For discussion - I know “classes” are a standard means of limiting players - but I first encountered character classes in Tunnels and Trolls I think it was - way back in the 70’s, and then of course in D&D… and I wonder if we REALLY need them in a WW2 “historical” game.
I do suspect game designers use them solely because they are relatively simple and players are used to them… but come on, it’s time for a little more thought into the issue and find something better!!
Certainly there are specialized types of soldier - tankers, airmen are obvious ones.
And even within an infantry battalion there’s specialisations - mortar man, AT gun crew and so forth.
And even within those they might be trained on limited amounts of equipment - not the full range of everything - not all mortar crew might know how to read the map and use the dial sight.
But the idea that Ivan can’t use a PPsH because he isn’t an “Assaulter” is just nonsense - he could use a PPsH if he was trained to do so. And he can use a PPsH for this battle if he picks one up for heaven’s sake - or even a MP-41 or a KAR98… how come he suddenly learns how to use those then suddenly forgets again once the game is over???
So why do we not have a reasonably logical training tree rather than fictional “classes” of soldiers?
The tree should be sufficiently XP intensive to that you are unlikely to become a great Flamethrower operator if you have already used up lots of XP developing your MG skills and knowledge for example.
Some soldiers should be started with rifles - but if there’s a squad from a SMG battalion then they should start with SMG’s - but both should be able to be trained with the other weapon.
Perhaps this could be part of he “star” progression system?
And there are ways of limiting highly desirable weapons - organisational charts were actually used in both armies and generally enforced - so many SMG’s or LMG’s per squad max…
I think the weapon improvement, Academy and perks systems can be investigated as means of limiting undesirable proliferation.
Something like retraining for a common weapon requires at least 2 stars completed and then costs you a perk. For less common or more complicated weapons you might require 3 or 4 stars and 2 perks.
Also some less obvious features - like more open maps and less damage at range for SMG’s - everyone in all wars notes that they are short range only after all - if they are a less perfect weapon then the push to get them lessens.
Of course there’s already a limit on the number of better weapons available through the weapon tickets & improvement system, and this could be utilised by making the undeveloped versions a little worse so they get “used up” a bit faster to supply parts for improvement.
So I think this game has many interesting features that could be used to guide weapon availability - and to actually make progression more immersive.
Agreed, with current meta and for balance overall it is necessary to have this.
You can understand it the way that only assaulters are assigned with SMG due to the shortage or whatever reason you can make up to sleep easier, but any soldier is free to pick up one from corpse.
What I would find stupid is if you could pick up only action bolts or snipers.
That is not so simple, sadly.
Meta is determined by many factors. Most significant one is small maps that are generaly in favour of using SMGs that beat any action bolt in short/medium distance. Changing that would require to allow us to play on big (like… really big) maps that would increase importance of action bolts.
Why don´t we have bigger maps (if you take a flight around area, you will see that it is actually modeled) is mystery to me however. Maybe they will arrive later (hopefully).
Also keep in mind, that Darkflow is relatively small studio (you can pretty much call them indie studio), which may play a role in current situation as well.
could every ivan pickup a ppsh and use it during ww? probably
was every Ivan equiped with ppsh during ww? No
giving every soldier every weapon through skill tree isnt good, imho, that’s the main purpose of classes, to distinguish soldiers and make them a bit unique due to this differences, not to limit
well, if we wanna talk about being realistically accurate, the german premium squad should not exist, as squads were mainly made with bolt action rifle, and lead elements such as officiers, squad leaders, elite sturmtroopers, and vehicle crew receing being the only one receiving mp40s and other automatic weapons.
and i don’t think it’s gonna be pleasing for everyone having the majority of people running with smg melting down your squad. that’s what i meant.
it’s not about meta, but rather balance factor.
unfortunally, meta in the current state of dev it’s already a thing plagued by squads almost full or having 5/6 elements made of automatic guns. not realistic, and not funny at all.
You don’t give them weapons through the skill tree - you give them weapons through weapon drops, and then the player has to figure out which of his soldiers gets them and if he’s going to stick with the worn out SMG’s or sacrifice some to make better versions…
that’s the main purpose of classes, to distinguish soldiers and make them a bit unique due to this differences, not to limit
That/'s one of the weirdest post-hoc rationalisations I’ve seen recently.
thats exactly what i said but even worse if you dont have to unlock abilities to use these weapons
at the end you will have same system with less item managment and possibly no need in academy but millions exp to grind soldiers ranks which is gonna look very borring
looks different? maybe, but benefits are not really clear
REasonably accurate - obviously a game has limits… and “whataboutism” is a poor argument.
and i don’t think it’s gonna be pleasing for everyone having the majority of people running with smg melting down your squad. that’s what i meant.
it’s not about meta, but rather balance factor.
You might like to read my posts further than the headline - ther are plenty of ways to cover this that do not need SILLY artificial distinctions.
unfortunally, meta in the current state of dev it’s already a thing plagued by squads almost full or having 5/6 elements made of automatic guns. not realistic, and not funny at all.
Yep - and so let’s deal with it in a manner that adds a bit of immersion and removes an obsolete and silly mechanism.
It is nothing like that - and again - ffs read what I wrote and don’t just stop at “do away with classes” please
the problem with it, it ain’t poor arguin, any silly distinctions, or anything like that.
but it’s going to make the game even worse than the actual current silly mechanics that we have for sure.
I would appreciate it if you’d put some actual thought into why it would be worse “for sure” and have a reasoned discussion rather than resort to knee jerk unsupported assertions.
It is nothing like you said - for god’s sake …or at least my level of frustration - take some time to actually read what I wrote and think about it instead of just knee jerking!
I mentioned several broad methods by which weapons might need to be unlocked, and how numbers and/or effectiveness could be limited - why do you ignore them?
I can not make much sense of the gibberish you wrote, I don’t think Erika can either.
It makes very little sense, both why and what you are proposing.
Because if I think you’re proposing what I think you are proposing, you would be looking at a H&G styled progression system with individual soldier experience, which has a bunch of issues if you try to copy-paste that into Enlisted as you need to rank 7x as many soldiers.
The class system is one of the things that works pretty well rn.
Can’t stand critisism but critisises others all the time?