Progression Rework Idea

Suggestions
1

So, with the new Pacific “campaign” essentially disregarding how the previous campaigns were done (being based on battle), I figured it would be good to bring this up again before they keep putting out so much content that there’s no point in going back.

To start off, the main issue people had with new campaigns was the fact that the equipment would be similar to other campaigns, should it have featured the same nation. This is unavoidable, due to the fact you can’t have the Germans without the Kar98k. However, the weapons, equipment, etc. should be earned through a separate nation specific progression tree. This will unlock all the weapons that you would use in campaigns.

Campaign progression wouldn’t even need much change, as the main focus of the campaign tree should be unlocking the squads themselves, not the equipment. Unlocking the squads unlocks the soldiers, depending on the nation tree, will already have access to all the weapons that class of soldier can use. The upgrades for the squads do not need to be changed either, as they can be used to aid in upgrading certain weapons for a campaign still.

This then leads to weapons being set in correct time period, so no late war weapons are in early or mid war settings where they weren’t even invented or put out yet. Therefore, the weapons unlocked in the nation tree will be restricted to campaigns where they still occurred in. This will not only make it less of a grind, but will keep the integrity of the campaign structure, time accurate weapons, alongside making campaigns based off battles again.

With that, I would like this “Pacific Front Campaign” to be based off the Solomon Islands Campaign or the Battle of the Guadalcanal in order to have squads that were involved there, be unlocked there. To supplement the divide in the playerbase, Campaigns should be organized in playlists. The easiest way to do this would be a All Campaigns Playlist, a Front Playlist (Eastern, Western, North Africa, Pacific, etc.), or a Selected Campaign Playlist, this will allow players to go for the setting they want and the maps they want, if they are picky with it.

2 Likes
2

But what do I know? This will be another ignored suggestion (which has been through multiple threads by multiple people for over a year now), and they’ll continue to degrade the quality of the game.

To anyone that might think i’m complaining because it’s set in the Pacific, that’s not what i’m complaining about. It’s the fact that they simplified the entire front into one, when they have things like Moscow and Stalingrad separate, despite being close in time and being on the same front. Consistency is my biggest gripe. They can only claim the “Beta” excuse for so long.

2 Likes
3

So they’re really going to do an all in one Pacific campaign? I personally like the core campaign system we have where each one is its own specific battle/ period/ zone, etc

4

I presume that’s what most people enjoyed about this game. Except when they noticed people complaining about getting the same equipment over and over again, they didn’t listen to what people suggested they do, and instead decided to simplify it to this. I’d be surprised if they later clarified it to be one specific battle, the resources definitely show it to be the Battle of Guadalcanal, but they named it “Let’s open the Pacific Front” and “the long awaited Pacific Campaign”. No other campaign has had this treatment, as I pointed out with Stalingrad and Moscow.

1 Like
5

I like your idea

2 Likes
6

I personally have no idea why everyone is acting like Pacific is doing something new. It’s not.

Battle of Stalingrad went on for years - the campaign isn’t focused on one particular time or event, but rather the whole siege.

Invasion of Normandy - This covers a whole series of battles, ranging from D-Day to random engagements in various towns. This isn’t focused on one battle, but rather Overlord itself.

//

Furthermore, do you really want a thousand Pacific-based campaigns with absolutely zero difference between them and barely any maps because they are limited to a 5 sq metre island? If you thought Stalingrad’s lack of missions was bad, having individual islands get their own campaign would be awful.

//

Short of that, I do agree a rework needs to be thought of, otherwise they’ll keep running in to issues.

1 Like
7

and it is bad.

i dont like squad/campaign progression system much. from game perspective you dont gain much from tier 1 to tier 3 soldier. you get few extra points that guarantee you all perks, but you can always reroll perfect tier 1 that does the almost the same. and tier 3 soldier is 3 time as expensive to upgrade. so grinding every squad for every campaign is just a chore.

i would rather have generic squads in main screen that when MM battle is decided transform into their equivalent from campaign they were assigned into. so you have e.g. assaulter 1 class in main screen, but if you get to play normandy, you get 505th parachute infantry regiment assigned, but if you get tunis you get 36th infantry brigade.

this would unify playerbase, otherwise you would have same fragmented playerbase that you have now with 5 campaigns (well 6th incoming) and you would gain absolutely nothing with the rework. you would just have slightly different way to grind, but everything remains the same.

8

It is though. The pacific front is the entire front. Both Stalingrad and Moscow aren’t the entirety of the Eastern Front, Operation Overlord isn’t the entirety of the Western Front, and Tunisia isn’t the only battle in the North African Front.
What they have planned out is essentially the Solomon Islands Campaign, and should be named appropriately. There could be a separate campaign for the Phillipines, Indochina, India, China, and all the other island hopped nations.

There are plenty of maps, especially since it seems like all the maps they are starting with seem to be solely the Solomon Islands and don’t touch any other battle. Stalingrad has more map choices. People have pointed them out like with Red Orchestra II. Except since they ignored the playerbase predicting how unpopular certain decisions would be, they are barely touching it except when there’s monetary gain.

9

Did you not read the matchmaking part I included? Not only would that help the player count, since people can select multiple campaigns to queue for, it essentially unites all campaigns to a front. So people, for example, can queue for “Eastern Front” and they’d be able to play Moscow or Stalingrad. Another issue, although separate, is that they should make matchmaking continuous, so that you are put ij another match right afterwards unless they exit the queue.

10

no it doesnt make sense. if you have squads for campaign, then you need to individually grind them, so apparent “change” will do absolutely nothing cause you cant take squad you are grinding in tunis to normandy. or squad from stalingrad to moscow. you are just suggesting play any campaign any side to be added and pretending it is change to MM. although even that would be welcome change, playerbase would still be divided in 6 parts cause everyone has something to grind

i agree that rework needs to be done and unify playerbase, just that your idea needs work done.

1 Like
11

The pacific front is the entire front

Fronts are entirely contextual. Technically, Normandy can either be the Normandy Front, the Northern Front or a part of the Western Front.

And besides, Tunisia is a front. ‘Battle of Tunisia’ is the overall name for the series of battles in a Country, and not a specific battle. An actual battle from that front would be something like the Battle of Sidi Bou Zid.

We also don’t know if this is majority-Solomon Islands. Some people are rumouring Guadalcanal-focused. Doesn’t really matter though, the Pacific covers many years - also something not new to Enlisted as Moscow, Tunisia and Stalingrad are listed as being set over 2 or more years - so can easily include many parts of the Pacific.

There could be a separate campaign for the Philippines, Indochina, India, China, and all the other island hopped nations.

I’m sure that is preferable, but I’d have to disagree for more practical reasons - could easily just consolidate it all to one Campaign so it has more content, and which also prohibits the player base spread getting even thinner.

Stalingrad has more map choices

Stalingrad is a city, where in theory every road and building could be different.
Solomon Islands are like 85% empty forest, 10% small Towns and Villages, and 5% Underground Japanese bunkers/tunnels.
There’s just not enough going on in Pacific Islands to justify entire campaigns around singular islands / island chains. Let alone the fact you’ll have to grind the same weaponry and units 50 times over.

Also even though Stalingrad has lots of map choices, I wouldn’t exactly say they are great. They are literally just the same but coming from different directions. In Normandy we have 3 different maps, Moscow has 2, Berlin has 3 - Tunisia and Stalingrad are the only ones with 1. Stalingrad also only has 7 missions which pales in comparison to Moscow’s 23. I’d rather get all the Pacific in one where we get 25 missions and 1 grind, than five individual island ones where we get 5 missions each campaign and 5 lots of 37-level grinds which’ll be almost identical.

1 Like
12

hear me out, i think the progression could be reworked easily, it might sound complicated at first but its really not, the progression should be based off of the years.

for example: 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945

and the more you progress, the more of the older weapons will become available as super cheap, ensuring that you don’t have to meticulously grind for the same exact weapons over and over again.

the only stuff you’d have to really grind for is the stuff thats basically brand new for that certain year, for example the gewehr 41 in 1941 would be grindy because its new weapon freshly adopted, but in 1945 it would be cheap, basically its easier to unlock it rather than take a breath. (it would be dumb to just hand weapons over to the player, so at least a tiny amount of xp would still be required to unlock it, nothing too insane)

but stuff like kar98k kriegsmodell (made in 1945) won’t be grindy because weapons like those are mere simplifications of the same weapon used before, so the player wont have to grind to death to get a boltaction rifle that could get outmatched by pretty much anything out there at that year.

another thing that could make sense is to make the pre-war kar98k more grindy than the kar98k or the kriegsmodell, because the pre-war model is better in every way.

as the war progresses from 1939 to 1945, weapons would get progressivly simpler and cheaper, making them cost less XP, for axis at least

1 Like
13

I already suggested against grinding the same weapons over and over again in the main post. The units I believe are more necessary because it’s a new campaign with new units (division names, uniforms, soldiers,etc) I don’t agree with the units being given for free just because you’ve played the game before. All that will do is remove stuff to grind, which then you’ll see people complain that there is absolutely nothing to do.

There’s also a reason for that. Tunisia and Stalingrad are the newest campaigns in any capacity. Normandy, Moscow, and Berlin have been around since Alpha in some playable form with closed alpha tests. You’re expecting too much if you think the Pacific campaign will release on the same level of those three which have had over a year and a half of work, or even more than those two which have at minimum a half of year of work. And that’s only talking about from when we first seen and had a playable version. They could have taken longer.

1 Like
14

already suggested against grinding the same weapons over and over again in the main post.

Then what new weapons would you get? It’d be the same teams, so you’d get the same standard-issue weapons and equipment. Like, already with just one Pacific Campaign they are having to branch out to non-US equipment, that the US never used, to be given to US Soldiers just so there’s something to unlock.

“All that will do is remove stuff to grind”

But it’ll all be the same stuff. There’d literally be no point grinding one pacific island campaign over another - the maps would look similar, uniforms would be the same, equipment and weapons would be the same. There’s adding lots to grind to give people things to do, then there’s just copy and pasting the same campaign 5 times.

There’s also a reason for that.

Yes, another reason being Normandy, Moscow and Berlin has more content opportunities. A single Pacific Island can not be separated in to more than one map.

You’re expecting too much if you think the Pacific campaign will release on the same level of those three which have had over a year and a half of work,

Yes, over time. I meant, over-time when it’s all done and dusted, I’d rather have 23 missions in Pacific, than individual islands with 5 missions each and their own separate repeated grinds. Of course it won’t release with 23 missions. Then again, if it’s expecting too much for them to put a good amount of missions in one Pacific, then isn’t expecting them to do it for several Pacific Campaigns even worse?

15

Been yelling at the rafters for a theater mode, but it never sticks. Have all campaigns like they are. Place them in a theater, east or west (European/pacific) and develop maps off that. Place all maps in campaigns in rotation with theaters, that way what you unlock goes across all battles within that campaign, but it’s locked behind the years the guns were used (no tigers in Moscow)

Develop premiums off the period of the battles and cosmetics for people to buy. That way all maps are in a rotation and be populated

16

you could easily separate island in more than one map. just look at this guadalcanal map. and this is only quarter of the map…

image
image1200×692 206 KB

17

Yep, can’t wait to have that Guadalcanal Forest Map:

image
image1188×469 199 KB

Oh Don’t forget that riveting Guadalcanal Forest Map 2!

image
image1820×770 554 KB

I heard there’s a third one in the works, rumoured to be here:

image
image1773×727 558 KB

And of course you can’t forget the large, open empty fields of nothingness:
image

With such intricate, exquisitely designed maps, a Guadalcanal campaign would be the best one yet.

More serious; the only good places that are fun for a game, because this is a game, would be the Capital Territory; ie ‘Henderson [air]Field’ and the city of Honiara which is roughly 39 times smaller than Volgograd. So if Stalingrad can’t get enough missions, this would be even worse - and that’s not really considering such a poor, unheard of island pre-1940’s wouldn’t of had such a big city back then.

18

you said it cant be separated into more than one map, i just showed you that it could. and rest of the island battles will be with similar terrain, so your pictures showed absolutely nothing.

also there are numerous battles you could show at guadalcanal. Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo, Battles around Matanikau river, Battle of the Tenaru, Battle of Edson’s Ridge, Battle for Henderson Field, Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse.

are they all iconic battles? no, but most battles rarely are. pacific front was like that. shitty jungle, dysentery, heat and banzai. you had some hill or river you had to guard or attack and then you attacked another hill or river. that is why all hills have some iconic names. like hill 69… or hill 420.

19

“you said it cant be separated into more than one map,”

You’re confusing mission and map.

“and rest of the island battles will be with similar terrain, so your pictures showed absolutely nothing.”

Exactly. There was nothing there. Now you understand why the ‘Pacific’ shouldn’t be separated in to individual campaigns per island. It’ll all be exactly the same - so why separate them and make 5 different grinds for identical maps? You literally just said my point, not that this was your discussion anyway.

also there are numerous battles you could show at guadalcanal. Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo

Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo didn’t occur on Guadalcanal Island. They occured… well on the islands of Tulagi and Gavutu.

Battle for Henderson Field

Here’s where I can tell you don’t actually read what’s being put by others. I said “that are fun for a game, because this is a game”. Henderson Field is not a good map for games because Henderson Field literally was/is a large, open, flat runway that didn’t even have hangers or a control tower. It’d just be a completely flat sniper fest. Attached is a picture to show that:
image

“are they all iconic battles? no, but most battles rarely are. pacific front was like that. shitty jungle, dysentery, heat and banzai. you had some hill or river you had to guard or attack and then you attacked another hill or river. that is why all hills have some iconic names. like hill 69… or hill 420.”

Two things; yes that’s my point. The lack of iconic battles or scenery is exactly why all the Pacific should be in one campaign with one grind, instead of in separate campaigns with individual identical grinds.

Two, the problem with making a random hill a battle zone is… it’s not fun or practical from a game sense, because again this is a game. It’s not balanced, there’s no cover, there’s no map design - it’s just a forest. Planes would be practically useless as you couldn’t see anything, tanks would be useless as they wouldn’t be able to navigate the trees etc. There’s loads of battles that occured in real life on each island, but almost none can be carried over to the game. Which is why it’s better to consolidate what you can do in one campaign so there’s an actual decent amount of content going along with the grind.

20

i just said it could be made into multiple maps. i didnt say they would be good maps :stuck_out_tongue:

but this battle was beginning of guadalcanal campaign and it was carried simultaneously with guadalcanal landing. also we could say the same about naval battles around guadalcanal werent actually part of guadalcanal campagin if you strictly look at locations of their battles.

btw this was not my argument. i just wanted to make argument that you could make multiple maps on one campaign :stuck_out_tongue: i totally agree with front idea and think it should be implemented in rest of campaigns.