Think - there are plenty of opportunities for late 1940s - early 1960s conflicts that are often not talked about that, in keeping with Enlisted’s tendency to include oft-forgotten campaigns and their equipment, help to drum up interest from those who have heard of these conflicts but never seen them in a videogame.
I’m talking the Suez Crisis, the Korean War, the First Indochina War - those campaigns which offer unique equipment but also familiar aesthetics thanks to the prevalence of WWII-era equipment in these campaigns whilst also introducing new elements such a jet aircraft and MBTs.
Their unique aesthetics provide a great display for Enlisted that sets it apart from other shooters, thus drawing in players, whilst also keeping things fairly similar to what we’ve already seen in the game.
Korea is the only cold war conflict I would be somewhat okay with, but I wouldn’t want to give the devs any excuse to creep a year forward.
We’ve seen from War Thunder how slimy they are in that regard.
I would much rather see the clock moved backwards.
I know you are joking but there is a whole Great War in between current campaigns and Napoleonic. Hispanic Civil War, Japanese invasion of China, First Winter War and etc.
I don’t think it is a mistake though. Many of these might not be as big or popular as the big battles of WW2, so a great way to balance everyone’s expectations would be to let the campaigns be focused on the more popular conflicts, and have these other, less popular conflicts be recurring events. Modern/Cold-war/WW1/pre-WW1, maybe even medieval for april fools could all be fun events plus more people would play them if they are limited time events.
I would love for this to open up potential campaigns in Korea (which i have mentioned a few times) and things like the 6 Day war etc.
There is potential, so long as they don’t forget their roots.
