Problems with the Research tree

Suggestions
1

I knew i’m a bit too late since the update was around 4 months ago , but i found that it’s very annoying and frustrating.

Why can’t i buy the higher equipment and vehicles , instead of wasting perhaps another year researching the lower one just to buy the new one?? Beisde , i already reached tier 5 , it’s not like letting me research my on going process will affect the match making.

It’s very unfair for me personally and i just want to move on from the lower tier. So please , keep the research tree this way , but make players enable to buy and research on going process

3 Likes
2

Well, now you have exposed a white elephant in the room - the thing that is the research tree.

You see when there were these things called campaigns, your research was relatively focused your choices were limited and you ground things out in a linear fashion.

With the tree now comes choice and with choice we have a problem, because it makes tons of old content redundant… So at the very least Gaijin is going to make you buy the old content, even if you never intend to play with it…

Such is the result, when game design fails… and you do a 90 degree turn in how the game is played without thinking through the consequences. The change was important in some respects, but the good enough for government work approach leaves a lot to be desired.

3

If BR was ±0 it would have made more equipment viable

2 Likes
4

yeah absolutely, but then we’re in the same boat as campaigns…

There are sensible options even with the current tech tree concept, but the maps simply have to turn generic rather than actual locations.

For example, here’s Raf’s pluck of the week on how to unf@#% Enlisted.

Make all maps generic - some that look like the Eastern Front, some like the Western Front, some like Africa and some like the Pacific. Piss off all the wrecks and other BS pretend senery rubbish, there will be enough wrecks and craters on the map once combat begins. They should play into the destructible terrain ace card more - sure you can start off on a map with more buildings but as shit gets blown up the map tends to turn into a moonscape.

Configure the tech trees into Axis and Allies and insert all the minor nations that played out on each.
So allied US / British can fight randomly on Western Europe, Africa, or Pacific maps, whilst some of the minor nations would only fight on European, African or Pacific maps depending on historical deployment.
For Axis, Germany gets them all less Pacific, and Japan is the reverse. Minor Axis powers would mostly get Eastern Europe, with a sprinkling of Africa.

Separate the tech tree into early / mid / late war to create the current 3 queues. When a player has selected a squad within a nation they get added to one of the queues, and are separated by the 4 available rough geo regions depending on what faction they selected.

Early war can include the Russo / Finnish or even the Spanish civil war, so you can start circa 1938. The cut off would be end of 1942. The mid war would be 1943 - 1944 inclusive, and late war is 1945+ where you can chuck in all the wunderwaffe your dev hearts desire. For vehicles that span these years put in some bloody effort and separate them out by gadgets and upgrades which they would have received in service.

Make the equipment cut off historical, and balance accordingly - if you’re missing stuff for balancing then that’s just an opportunity to create some new things and sell them to us. Tag the equipment with an additional MM marker that would reinforce the map dispersion algorithm, so bits of equipment that were used in Eastern and Western Europe would help discriminate further which maps your squad gets based on how you equipped it - ie some weapons saw service in a particular theatre of war and if you just wanted to play those maps you could bias the MM by equipping the appropriate weapons, same for Africa or Pacific maps.

Limit the number of automatic weapons, by going back and implementing the correct national and historical sections/squad based load outs including squad sizes !

Allow only one of each squad type in the line up, and then the random premium slot, which could feasibly give you a second type of unit in your line up, depending on what you chose to slot in there.

Done !, just in time for tea and scons.

5

Yeah, so basically everyone who is enjoying automatic weapons would move to play only Soviets. What a great idea.
Let’s kill the most fun aspect of the game for the sake of few BA mains.

1 Like
6

Imo that should be done in a separate mode as many ppl just want to have unlimiyed acces to everything.

And imo it should be done via spawn score, like the titan event. Not by slots or some other bs that hardlocks ppl.
Example:
In moscow things like BT-7 would be free but T-34 or KV-1 would cost spawn score.
And in berlin T-34/85 would be free, IS-2 would cost spawnscore. Also, IS would be buffed to shoot mini nukes (like it should). Now it needs to be artificially nerfed to be balanced because it’s freely available.

So imo such system is infinitely better than BR, especially the current one.
Problem is that it would require basically a total overhaul of the game (not only MM but also slots etc) and that’s not really possible.

2 Likes
7

All nations would be in the same boat, Soviets included. I don’t know what you are talking about in relation to BA mains or whatever else.

8

That really doesn’t go well together.

9

The spawn point costs would certainly work, there have been plenty of WT events where one starts off with a workhorse tank and then grinds their way up to the heavier and more decisive armour based on in session performance.

That is certainly a good model for vehicles, I don’t know how well it would work in squad selection options. I suspect it wouldn’t particularly as there is so many issues with the bots as they are and the players that are currently cheating/abusing the EasyAnticheat which is living up to its name for all the wrong reasons.

What I was hoping to see more is the emergence of nation based tactics based off the respective nation doctrinal and weapon dispositions. But perhaps that’s a “bridge too far” as far as this game is concerned.

10

yeah it does, it would just take a lengthy explanation given the lack of historical context that most readers have on these forums, so perhaps another one for the “too hard basket”

11

So basically “I am smarter than you, but I am lazy to provide any evidence that is supporting my claim. I just know what’s going to work. Trust me, bro. You are dumber than me”.

Just little comparison, number of mp40 made during ww2 is 1.1 mil meanwhile number of ppsh 41 made during ww2 is ±6 mil.

Sounds like very decent balance ngl.

12

No, not at all, although I suppose if you wanted to be super negative you could read into it that way. It’s just a fact of participation for several years on these forums.
There are many folks who have produced quite elaborate write ups on all sorts of things, and have been trashed for it by the autistic element on these forums.

The reason I say its an effort is because you’d first have to explain the doctrinal differences between the 4 man protagonist nations in game, and then go into how they historically postured for warfare. It would certainly highlight where the current squad implementation takes some liberties, in some cases for the right reasons, but in others to the detriment of said uniqueness and the actual tactics that a given nation was known for.

1 Like
13

Sounds reasonable.

14

I’m not following with this random tangent - where are you going with this ?

15

Very simply. The Soviets had far more resources in terms of automatic weapons.
And this difference was absolutely crucial in the latter half of the war.
I’d like to know how you would balance the assault squads of the higher BRs. The Germans should have used one StG in the squad.

But in theory we could pretend to play on what the doctrines and armament goals were intended to achieve (which they really haven’t achieved in reality). In that case we would on the contrary give a stg to literally every assault soldier.

16

That has nothing to do with anything I was writing about. The relative production of equipment irrespective of quantities is only relevant to a Table of Organisation and Equipment by availability at a given place and time - ie there are always differences between what a unit should have IAW its TOE and what its actually issued with. Certainly not an issue for a fantasy millieu like Enlisted, where production capacity does not enter into any remote equation as far as the game is concerned.

17

As I have already said, in such a case the German assault squads should be composed mainly of Stg users (/assault rfiles).
Because that was literally the intention with Stg.
In my opinion, it really doesn’t look like a limitation of full automatic weapons.

18

That’s not actually true, but I understand what you’re getting at. The difference here is that there would be slightly more limits on the prevalence of certain weapons, not based on production rates, but based on how they were actually issued to a given squad - ie their TOE, now the actual balancing would come down to how many of said squads you allow in game, and whether a TOE is squad or role based as in the current game where weapon issue is affiliated with a role rather than the actual squad or its intended purpose within an ORBAT.

19

Almost every design problem can be solved. Question is: how much time and resources are we willing to spend on solving those problems.

Current state of enlisted doesn’t allow for potential waste of resources on such projects.

But I can still advertise this as it’s free.

20

yeah I agree, although some course corrections are relatively easy and not as resource intensive as initially imagined.

All it takes is for a bit of critical thinking/analysis. All we seem to be getting atm is knee jerk reactions… Perhaps the devs are paying too much attention to the forums after all.
Either that or they’ve hired some BFV retread for a historical/content advisor because all we’re seeing is yet another obscure weapon wielded by an even more obscure premium squad on a monthly basis, be it event or just pure revenue driven…