For soldiers, level will depend on unlocks in squad progression, right?
How will this work for weapons? Always minimal level, or also dependent on squad progression?
Yeah, a lot of up- and downtiering then … i guess we will have to wait until further news …
but my main question/idea stands … if we want less queues (and more armies in the future) …
would an “axis vs allies” queue not make more sense? only two sides … instead of 4 armies …
allas … more waiting … for snippets of info …
well depends on point of view. i approach this from technical perspective (which some may or may not agree).
now although you have 12 sides, you technically only have 6 MM queues representing campaigns. matches are filled per match basis and not per faction basis. so even if you only have 1 player on one side, match will start even if there are no other players inside both armies inside 2 minutes and rest of the players will be replaced with bots. so technically you dont need 2 sides per campaign to have a match, you only need 1 side for 1 campaign thus 6 MM queues. MM doesnt match nation vs nation, 10vs10 players and then creates the match. currently it creates the match and then puts whatever players are available in it. idk if this will change with merge, so i treat post merge MM as current campaign queue.
well it isnt necessary. you will have 3 main “fronts” that share pool of nation soldiers and depending on number and tier of soldiers in queue it will subtract or add new subqueues.
so if there are low number of japanese soldiers, then you may get only 1-2 BR subqueues in japan vs USA front or if they have high number of soldiers you may get 5 BR subqueues. same with other fronts.
It will more or less already be this way.
If you pick Germany axis, the queue will decide if you face Soviets, commonwealth, or USA for example. So in the end it’s almost what you propose. It’s just that we can choose which faction to play.
As USA and Soviets, in the same match, vs Germany… it would be a bit too weird. It’s happening already in custom matchs, thought. Custom matches are fun
- I hope custom matches will receive proper attention, like the devs promised
2 Likes
the whole point of this merge is to reduce this exact issue. to fill matches with players and not bots. yeah, technically it works even now. its not that the battles are not created, but they are lopsided concerning the human participation.
THATS why i do not view it from the point of creating a match, but by the point of dispersion of playerbase.
hence my suggestion: less dispersion, more players in a battle.
again … if you see it this way … 3 fronts that get dispersed over a range of BattleRatings… instead of ONE front …
ofc, nobody has to agree, as i said i only threw my idea here…
my idea basically would be germans, italians, japanese vs usa, england, soviets …
ofc it is weird, thats why i initially said Historical Accuracy out the window …
but it would open the possibility of more armies in the future without dispersing playerbase…
and yeah, customs happen like this already now, but i would make the “wild” axis vs allies the default, so everybody can farm xp and silver …
and the fun and historical accurate matches be relegated to customs.
^THIS …
i am trying to explain to you that we will have anywhere from 3 queues to 30 BR queues depending on how many players are currently online on a server. it is flexible and not static. currently biggest problem wasnt even number of players for 6 queues, but that they were unevenly distributed across different campaigns and different sides. normandy had enough players for at least 3-4 queues in peak hours, moscow had enough for at least 2-3 queues, berlin for at least 1.5-2 queues with rest of campaigns sub 1 queue or just heavily skewered on one side.
one front is not needed. we just needed to fix that one nation could be spread across 5 campaigns leading to heavy imbalance in campaigns.
Since you come up with such a bad idea of having to buy the vehicles, have you thought that it makes no sense that commanders should pay the state money for using vehicles to defend the nation?
1 Like
Yeah BR will not solve player base split problem at all. People will still seperate queues based on what gear they equip.
i am trying to explain to you, that maybe that is too much still…
there are still many unknown factors …
also what if a lot of people want to play japanese and soviets …
also the aforementioned up- and downtiering is undesired …
and with the planned system new armies can never be added without dispersing players more again…
so you know the exact numbers already? while we do not even know the exact BR layout? I mean …
ok, you do not agree shrug … this idea was anyways tossed into the room for everone 
especially for the devs. at least they might already know the exact numbers of BRs and other stuff
Exactly, and since we will have more split due to BR, i wanted to improve this by reducing the sides of battle.
yes i know exact number of players.
this is number for campaigns over ~8 days for crossplay on (data from 4 months ago).
this is number of players by campaign by hour by side for one day(IIRC for crossplay on only, also 4 months old):
i dont need to know exact BR layout. so far they told us number of MM queues will be flexible e.g. depending on the number of players currently in the game and that japan will have separate rules.
so depending on time of day/number of players we can have e.g. 3 BR queues for japan vs usa, 5 BR queues for usa vs germany and 4 BR queues for germany vs soviets. and on other time of day we will have 1 BR queue for japan vs USA, 2 BR queues for usa vs germany and 2 BR queue for germany vs soviet.
they can be added without problem as long as there is no new nation side matchups like china vs japan, or soviets vs japan.
there are 3 main fronts western allies(USA) vs european axis(germany), eastern allies(soviets) vs european axis(germany), western allies(USA) vs japan. it is easy to e.g. add italy as subfaction of european axis that will fight alongside germans vs western or eastern allies, or adding french as subfaction of western allies in europe etc.
Bruh you spent 12 equivalent of silver for one end game soldier, free upgrade might work for them but the rest are not
what’s the conversion to “Send soldiers to the rear” per rank? We will have a massive excess of soldiers for multi-year veterans.
You’ll see it on the test server:D
i am talking about the numbers that WILL play in the BR brackets … cause we do not know them … i was literally referencing the BR layout there.
you do not? since the number of DIFFERENT queues depends on that exact thing.
this just means what CAN be, IF we have many players in all armies and BRs, but not what happens when there are LITTLE to no players in a certain bracket of a certain army. like said before, popular BR tiers will have more attendance then unpopular ones. and if for example we have lots of high BR soviets and lots of low BR germans at a given point in time, the battles will either be seperated with lots of bots … or united with a big BR difference …
and i find both options not desireable IF the merge should have a positive outcome…
i will try to say it again, THIS is the exact thing i try to improve, to UNIFY the playerbase IN LESS queues:
instead of those 3 fronts, just make a general axis vs allies. BR will spread out the players enough imho.
so, again we can agree to disagree.
my idea/suggestion to the devs (and all the other players out there) stands… 
even if you do not like it 
I’m an excel wizard. I want to know right meow
1 Like
This is what I have been wondering since they said they were re-doing the currency. I was thinking even if they are not transferable between types of purchases we still earn progress towards the 4 different cards at end of match, I’m wondering how that will function after. For example as I understand it works now:
1 match played for 2500 theoretical card points
-1 bronze weapon order 2500/2500
-0 Bronze soldier order 2500/5000
-0 Silver weapon order 2500/25000
-0 Silver soldier order 2500/50000
If for example in the new system that’s 2500 coins, but you’re missing the 7500 you would have earned previously as partial progress on the other 3 cards. So I don’t know what to think, like you I guess I’ll find out when it happens but prices are meaningless really unless we know if our income itself is being slashed or not.
2 Likes
When I first started reading the [news] I mostly thought, “Hmm, that seems pretty expensive to purchase a soldier,” but from a new player perspective, it doesn’t change that much. However, purchasing a weapon II, seems pretty expensive. I’ll say reduce the price from 3000 to 2000-2050 silvers.
Anything else, like making tanks pretty expensive seems pretty reasonable.
And I look forward to the new major update.
Except now weapon cost 3 silver max and not 10