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.
Wow, where did I attack you? I attacker your opinions and suggestions. Not you personally. That’s huge difference.
Didin’t I just say that you don’t fit that mold ? I am just pointing out that if you happened to do so, then you could be construed as such.
I’m sorry, I got emotional and overacted. I only read the first line and it triggered, my fault. Because that wouldn’t be true.
I think that both positive and negative opinions should be seen here. Developers should see that what some want, meanwhile others don’t want. And that they need to direct the game in a way that satisfies both groups.
If I didn’t respond to something I didn’t like that could have a negative consequence for me, I shouldn’t have to comment here in the first place.
I don’t take our disagreement personally. The fact that I sometimes react under emotion is just the way I am. That’s hard to control. And I hope you didn’t take it personally either.
1 Like
people used to said that the new research tree would be the best thing ever, not making you spend in thing that you didn’t wanted, or needed, and here we are, the research tree just ended up being a global campaing, but now you have to pay for everything that used to be free before, and it doesn’t matter if you want it or not, you have to research it and buy it, or else you cannot get the things above, that is super shit for people like me that only had one campaing maxxed normandy, which it had br v stuff, but not the most top br v stuff, and now to keep progressing for the things that where above the things I have, now I have to research everything from the tunisia campaing, moskow, stalingrad, and then I will be allowed to keep my natural progression.
And lets not forget that now I have to buy squads to play vehicles that I already had before? before the merge I unlocked the Jumbo, after the merge I had to buy it again by some reason? also the Bf 110 C-7 I had to research it again? and I couldn’t play my battlepass one because I did not have the squad, I personally find the so called “research tree” a big pile of shit, it is far from what It should have been