Balancing weapons in Enlisted has always been broken because its drip fed one faction at a time leading to power creep. Examples The soviets semi auto at BR3 with a ten round magazine is stronger than the Germans two stripper clip sa. The FG42 was stronger than the M2 then the T20 was the strongest then the Hei Auto was even stronger. This does not take into account event and premium weapons which are often one BR rank what they should be. The trouble balancing prototypes and production weapons with clear statistics. Germany forgetting that they also fight the US/UK and not just Russia. Japan and its lack of âoriginalâ weapons leading to an increasing amount of prototypes and paper weapons in the tech tree. People trying to down tier weapons because their favorite faction at one br is not better than their enemies meta weapon. Enlisted needs a major balancing patch to balance all factionâs that fight each other. Of course we also need to see USSR VS Japan as soon as possible.
They could easily fix everything by changing the statistics, but they are too lazy to do so.
well lot of weapons just need +1BR on low BR. low BR has been powercreeped hard for all nations cause of imbalance of soviet SMG(they should have either nerfed them or moved to higher BR).
then we have other imbalances that often favor one nation more than other 3. if there are imbalances in their favor for other 3 nations, they are often fixed fast.
The BR system really sucks - it supposedly allows equipment to exist in some sort of fantasy equivalence pattern called âBRâ.
Better to make equipment available chronologically, with variable rarity, and pay some variable cost for its effectiveness in that time frame.
You then get to assemble squad lineups for different actual chronological periods up to a certain number of point - premium players might get a higher number of points.
Eg you would make the KV-2 available from 1941-1943 (10 were still in service at Kursk!), but it would be both rare (say only 1 per person per game), and cost a fortune. T-26âs would be cheap as chips, No Tiger 1/s before late 1942, but horrendously expensive and probably limited numbers until late 1943⌠or something like that.
You could include super-rare weapons like prototypes using this too - and they would ACTUALLY be rare! Eg I-185 had only 3 sent to combat trials, so make it âUniqueâ and can 1 can appear in any given game, and so on.
So a bog-standard infantry squad with BAâs and 1 SMG and 1 LMG might cost 50 pts, same sort of squad with STG âAssault riflesâ and some PzF might cost 90 pts, 25 if with SLRâs instead of ARâs, or 700 if lacking any AT but US might get a bazooka team for 30 pts.
Partisan squad with old poor quality weapons and a handful of molotoves might be 30 pts, Soviet tank descents with all PPsHâs 70 pts, âŚ
Pershing only available in 1945 and unique might cost 500 pts and be âuniqueâ - so only 1 per game.
You might be allowed 800 pts for a game if F2P, 1200 if Premium, etc, etcâŚfor a 1000 pt game
Itâs not hard to do - table-top games have done various systems along these lines for decades & should be a doddle keeping track of the values electronically.
With systems like this you do not actually get power creep - because the economics of bringing all the top dog equipment means not many of them get used, people will try to use them âproperlyâ (ie not just rush their Tiger into the enemy rear knowing they can easily get another one shortly!) and suddenly âtacticsâ gets discovered!
I suggested something similar, not so long ago. A point buy system might slow down deployment, a bit, but would cut through the balance complaints, a bit
Gewehr 41 - Wikipedia 140k Gewehr 43 - Wikipedia 400k M1 Garand - Wikipedia. 3.5M so Germany would have fewer SA rifles sweet
You forgot Tokarev 1.7 million - and yes, they would
I believe biggest Problem is damage profile. Instead make damage Rof and the other stats like every other shootergame have, we have Enlisted damage model which goes after Bullet size nonsense. In Vehicles its relativ ok but not perfect. That cause to Revolvers are useless, imbalance between SMGs etc etcâŚ
Thats not the perfect answer from me but some 500Brains could workout this.
We need Gameplay Balance and not Caliber or Historical Balance that ship is long sailed away
Well people need to look at the total weapons produced and combine that with the actual troop strength of each nation.
If you compare a 100.000 soldier faction to a 2.000.000 soldier faction, and then claim the stronger faction had produced 200.000 assault rifles - then that does not mean the poor 100.000 men faction needs to face the enemy 100% equipped with assault rifles.
Those weapon production numbers dont necessarily reflect actual usage on the battlefield.
For example alot of M1 Carbines were made - but that doesnât mean M1 Garand was used less, because M1 Carbine was only a back line gun.
SVT productions are impressive, but how many Mosins were used to the end of the war.
well that model is inconsistent. you can have same caliber round do different damage depending if it is in BA, SA or MG. before there was also difference with AR until they fixed fedorov. SMG also have few examples where same gun does different damage(pps42 stalingrad event vs pps42 regular) and whole SMG category has different damage for same caliber and similar barrel length.
During World War II, the German Army (Heer), part of the Wehrmacht, had a total of approximately 13.6 million conscripts and volunteers serve in it, according to Wikipedia. The Heerâs strength peaked around 10 million soldiers.
During World War II, the Red Army, the Soviet Unionâs armed forces, had a massive size. It peaked at around 12 million troops by the end of the war. Over the course of the war, approximately 34 million soldiers were enlisted. After the war, the Red Army was significantly reduced through demobilization, with its size falling below 3 million troops by 1948.
Germany was not a small elite army it was armed largely with bolt actionâs and smgs just like many ww2 armies.
Everyone had mostly bolt actions with the US being the exception, whatâs your point?
soviets had high ratio of smg to BA, specially late war. they produced 6 million ppsh41 and 2 million pps43 and overall production of mosin nagant with around 20 million mosin nagant variants(although idk if that number included whole production till end of ww2 or just ww2 production).
compare that to germans that had ~14.6 million kar98k and only 1.1 million mp40 and 400k stg44.
That like piano said you can either have a system that is historically accurate or one that is balance. The m2 is historically accurate but the t20 is closer to balanced. Puting the against the fg42 is neither historical nor balance yet weebs bitch an koan about the t20. The m2 with its low cal bullet an hour 500k built should have always been an assaulter weapon. The fg42s with 7k built should have always been limited to paratroopers. In fact sf rifles should be removed from the game as they are not WW2.