After a month or so of playing Enlisted, I have to say I am enjoying this much more than H&G. The few things I find more enjoyable about H&G are far from bringing me back to that game over this one.
What I like about both:
- Implementation of tanks, planes etc that gives infantry sufficient options to respond to.
- Consistency of your own side (i.e. you don’t have Germans, Soviets, and Japanese all fighting on the same side in a battle).
*Presence of infantry gives certain types of vehicles (e.g. light tanks) a more fair role than games like WT or WoT.
*Modular damage for vehicles
*An excellent balance of believability without taking itself so seriously that you feel like you can only be viable playing in a squad / with a clear command structure.
*Tradeoff: the vehicle restriction of 2 vehicles per team total, 1 per type feels artificial. At the same time, there’s a reason for that since on the one hand they are powerful but also create issues when it comes to capping points as often seen in H&G. Each has their merits I feel.
What I like about Enlisted over H&G:
*No HP pool for vehicles, destruction is based on crew and modules only.
*AT is handled by almost all, if not all squads having access to AT weapons straight out of the gate, as opposed to oddly having Panzerschreck just lying around everywhere with infinite supply. If you miff your shot, switch to another squad member and try again. If you miff all your shots, you kindof deserve to pay dearly for that.
*Each campaign has its distinctive character and pacing, and I like how leveling is integrated with map design for a different feel for each one, as well as consistent Axis VS Allies matchmaking (whereas H&G features a fair bit of US VS USSR). Normandy has rally points galore, while you’re pretty lucky if you get 2 in Tunisia.
*More maps overall. Seeing the same maps over and over in H&G gets redundant fast.
*Implementation of mortar infantry.
*AA has to be built, instead of having it already available on the map. Adds some strategy to placement.
What I like about H&G over Enlisted:
*Ammo/weapon customization rather than straight up “upgrades.”
*Access to the whole map, with spawn protection based on invisibility instead of (exploitable) no-go zones.
*Ironically, the RTS and FPS aspects of the game being interdependent. The RTS component can give the FPS side a leg up, but depending on the players you will find some good players able to overcome incredible odds. That has its own element of fun, since if the chips are down the pressure is off to a degree since you are expected to lose anyway, and if you have a massive advantage it can be fun to just pummel your opponent, leading to a fair bit of fun either way when the pressure is down.
7 Likes
I’d love to see H&G size maps in Enlisted.
5 Likes
I’d like to see Enlisted size maps with H&G invisibility instead of tanks hanging back out of grenade range, unkillable by anything other than an AT gun (that gets a really good shot right away) or a rocket AT weapon/mortar/etc. And that’s presuming it isn’t something like a Tiger with a ton of frontal armor.
Honestly, as someone who played H&G since CBT, I don’t want to have the same spawnrape in enlisted. I wish we had something similar to bikeboost bug though.
1 Like
Odd, I always felt the invisibility was sufficient. Large numbers of tanks definitely posed a problem, but I always felt that I had just enough time to get a sense of my surroundings. If it was just one person near spawn I honestly felt they were in more danger than I was. Not to mention being able to just outright grab a different spawn or spawn off a truck. If there’s a lot of players near the spawn… well that’s really not good in any game and probably not going to end well for your team. Though I figure the equivalent here would be when the team is pushed up in front of the objective and you can’t get close.
Still, everyone has their own experiences. I just rather liked that if a tank or something was hanging out by their spawn, you could still get in position and kill it, you just risked the wrath of players you couldn’t see.
Very often especially on such maps as forest farm skirmish or factory assault people ended up being spawnraped by tanks. I also would say that the map design on most maps was horrible with some of the routes being much easier to attack and some of them almost impossible to capture a point sucessfully (especially broken bridge route) especially in early builds where it had no pontone bridge whatsoever.
Overall i would take enlisted map design any day over H&G except maybe for Airport map they both kinda suck at both games although in H&G they managed to improve it.
1 Like
id say heroes has better vehicle gameplay and enlisted has much better infantry gameplay. idk why they dont allow pilots in enlisted anyway to check their 6 as if the pilots necks tied to the seat
Oh I would absolutely agree, the map design here is top notch, particularly how it interacts with the leveling system to give each campaign its own distinctive feel.
id say heroes has better vehicle gameplay and enlisted has much better infantry gameplay. idk why they dont allow pilots in enlisted anyway to check their 6 as if the pilots necks tied to the seat <>
The looking for planes is certainly weird in Enlisted, but to me the lack of a collective health pool and strictly modular destruction is something that gives Enlisted the edge for me.
i find the primary issue is enlisted’s limiting the vehicles. in heroes plane vs plane vs combat could be nuts like 8 vs 8s at times and a ton of fun, tho in enlisted it really makes the 1v1s unfun when its totally blind, yes i was a pilot main lol
i find the primary issue is enlisted’s limiting the vehicles. in heroes plane vs plane vs combat could be nuts like 8 vs 8s at times and a ton of fun, tho in enlisted it really makes the 1v1s unfun when its totally blind, yes i was a pilot main lol
Yeah, I miss that. I didn’t really “main” anything as much as I appreciated the chance to play any specialist once in a while rather than just playing infantry all the time, but I would prioritize actually getting a game in a reasonable amount of time. Another plus for Enlisted.
That said, too many planes also often meant no boots on the ground to actually take points, especially if the other team had more players. It was a tough tradeoff much like WT ground (WT naval planes are mostly just when you don’t have ships left anyway). It is really tough to figure out a way to get the best of both worlds, limiting vehicles gives one, allowing free access gives a different one.
ya it was an issue too many went vehicle; tho i think theres no real solution to the issue where no one fights for caps… enlisted’s got most of the team figuring out other ways to avoid the capzone despite infantry onlying
In my observation it is mostly just a different feel from campaign to campaign. For example, I notice in Tunisia a lot of people get upset about not building rally points. The fact that they are upset about it, to me, implies they either cannot do so themselves, or are idiots that won’t bother to if they can. But considering engineers only unlock at level 9, seems to me that a lot of people just don’t have them unlocked, and any that do may be playing something else at the moment.
Normandy and Moscow are the opposite: rally points galore. And of course engineers unlock sooner.
In my observation, people tend to be way better about playing the objective in this game than pretty much any other game I have played. But they don’t give each other enough credit.
1 Like
ya all that is true, infantry in enlisted is a great experience its very engagement heavy usually. players usually do play for the caps. the greyzone mechanics really helps to force players to actually battle. yes everyone in this game seems to has a ‘im the only one trying and everyones a bot’ complex. ive still seen a fair share of cap avoiding campers somehow, there were a few games in berlin where id run into axis players hiding in a building behind the cap with mp43’s 
ofc they didnt even have a good shot/angle at anyone attacking the cap
"The greyzone mechanics really helps to force players to actually battle.
I highly disagree. What I think really helps force players to battle hard for the point, is that the defenders do not have reinforcement point to lose in most modes, and the attackers can gain quite a few reinforcements back for capturing a zone, funneling players towards the objective in a very natural way.
The greyzone mechanics have the opposite effect: why enter the battlefield at all with your heavy tank if you can engage in such a way that it is only possible for the enemy to hit your frontal armor at long range, meanwhile you can still use your machinegun or main gun to keep an area near the cap free of enemies? Incredibly exploitable and campy.
oh i meant for the infantry gameplay… the tank gameplay is what i like to forget about with enlisted they greyzone just keeps everyone facing > < no ones running way to the left to snipe like in heroes
Oh yeah, infantry side I see no issue with the grayzone at all, except insofar as not being able to get close to the point because of untouchable tanks (though at least the map design is generally good enough that this only affects an approach from one side, but unfortunately that tends to allow enemy infantry to more heavily cover the other half).
Going off to one side is generally useful, I have done it (and more efficiently than directly from the cap such as certain Moscow maps). But you are close enough to the cap that you can easily make it over there in an emergency where you just have to rush it, unlike H&G.