The “Allies” faction is combined with American and British/ Commonwealth forces. Just like in Tunisia. British/ Commonwealth forces also fought the Japanese in the Pacific. I expect we’ll see the same thing when we ever get a Market Garden, Sicily, and Italian campaign.
My rule is that I only use faction specific weapons, for example in Tunisia I only let the British Squads use Lee Enfields. In Normandy I don’t use any British equipment until if they ever add British forces squads. Of course its relative, because occasionally faction equipment intermix, for example the British used a lot of Thompsons
You’re right. It’s oversimplification. Simplification would be combining all the Central Pacific Islands campaigns into one in-game campaign, this, of which, I am not opposed to. Oversimplification is taking an entire front (sometimes deemed as it’s own war) that had more active fighting compared to the European Theatre, for example, had a space between the Western Front between Overlord and the conclusion of the Occupation of France.
Ironically enough, i’ve also advocated for the front system. This is not how I envisioned it though. If they were to start doing it like this now. Then they need to combine all the previous campaigns into their front rn and they need to add a check to ensure maps have their time-appropriate weapons there. Of course this causes issues with premiums and gold orders, alongside the weapon transfer system. I figured the “Front System” would be the individual campaigns, that can be leveled, being grouped up within a matchmaking system for those Fronts.
I don’t know who the “we” is, but if i’m seeing issue with this, despite supporting a “Front System” then I doubt everyone else would suddenly be ok with forgoing the historically accurate part of the game, which has been taking a nose dive of recent, which was, in the first place, attracted a lot of people to this arcadey WW2 game.
All i’m asking for is time-accurate weapons (allowing prototype usage), not an over abundant amount of captured weapons (so it actually feels like i’m playing as said nation and not just a copy of the enemy), and not over-the-top cosmetics that interrupt the setting. (I think people are sick of the pajama uniforms without any markings or gear, and they’d like to see some default tank/aircraft markings that they can either adjust or make changes to without charge or limitation.)
That is not the front system anyone else envisioned, most people just believed it would be tacking other maps to preexisting campaigns, things like Leningrad to Moscow and Bulge to Normandy, both of which would mean ahistoric thing get added.
And Pacific as a whole will pretty much get you that, as neither side changed their weapons much. The only things that will stick out are the some of the vehicles, the Grease gun, the Japanese AT weapons and the Garand clone. The Grease Gun would have first seen use in the Pacific probably at Bouganville, putting it as very well into the Solomon island campaign, which is the only real place where it feel even a bit off, the Garand clone can easily be seen as a captured Garand, as the Japanese found it could feed 7.7 Arisaka decently well and the Japanese AT weapons literally do not have any other possible replacements, as the Japanese basically used the Type 97 ATR for their primary man portable AT weapon that was not a magnetic mine for the entirety of the war. As for the vehicles, Japanese vehicles remain mostly stagnant throughout the entire pacific, save for the Chi Ha Kai and the Ki 61 showing up a bit later. As for the Americans, some dipping into ahistory was always going to happen because despite how many Stuart variants there are, there are not enough to fill 40 levels if you insist on remaining 100% historically accurate. Something similar can be said about aircraft, but the Americans did operate Wildcats at Okinawa despite them being basically obsolete.
I dont give up i changed my priority on game support towards game balance, because keep asking for historical accuracy in an arcade game is usless, this is not a millsim
Sure there were people who probably thought that, but I don’t think that you can speak for all people, nor understand what all people think in order to claim that I am alone in this.
I’ve said over and over again to separate the weapons from the campaign progression. Weapons, vehicles, and equipment should be unlocked in a nation-specific progression tree to remove repeats. They will then be able to be purchased in the campaigns that have them. The squads pretty much are the only thing that need to be unlocked in the actual campaign progression, as they are based on actual units. This will allow nothing to be changed negatively about premium squads. If they restrict some weapons, like the M2 Flamethrower, which was serviced in 1944, from appearing in Guadalcanal, or literally any other campaign that ended before 1944, then sure. I’d be more open for it if they go and give the European theatre a similar treatment.
How is asking for weapons to be time-accurate a symbol of a milsim? This game does not play anything like Arma? If anything, it serves to set it to be unique from Call of Duty or Battlefield.
The weapon are time accurate
The campaign is setted from 1943 to 1945 you are asking for set the weapon only for the 1943 because the map at release cover only that period so…
You are asking for cut in half the campaign contenent and release guadalcanal a standalone
Practically you want rising storm so yes you are asking for a milsim
I observe the forums and discord and see what the trends are, and that is what the trend is. Most people don’t want a total overhaul, they just want the simple solution.
Yes, but you can’t just destroy the current progression system to replace it with what you want, you need to compromise with reality to at least some degree. People will not want to lose the progress they have made, and converting from what we have now to what you want will cause a gigantic mess that will take an incredible amount of manpower to sort out. You also have to concern yourself with a multitude of balance issues that might arise, so its no wonder even if the devs are working one something like that, they haven’t made any announcements.
Yes, I’d prefer that the maps representative of a campaign (Guadalcanal as the example) include weapons that were available for usage during said campaign. Not from the future.
Even though I wouldn’t be opposed to have copied some of Rising Storm’s features (servers, multiplayer campaign, damage based on where hit, etc.), it’s the gameplay that determines a milsim, not the items available. Go play Arma III and tell me that you feel just like you’re playing Enlisted if you were restricted in some weapons.
I wasn’t against compromise? Even in the last sentence to my previous reply, I was more willing to accept this concept if it was applied equally and still had time-appropriate weapons. It will require some work yea, but I guarantee you, every campaign they add or levels that they add will be responded with “Oh, but _____ campaign had that, this is copy and paste!” until they actually fix the problem. You can’t put a bandaid over a leaking dam and call it fixed. You have to actually fix the dam.
Back when everyone thought that this was going to be the case, we were all literally screaming about the fact that there wouldn’t be enough content to sustain an interesting campaign, as the only real map they could make about Guadalcanal was Henderson airfield, and then maybe a series of bunkers along a trail. The map situation would literally be worse than Stalingrad if they did that, and the same applies to literally every other Pacific island other than maybe Okinawa, which might have only slightly more maps available, but would very likely run into the same issues eventually. That is probably the biggest reason they grouped all of the Pacific together.
Yes, but you want it now, and I’m telling you that is literally impossible. Even if the devs devoted every hour of their workday to doing that and let everything else fall by the wayside, the task of managing such a task would take well more than a year due to all the challenges doing such a thing would bring.
You have to mod it though to be like that. The gameplay part of Arma III, without any modifications is a milsim. You cannot mod Enlisted, as of this moment, to be anything else but an arcade shooter.
As I said before, the Central Pacific Islands are the ones that are distant from one another and not in a group of Islands like the Solomon Islands or the Philippines. The Central Pacific Islands I don’t mind being grouped up in one, as they all occurred 1944-1945.
I never demand it to be immediate, I’d just simply ask them to stop going down this path of temporary fixes to the point where they can’t go back on those temporary fix with the more permanent one. They need to fix the existing campaigns too. So even adding this one takes away manpower from fixing the old ones. The old campaigns don’t have medics, flamethrower tanks, motorcycle squads, and customization. They’ve only recently gotten shovels.
Yes but at that point, you might as well group the entire pacific together to start addressing the player base splitting issue.
If you want content to come while they attempt to fix the progression, that content will need to be in the frame of that “bandaid” solution because no other frame exists. While you might not mind the wait, the vast majority of people will not, and will leave, just look at Halo Infinite. The way they are managing things right now is probably the best way to keep the game alive for the time being, and in all honesty if they start lumping maps from outside of the campaign into the appropriate preexisting campaigns, then it will likely be fine.
No, that’s not the same thing. The Philippines, the Solomon Islands, the fighting in Burma and India, and the fighting in Indochina are not all representative of the fighting within Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the other Central Pacific Islands.
If they actually cared about fixing the problem, they’d try to provide the fixes to old campaigns that people have been asking for for a long time instead of using all their manpower on a new campaign which will then have it’s own problems while they focus on the campaign after it. And you’re saying this like the people who enjoy the time-accurate setting won’t leave if that is abandoned. People will leave regardless for a multitude of reasons. I’d rather the game be fixed with a good foundation instead of them adding more problems to be fixed to the point they can’t handle it anymore.