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
I’m not following with this random tangent - where are you going with this ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
I believe we shouldn’t base squad composition on “historical sources” which could or couldn’t reflect reality anyway.
But I think the composition of the squad should really be completely redesigned. And the composition of squads between each tier should be different (but not in a powercreepbe sense, just allowing the player to choose what suits their playstyle.)
For example, one assault squad would have high number of assaulters (for example 6) but no engineer. The other would have fewer assalters (3), but maybe three engineers.
One of the engineers could be a specialist who can use assault weapons.
That kind of nitpicky stuff.
How would having historical TOE not reflect reality ? You’re losing me again.
The problem with discussing a balancing paradigm is that you need to have a baseline to start from. The current Enlisted squad baseline is kind of flawed, but workable from a certain perspective. The real abberation begins when one conflates task organisation with roles, as is currently the biggest issue in Enlisted. So you have an assault grouping which designates a task organisation and can be equipped in a task oriented way, that often differs from TOE, but then you call it a squad and create some imaginary TOE based constraints based on roles - ie rifles for an Rifleman role and SMG or ARs for an Assault role, that doesn’t actually exist.
EDIT, let me address this another way.
For example I would like the tech tree to be based on TOE squads - so for a simplistic example I’ll use a squad of 9 - comprised of 2 leaders with SMGs (take your historical preference based off either BR or something more closely linked to history) , 1 LMG team comprised of rifleman and gunner, and 5 regular infantry men armed with rifles.
So that’s the core unit, but then the game wants to create some task organised teams because within the millieu of the game you want to bomb stuff, build stuff, or blow stuff up.
These are effectively catered for by the Eng, Radio, FT, Mor, Sniper and Assault squads. The progress that’s been made here is very good although the issue is conflation of individual soldier role with squad role. The very existence of these squads should focus the player on using squads, not making up an imaginary grouping of roles who’s only link to the actual task orientation is the presence of a unique role and that’s only the case in FT and Mor squads. All other squads are fundamentally the same, its just a different mix of roles with arbitrary limits on one role or another without any historical reference to a TOE.
It would make for a much more interesting / balanced game if the squads were the element of choice not the role and the specialists within those squads the drivers of a set of tactics or choices that a player would have to make in order to support their team.
To facilitate understanding which squad to select, all they would have to do is flash up the active players in a team as you join a game, and the selection they have made. You’d very quickly see what the team is lacking and either address it or double down on a firepower choice hoping for a rush win etc… either way you could not do it all with just one squad, which is the issue atm.
Because there is quite a difference in the formation and equipment in which the soldiers go into the first battle. And what kind of formation they’re in during the war.
If you want to tell me that the various German Gruppen, which were composed towards the end of the war of different elements of the German war machine. When SS, Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe soldiers could fight side by side without having any major chance to withdraw and regroup, they had the same squad and equipment layout as the soldiers who had just left Germany for the front, that’s incredibly funny.
This tracking down different doctrines and documenting how the squad should be composed is absolutely pointless. It’s just wanking over the fact that something is written somewhere and we’re going to do it accordingly.
There are just a lot of things that cannot be verified and 100% authenticated from the war period. Sometimes there just aren’t enough credible sources, apart from just a few accounts of people who were actually there. Not all documents survived the war. Not all documents were true and reflected reality.
You’ve gone off on a tangent that’s not quite on point, although you’re conflating it again with things that are not relevant in the abstracted millieu of a game. You’ve circled back on stories and anecdotes rather than focusing on the concept of the TOE vs task organisation, vs what the game can do with these in the context that is has.
It already abstracts “certain realisms” like repair of equipment and does not take into consideration any manufacuring constraints. So introducing arguments about certain units fighting together is irrelevant because that’s not what we’re talking about. I understand your point of reference but in this case you’ve overshot the arugment in place.
Yes, of course. I’m just saying that this “historical” approach is utter nonsense and an unnecessary limitation.
Yes, the composition of the squad should be redone. But in a way that benefits different types of gameplay and variety.
It is completely unnecessary to follow any so called historical aspects. It has literally no benefit.
Especially since anything else follows such approach.
Btw.
It’s funny how you always ask me what I mean. And when I explain it to you, you say it has nothing to do with the original topic. All I’m doing is explaining my position on what you responded to earlier.
which is a significant issue since you’re purportedly playing a WW2 historical game 
EDIT and in respect to the rest of your post, that’s where I’m happy to agree to disagree with you, as I very much would like to have the game returned to its initial consistency of very early BETA, since technically we’re still in some stage of BETA…
After merge? Yeah, surely. You live in disillusion.
It literally all comes down to gameplay and a better user experience. Not from historical facts and documents lol. Enlisted is more of a game than a historical work.
I couldn’t respond without your clarification 
Not really, there are nice things that pop in from time to time to make the game a lot more enjoyable for me - the APCs were a particularly nice addition. I’m not even close to being as negative as you come across in the forums, and that’s just a general observation.
Yes, I’m just negative towards people who try to use historical facts to push their agenda, which from my perspective would have a negative effect on gameplay.
I don’t see why I would be positive about something like that.
I’m playing this game for what is, not for what it could be.
I also like how you play it as if having a negative opinion on something is bad.
That kind of smells like classic modern day thinking to me, one of the reasons we can’t even have a dislike button anymore. Because negativity = bad in modern society.
because attacking people for their opinions based on something your opinion doesn’t gel with is what one calls a hypocrite… Now I’m sure you don’t fit into that…
The other bit you might want to check out is tact, there are ways to disagree with ppl, being downright negative is probably not the best way to support your own arguments.