But, You can’t expect them to remain content as they discover more about the game.
This is pretty much false advertising.
Assuming that You are among those who spent money, how accuratelly they follow their promises as advertised in the description, in Your opinion?
I feel like they’re improving some things but worsening others. I understood the fact that prototype weapons and lesser known/used weapons would appear in campaigns where it was plausible, though they started adding anachronistic weapons coming from the future, past the end date of the battle. I feel like the improvement is sometime slow and done sloppily too. Compare Stalingrad’s customization to the Pacific. How come there are less options in a newer campaign than an older one? Stuff like that worries me when they say they’re bringing it to three older campaigns. Are they going to go with Stalingrad’s version of customization, the Pacific’s version of customization, or a newer more simplified version that no one will want and will be complained about on release by a lot of people? They seemingly had a quality standard (which they still advertise and respond with on the forums) and are crossing that standard to rush things out to appeal to more people.
Well. BFV at start was so unpolished, incomplete and yet had micros I think they are to some extend similiar.
AAA honestly means nothing anymore.
no they don’t have to since realistic isn’t the same as authentic, like WT’s realistic battles aren’t authentic ones since you can have isreal fighting with nazi germany, america fighting everyone, 50-60s tanks seeing vehicles from 1944, or tanks from 1933 fighting 2016 MBTs if the player wants to; but it’s still realistic since everything is preforming how they would have IRL. enlisted is the exact same way where things are preforming IRL outside of dispersion.
TL;DR: enlisted is realistic, just not an authentic game