal prizes. Every week, players can play either a “historical game” within the campaign, or an “alternative-historical” one, where all the allies and the entire axis are united within one historical period. Moreover, play with your units according to the usual rules: for example, all the maps of 1944-1945 are available for both the USSR and the Allies.

3 Likes
3

Awful idea.

6 Likes
4

Given that Moscow and Stalingrad are more or less ahistorical, the armies of this two campain could be intertwined when queing.

But no, not a big fan of a “alternative-historical” game. There is custom games for that.

4 Likes
5

Quite sure this game is the leading game in that category, far exceeding cod with its LQBTBBQLMFABBC characters.

6

This COULD be a great way to help with match making AND streamline the way the entire mainscreen interface and weapons exchange between different campaigns (that is extremely costly and inconvenient) functions. This idea has big potential imo.
HOWEVER, (and im not trying to be negative here, just stating facts) they cant even repair long standing bug issues and even keep up with the new ones they create by modifying existing game play. SO FOR NOW THIS IS A EXTREMELY BAD IDEA.
Until they can repair ALL EXISTING BUGS and KEEP BUG REPAIR UNDER CONTROL they SHOULDNT MODIFY ANYTHING PERIOD.

They need to be more in CONTROL of game play mechanics BEFORE revamping ANYTHING IMO

1 Like
7

I was thinking about that and yes western / eastern front would be great (but Berlin is against Russian so : eastern). They could do some maps like operation market garden and battle of the bulge, merge with Normandy without a new campaign.

2 Likes
8

I think any form of merging of campaigns is a bad idea considering we have weapons and vehicles that only appeared on a certain time and year. Sure there’s Mkb and Panzer IV F2 messing up Moscow but that is another issue that merging will not fix.

Merging Normandy with Berlin is an absolute No No for me considering those are different fronts.

Besides there are problems like Summer and Winter uniforms which only Red Orchestra 2 was able to have two separate sets of uniforms for both seasons besides certain uniforms only appeared on certain periods like 1941 Red Army is very different to 1945 in terms of uniforms.

8 Likes
9

why?

10

Yeah, I mean merge “like sorting under one umbrella”.
My initial thought was to find a way to remove MKB and PanzerIV from Moscow.
By gathering Moscow and Stalingrad we could maybe get “tickets” or gold when removing those things from 1941-42 Eastern front. The weapon and vehicle could still be usable by a easy transfer to Stalingrad.

My idea with connecting Normandy and Berlin is the problem with Axis. I named it first Late War. But ideal would ofc to put Battle of Berlin in the right front (Eastern) with Moscow and Stalingrad.

1 Like
11

Yeah you right, changed some titles!
Will be harder to add Battle of France tho.

12

I’m not a fan of merging the campaigns into fronts in general but merging Normandy and Berlin is a big hard stop No No for me given that those are Western and Eastern Front respectively they should always be separated

1 Like
13

:thinking:

14

Tiger 2 vs. Stuart is new level of absurdity.
Moscow vs. SG I don’t care.

15

Yes, absurd. But not gonna happen.
Still separated.
Sry for not being clear. I didn’t mean we should mix the campaigns in that way.

16

Well. I think both will come im Bulge anyway. Either that or an M24 which isn’t that much better.

17

I really like your post, but i have to say, i do not agree with the idea…

4 Likes
18

First off nice UI design.
I like the fact that you can queue for multiple factions in both campaigns. But I am a little confused, you have combined campaigns but then reseparated them again? You can play “late war” but there are still 2 queues for Normandy and Berlin. I thought the main draw of combining campaigns was the queues merge into 1 so there are more players in that queue. Wouldn’t it just be simpler to allow players to queue for more than one campaign in the current campaign system (moscow, tunisia, etc.)?

4 Likes
19

Thanks!

Personally, I wouldn’t mind that. Rather the opposite.
But I don’t think the majority would like it that way. Why I think it is better to give incentives for multiple queuing.

I didn’t have time to show a design of the multi-campaign queuing possibility. That would be the best!

1 Like
20

yeah, a pretty unthoughtful idea.
Was hoping to trigger some constructive discussion on how to solve the current problem with the campaign layout

1 Like