Proposed Soldier Class rework and better specialization

Suggestions
1

The current engineer class is by far the most important class in the game because it can do so many things that other classes cannot.

This leads to several issues:

  1. The engineer has too many specialized tasks in Enlisted.
  2. The engineer has better specialized Anti-Air, Anti-Tank and MG capabilities than other specialized classes that exist for these purposes.
  3. The other classes are missing flavour and as a result are not that interesting.

What I would like to see is a rework of classes with a view to a better distribution of capabilties and to improve classes in general.

I suggest the following.

General Game Play Changes
Currently off-map artillery is easily able to destroy basically every item on the map that has been deployed by a human with effort and investment of time. That makes the whole idea behind building items fairly useless in the long run.

  1. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy sandbags, barbed wire and tank obstacles.
  2. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy an Anti-Tank Gun.
  3. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy an Anti-Air Gun.
  4. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy an Ammunition Supply Point.
  5. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy a Mobile Entry Point.
  6. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy an Armoured Fighting Vehicle,
  7. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy mines of all types.
  8. Always mark friendly Mobile Entry Points on the player Mini Map.
  9. Always mark friendly Ammunition Supply Points on the player Mini Map.
  10. Reward a player for deploying Mobile Entry Points in a match and for each time they are used by other players in a match.
  11. Reward a player for deploying Ammunition Supply Points in a match and for each time they are used by other players in a match.
  12. Give a player a keyboard command to instantly destroy all that he has built on the map to get back the building points he has spent on them or alternatively give the player back his building points when an objective is lost/captured.

Engineer

  1. Remove the ability to deploy an Anti-Tank Gun.
  2. Remove the ability to deploy an Anti-Air Gun.
  3. Remove the ability to deploy a static MG gun. (was available in the Closed Beta).
  4. Remove the ability to deploy an Ammunition Supply Point.
  5. Remove the ability to deploy a Mobile Entry Point.
  6. Give ONLY the engineer the ability to deploy: sandbags, barbed wire, tank obstacles.
  7. Give ONLY the engineer the ability to remove: sandbags, barbed wire, tank obstacles.
  8. Make the engineer the best/fastest at deploying: mines of all types.
  9. Make the engineer the best/fastest at removing: mines of all types.
  10. This class should have a hammer as an invisible standard equipment item for deploying items on the map (“building”) that cannot be removed/dropped and/or replaced by the player.

Introduce a new class called: Squad Leader
Squad Leader

  1. The first soldier in each squad should always be the Squad Leader and the player should always enter the map as the Squad Leader (the player can change to a different soldier in his AI squad after entering the map as usual).
  2. Give the Squad Leader authentic national field glasses (for example German Squad Leaders with 6x30 field glasses).
  3. Give the Squad Leader one main weapon.
  4. Give the Squad Leader access to only the rifle (bolt action, semi-automatic, assault rifle) and the MP (Machine Pistol/Submachine Gun) weapons in the armoury menu.
  5. Give the Squad Leader access to a pistol/revolver.
  6. Give ONLY the Squad Leader the ability to deploy an Ammunition Supply Point.
  7. Give ONLY the Squad Leader the ability to deploy a Mobile Entry Point.
  8. This class should have a hammer as an invisible standard equipment item for deploying items on the map (“building”) that cannot be removed/dropped and/or replaced by the player.

Anti Tank Gunner (renamed Bomber class)

  1. Give ONLY the Anti Tank Gunner the ability to deploy an Anti-Tank Gun.
  2. Give ONLY the Anti Tank Gunner the ability to use an Anti-Tank Gun.
  3. Give ONLY the Anti Tank Gunner the ability the ability to get ammunition for an Anti-Tank Gun at an Ammunition Supply Point.
  4. Supply the Anti Tank Gunner with a limited amount of Anti-Tank Gun ammunition at match start and remove the ammunition from the Anti-Tank Gun itself.
  5. The Anti Tank Gunners in the current Moscow 1941 and Normandy 1944 campaigns have very ineffective hand-held Anti-Tank weapons, these weapons need to be improved to make the class interesting to play. The Anti-Tank Gun is a static weapon and it does not compensate for the current ineffective hand-held Anti-Tank weapons of the Anti Tank Gunner in those Enlised campaigns.
  6. The personal equipment of the Anti Tank Gunner should remain the same as those of the current Bomber class.
  7. This class should have a hammer as an invisible standard equipment item for deploying items on the map (“building”) that cannot be removed/dropped and/or replaced by the player.

Machine Gunner (renamed Gunner class)

  1. Give ONLY the Machine Gunner the ability to deploy a static MG.
  2. Give ONLY the Machine Gunner the ability to use a static MG.
  3. Give ONLY the Machine Gunner the ability to get ammunition for a static MG at an Ammunition Supply Point.
  4. Supply the Machine Gunner with a limited amount of static MG ammunition at match start and remove the ammunition from the static MG itself.
  5. Give the Machine Gunner access to a pistol/revolver.
  6. The personal equipment of the Machine Gunner should remain the same as those of the current Gunner class.
  7. This class should have a hammer as an invisible standard equipment item for deploying items on the map (“building”) that cannot be removed/dropped and/or replaced by the player.
  8. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy a static MG.
  9. The static MG is not the same as the map MG. The static MG has to be deployed (“built”) on the map by a player. The map MG is deployed on the map by the game itself at match start and not by the players.

Introduce a new class called: Anti Air Gunner
Anti Air Gunner

  1. Give ONLY the Anti Air Gunner the ability to deploy a static Anti-Air MG.
  2. Give ONLY the Anti Air Gunner the ability to use a static Anti-Air MG.
  3. Give ONLY the Anti Air Gunner the ability to resupply the ammunition of a static Anti-Air MG.
  4. Give ONLY the Anti Air Gunner the ability to deploy an Anti-Air Gun.
  5. Give ONLY the Anti Air Gunner the ability to use an Anti-Air Gun.
  6. Give ONLY the Anti Air Gunner the ability the ability to get ammunition for an Anti-Air Gun at an Ammunition Supply Point.
  7. Supply the Anti Air Gunner with a limited amount of Anti-Air Gun ammunition at match start and remove the ammunition from the Anti-Air Gun itself.
  8. The Anti Air Gunner should be equipped with a bipod MG as his main weapon like a regular Machine Gunner.
  9. Give the Anti Air Gunner access to a pistol/revolver.
  10. This class should have a hammer as an invisible standard equipment item for deploying items on the map (“building”) that cannot be removed/dropped and/or replaced by the player.
  11. Do not let off-map artillery and on-map mortars destroy a static Anti-Air MG.

The normal MG for the Machine Gunner should remain on a bipod as they are now for all countries in Enlisted. For example like the current bipod MG 34 and MG 42 already are in Enlisted.

The static MG is a new weapon that should replace the deployable (“buildable”) static MG 42 with sandbags that was present in the Closed Beta. The new static MG should be on a tripod and would have superior range and optics compared to the normal bipod MG when it is deployed (“built”). More or less every country in WW2 had this sort of tripod MG. The static MG is not the same as the map MG. The static MG has to be deployed (“built”) on the map by a player. The map MG is deployed on the map by the game itself at match start and not by the players.

Some examples for the new proposed tripod static MG unit.

Allied tripod MG examples

MG 34 on tripod with telescopic sight

MG 42 on tripod with telescopic sight

The static Anti-Air MG gun is a new unit. It should be on a special Anti-Air mount and be only able to fire on aircraft when deployed (“built”)

Some examples for the new proposed tripod static Anti-Air MG unit.

Anti-Air MG 34

Anti-Air MG 42

USSR Anti-Air MG

USA Anti-Air MG

3 Likes
2

This is one probable one of the biggest and ambitious suggestion ever seen during this open beta.

Which it’s kinda a big deal.

I don’t know if we will ever see those, but I’m fairly interested in.

Plus one from me.

1 Like
3

This suggestion seems interesting, but one thing I don’t like is taking all destructive power from artillery strikes an mortars. There are possible situations when I spot some AT gun for example but I’m unable to deal with it other way than calling artillery on that exact position. So as much as I like the rest that makes me not so sure about overall concept.

2 Likes
4

Artillery/mortars still kill the humans/soldiers, but no longer destroys the player deployed (“built”) objects. That is the proposed change. Kill the crew of the Anti-Tank Gun then the Anti-Tank Gun will not bother you. The Anti-Tank Gun will still be there but the crew will be dead after an artillery/mortar barrage.

5

But that AT gun will still be a potential threat to my team. I’m all in about increasing the survavibility of other fortifications, so they would not be turned to dust by some accidental explosions. But I think that if someone is able to locate and precisely land a barrage on AT or AA guns then he deserves reward by destroying the threat completely

1 Like
6

I kind of like idea, but I think AA gunner is kind of redundant and not very necessary.
I like most of the other ideas.
I am not sure what you mean by “Supply the [weapon specialist] with a limited amount of [special weapon] ammunition at match start and remove the ammunition from the [special weapon] itself.” Could you explain what mean by this.

7

No. No. And No. Artillery needs a rework in some cases but taking away one of it’s main uses, softening up hardpoints and defenses should remain.

You do get your stuff back when an objective is captured often now. It depends mostly on how far behind the lines they are so maybe move the front line just a bit farther forward.

This is actually removing the role of combat engineers which was creating fixed defenses and emplacements. Yes combat engineers did prepare AA and AT guns.

This is a suggestion for a platoon commander not a squad leader. Squad leaders did not carry separate optics nor were they responsible for logistics.

This is a hard pass because no countries doctrine provided any training for infantry carrying AT weaponry on how to set up an Anti-Tank gun.

The Gunner class should be able to mount their gun but to give them a second imaginary MG plus sandbags is unrealistic as again combat engineers dealt with those items typically.

This would get rid of AA guns for another MG gunner.

The suggestion is appreciated but would wreak game balance as is, devote jobs to classes that never properly used them, and overall complicate a system which is already filled with nuances.

1 Like
8

Two main problems I have with your idea:

  • arty is already underwhelming in my opinion and taking away option to destroy structures is nerfing it further and is highly unrealistic.
  • what will be the role of the engineer squad? If they can do less than any other squad then why would I use it?

I like idea of AT squad with AT gun etc (I even made suggestion about that) but I would leave ability for engineers to build all structures or at least structures of any type. So AT squad would have for example better AT gun but engineer squad would additionally have MG and AAA, so it will be jack of all traits, master of none.

9

The reward for calling in off-map artillery and on-map mortars is the killing of the human soldiers and the AI soldiers.

That should be enough and in fact from an objective point of view it is.

I remind you that in my proposal the Anti Tank Gun can only be deployed and used by the Anti Tank Gunner. So that further limits the usefullness of the Anti Tank Gun. That makes killing the few players/soldiers that can use the anti tank gun even more valuable.

It does not take much effort or thought to use off-map artillery or on-map mortars and it can be done without risking the player/soldier using them. Building items on the map on the other hand takes much more effort and costs the engineer player valuable game time that others spend on shooting the enemy. When the engineer player builds items on the map he usually builds for the benefit of all the players of his side. He trades ego shooting for helping his side win through building items on the map.

If what the engineer builds can be basically instantly destroyed in mere seconds at the press of a key or mouse button while the engineer needs many minutes to move around the map and build items then the reward for the engineer player for all his effort is gone.

A human player playing as an engineer can spend a lot of game time moving around the map and then building items on the map during the course of a whole match. He can build sandbags, barbed wire, anti tank obstacles, a mobile entry point and an ammunition supply at a key point. The engineer squad currently can also build anti tank guns and anti air guns. What the engineer builds usually helps the entire side he is playing for. So the engineer spends valuable game time to build items to help the side he plays on win, so the engineer player trades getting personal kills (and kill score) for building items to help the side he plays on.

More often than not he also spends valuable game time moving into a good position, then more valuable game time to actually build the items. Meanwhile other players are having fun shooting and are not thinking of their side but only of their own personal fun (killing).

Then some enemy player either blindly calls in off-map artillery or he randomly moves by and calls in off-map artillery on the items the engineer builds. As a result of that valuable game time that has been spent by the engineer to build items is lost because the items are instantly destroyed by simply having one enemy player clicking two or three times (one key to bring up the off-map artillery map, one click to direct off-one artillery fire on positiion) in a few seconds. And at no risk to the player using off-map artillery or on-map mortars.

Take for example a small hill and open field near an objective on any given map in Enlisted. An engineer can build some sandbag formations, barbed wire and an ammunition supply point there to help his team advance over a small hill and over fairly open ground. All the time the engineer spent on constructing all that is currently wasted because all that the engineer builds can currently be instantly destroyed in mere seconds with no real effort or personal risk at all with off-map artillery.

As players are getting more experienced and better at the game, which I already see happening, they will start using off-map artillery and on-map mortars more and more to instantly destroy what the engineer has built with no real risk to the enemy player using off-map artillery or on-map mortars. The engineer however has had to risk getting into position to actually build the items on the map. That makes spending game time on moving around the map and building items useless for the engineer in the long run.

If you cannot see that point then we will have to agree to disagree on this.

11

I understand your point here, but from my point of view it is just risk involved - engineer buldings right now can turn the tide of victory in the matches. But sometimes they can be destroyed by artillery barrage.
But although we need to agree to disagree on that matter I really like the rest of your suggestion. Its good to see such detailed and studied work. I hope that devs will consider using it to make Enlisted even better.

1 Like
12

Simple: the ammunition for the deployable/buildable static weapon is on the soldier and not on the weapon.

Currently the static weapons deployed by the players during a match have ammunition on the static weapon itself. What I propose is remove the ammunition from the static weapon on the map and instead give the ammunition for the static weapons to the soldiers of a specialized class.

By static weapons I mean the ones that human players can deploy (“build”) on the map. I do not mean “map static weapons”. A “map static weapon” is deployed on the map by the game itself (so put there by the developers of the game) at match start and not by the human players. In my proposal the “map static weapons” will remain as they currently are (so the bunker MGs on the Normandy map remain as they currently are). The “map static weapons” currently use an “overheat” mechanism and have unlimited ammunition, my proposal will leave the “map static weapons” as they currently are.

Like I wrote: the ammunition for a static weapon (so those deployed/built by human players on the map) in my proposal will be with the specialized soldier and not with the static weapon. So for example only the Anti Air Gunner would carry ammunition for the static Anti Air Gun. That means that only Anti Air Gunners would then be able to use a static Anti Air Gun. And since in my proposal the ammunition for the static Anti Air Gun would be carried by the Anti Air Gunner that will also solve the current problem of the static Anti Air Gun running out of ammunition. Because the Anti Air Gunner, in my proposal, can pick up more ammunition for the static Anti Air Gun at an ammunition supply point.

An example might illustrate the mechanism.

At match the player enters the map as a Squad Leader in an Anti Air Squad. The first soldier in each squad is a Squad Leader and the player starts as Squad Leader in a squad when he enters the map. The first thing the Squad Leader does (if he is smart that is) is build an ammunition supply and a mobile entry point. The player then switches to the second soldier in his squad, which in this example is an Anti Air Gunner soldier.

The human controlled Anti Air Gunner then constructs a static Anti Air Gun and crews it. The static Anti Air Gun has no ammunition itself. Instead the Anti Air Gunner has x amount of ammunition as his personal equipment (for example each Anti Air Gunner starts a match 10 rounds of 20 mm Anti Air Gun ammunition). The Anti Air Gunner player then uses all his Anti Air Gun ammunition to shoot down one enemy aircraft. Then the static Anti Air Gun ammunition that the Anti Air Gunner player soldier has is used up. The player then leaves the weapon and runs back to the ammunition supply, picks up static Anti Air Gun ammunition there (for example 10 rounds of 20 mm Anti Air Gun ammunition) and runs back to the static Anti Air Gun. So the actual static Anti Air Gun has no ammunition itself, only the Anti Air Gunner has the ammunition. So the ONLY soldiers that can use a static Anti Air Gun are Anti Air Gunners because the ammunition is on the soldier not on the static Anti Air Gun.

The idea behind the Anti Air Gunner is having a specialist to deal with aircraft. That specialist should have access to two weapons to do so:

  • The static Anti Air Machine Gun that only the Anti Air Gunner can deploy (“build”)
  • The static Anti Air Gun that only the Anti Air Gunner can deploy (“build”)

Only the Anti Air Gunner would carry the ammunition for the static Anti Air Gun and the static Anti Air MG. And the Anti Air Gunner can get more ammunition for these weapons at an ammunition supply point.

So the idea behind the specialists I propose (the Squad Leader, the Engineer, the Anti Air Gunner, the Anti Tank Gunner and the Machine Gunner) is that they each can deploy (“build”) unique specialized static items for their class and that they alone carry the ammunition for their specialized static weapons.

Currently in Enlisted the engineer has it all, they have the best anti tank weapons, the best anti air weapons and they build ALL valuable construction items. That makes other classes inferior to them and fairly boring.

Another example from my proposal to clarifly the mechanism.

Only the Squad Leader can deploy (“build”) a Mobile Entry Point and an Ammunition Supply Point. The first soldier in each squad is a Squad Leader and the player starts as Squad Leader in a squad when he enters the map. The player can then switch to any other soldier in his Squad as he currently also can. At match start the Squad Leader deploys a Mobile Entry Point and an Ammunition Supply point.

The player then switches to an Anti Tank Gunner in his squad. Only the Anti Tank Gunner can build a static Anti Tank Gun. The static Anti Tank Gun itself has no ammunition. Instead the Anti Tank Gunner carries the ammunition (for example each Anti Tank Gunner starts a match with 10 rounds AP, 10 round HE). Only the Anti Tank Gunner can use the static Anti Tank Gun because only he has ammunition for it. When the Anti Tank Gunner runs out of ammunition he has to go to an Ammunition Supply Point where he can pick up a maximum of 10 rounds AP and 10 round HE. The Anti Tank Gunner can then move back to the static Anti Tank Gun and fires off the 10 rounds AP and 10 round HE ammunition.

Basically it comes down to this:

  • The Machine Gunner is armed with a MG on a bipod and a Pistol as his personal weapons and only he can deploy/build a static MG on a tripod. Only he carries ammunition for these weapons.He can pick up ammunition for these weapons at an Ammunition Supply Point.

  • The Anti Air Gunner is armed with a MG on a bipod and a Pistol as his personal weapons and only he can deploy/build a static Anti Air MG and a static Anti Air Gun. Only he carries ammunition for these weapons. He can pick up ammunition for these weapons at an Ammunition Supply Point.

  • The Anti Tank Gunner is armed with a rifle and a hand held Anti Tank Weapon (for example Sturmpistole) as his personal weapons and only he can deploy/build a static Anti Tank Gun. Only he carries ammunition for these weapons. He can pick up ammunition for these weapons at an Ammunition Supply Point.

  • The Squad Leader is armed with a rifle/MP (player choice), a Pistol and Field Glasses and only he can deploy/build a Mobile Entry Point and an Ammunition Supply Point. The first soldier in each squad is a Squad Leader and the player starts as Squad Leader in a squad when he enters the map. The player can then switch to any other soldier in his Squad as he currently also can.

  • The Engineer is armed with a rifle and only he can deploy/build AND REMOVE barbed wire, sandbags, tank obstacles and is best/fastest at placing AND REMOVING mines of all types.

  • The hammer becomes invisible standard equipment that cannot be lost or dropped by the player for those classes that can deploy/build things on the map (so Machine Gunner, Anti Air Gunner, Anti Tank Gunner, Squad Leader, Engineer).

  • All classes can still pick up ammunition for their own personal hand held firearms at an Ammunition Supply Point as they currently can in Enlisted, that will not change.

13

In my experience the off-map artillery is not underwhelming. Quite the contrary in fact, it is very effective. I expect that artillery is going to get nerfed real soon.

It is currently possible to limit the downtime of artillery to about 30 seconds or so.

I will give you an example of how effective artillery is in my experience.

On one of the Normandy maps, the one with the Chateau, there is a small one story house that is an objective. The closest entry point to that objective is near the Chateau. Between the house (the objective) and the Chateau area entry point there is an open field with hay stacks and a destroyed Tiger tank.

In one such match the side I was on was getting was shot to pieces before they even reached the house.

I then built a Mobile Entry Point behind the destroyed Tiger tank, an Ammunition Supply Point and kept pushing sandbag positions forward towards the objective in a checkerboard formation. That allowed the friendly assaulters to move to the house from sandbag cover to sandbag cover.

This allowed friendly assaulter Squads to finally get near the house alive and a friendly sniper Squad was giving them covering fire behind sand bags that I had built near the destroyed Tiger tank.

Then two artillery barrages set in which destroyed all that I had built AND killed my engineer squad, a friendly sniper squad and a friendly assaulter squad. Instantly. There were no survivors and all built items were instantly destroyed.

That took about 3 seconds, two barrages on two different but adjacent areas was all it took. No one even saw the enemy soldier that called in the off-map artillery.

I then setup another such position in a different area and the same thing happened.

Without the sand bags, mobile entry point and ammunition supply point the side I was on had no chance of getting anywhere near that house and that objective.

I can give many more examples like that on the beach map in the Normandy campaign.

Currently with just one artillery barrage you can destroy a stationary Stuart tank. If you use the Sturmpistole (a hand held anti tank weapon) you need 3-5 direct hits on the Stuart tank to knock it out. So currently the artillery barrage is more effective against tanks than a specialized anti tank weapon like the Sturmpistole.

As to realism, no an artillery barrage cannot generally destroy tanks, anti tank guns, sandbags etc. unless they hit them directly with a very high caliber weapon. They tried all that in WW1 and it did not work. Also artillery could not generally be called in that accurately in mere seconds on any position on the planet in WW2 unless the area has been pre-targeted (that takes hours to days to weeks depending on the country and the ordnance involved) and that is not the case here because the map situation in Enlisted represents a fast moving fluid frontline situation.

But even if it could, the developers have decided to not make Enlisted a simulator nor even realistic. So the realism argument is not really important FOR THE DEVELOPERS.

The game Enlisted does not have to be realistic and/or a simulator but the game can be authentic.

  • AUTHENTIC - “Conforming to an original and/or the real world so as to reproduce essential features”.
  • SIMULATOR - “A computer simulation (or “sim”) is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer under real world conditions”.
  • REALISTIC - “Resembling or simulating real life (conditions)”.

Enlisted should (at least) be authentic in my opinion. Enlisted does not have to be realistic and does not have to be a simulator but it can still be authentic.There are more than enough arcade shooters like Call of Duty etc. and Enlisted should not be just another copy of them.

As to the ENGINEER CLASS and the ENGINEER SQUAD, in my proposal they will become AREA DENIAL/CLEARANCE SPECIALISTS. That is a very important role.

Their main role would be to deploy/build AND REMOVE sandbags, barbed wire, tank obstacles and they would be best/fastest at placing AND REMOVING mines of all types.

And that is authentic, because the combat engineers of most countries that participated in WW2 were specially trained for and used in that role.

14

I agree that 30s is too often.

Then you did sth wrong. You have few seconds to escape zone or hide and start of the bombardment is clearly announced.
You may argue that you were in the middle of the open field so there was no cover, but that’s the strong point of the arty.

It should. If he is stationary then it’s his fault he got destroyed. Unless he is stuck, he has time to run away.

15

The game Enlisted does not have to be realistic and/or a simulator but the game can be authentic.

  • AUTHENTIC - “Conforming to an original and/or the real world so as to reproduce essential features”.
  • SIMULATOR - “A computer simulation (or “sim”) is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer under real world conditions”.
  • REALISTIC - “Resembling or simulating real life (conditions)”.

Enlisted should (at least) be authentic in my opinion. Enlisted does not have to be realistic and does not have to be a simulator but it can still be authentic.

The DEVELOPERS however have decided that Enlisted is not a simulator and also not realistic.

(Issue 1) I refer you to my previous posts in this topic to other forum users where I also address the artillery issue. Artillery should not be able to clear the map for the reasons mentioned by me earlier in this topic. Artillery should be limited to killing soldiers. Artillery should not be able to instantly and reliably always destroy vehicles, tanks and objects on the map. Neither in real life nor in this game.

(Issue 2) That only applies in those cases where the playable map area moves. In those cases where the objectives are stationary for the duration of the match you get nothing back. My proposal also covers that situation.

(Issue 3) No it does not. In my proposal the ENGINEER CLASS and the ENGINEER SQUAD will become AREA DENIAL/CLEARANCE SPECIALISTS. Their main role would be to deploy/build AND REMOVE sandbags, barbed wire, tank obstacles and they would be best/fastest at placing AND REMOVING mines of all types. The Anti Tank and Anti Air role would go to Anti Tank and Anti Air specialist classes in my proposal. Currently the engineer class and engineer squad can do more and even many things better in Enlisted than other classes and squads (for example currently the engineer deployed/built anti tank gun is more effective than for example the Sturmpistole of the Anti Tank specialist (Bomber)). And no Combat Engineers (Sturmpioniere) did not deploy Flak and PAK on the battlefield in real life and neither should they in Enlisted. We should have specialist classes for that in Enlisted.

(Issue 4) Combat Engineers in real life did not build Mobile Entry Points or Ammunition Supply Points either. Enlisted is not a simulator nor a realistic game. The decision from where to enter combat, where to place ammunition supplies however is taken by a leader in real life. That is authentic. And in Enlisted the highest leadership post is that of a Squad Leader. My proposal lets EVERY PLAYER build a Mobile Entry Point and an Ammunition Supply Point but it can ONLY be done by the Squad Leader of which there is ONLY ONE per squad. Currently these two key command related deployable/buildable items in Enlisted are limited to the engineer, where they do not belong. Few players in Enlisted deploy/build these two items as a result. Currently not even Premium Squads can deploy/build them, which is even more silly. It is better for the game that every Squad is able to deploy these two key items even if it is only by ONE SOLDIER per squad. It is not fun running out of ammunition, nor is it fun to always be instantly sniped to death from the default map entry points on maps like the beach/swamp maps in Normandy. My proposal gives players the options to always address that issue via the Squad Leader class. As to field glasses, yes in the German Wehrmacht (so the Armed Forces being the Heer (Army), Luftwaffe (Air Force), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Waffen SS) a Squad Leader was equipped with the universal Fernglas (binoculars). This was the 6 x 30 Dienstglass (6x30 service glasses, meaning field glasses). A set was assigned to a German Squad Leader independent of his officer or sub-officer rank.Generally they were supplied with a carrying case. This might not be the case in all other armies in WW2 but since Enlisted is not a realistic/simulator game it would be too unfair to have only the German Squad Leaders equipped with 6x30 field glasses, even though that would be authentic. Here are some images of German Squad Leaders with a 6x30 Dienstglass (literally Service Glasses). These are not officers but they are Squad Leaders. As you can see their standard equipment was a MP (Machine Pistol/Submachine Gun), semi-automatic Pistol, 6x30 Field Glasses etc.

It might be interesting in this regard for you to watch this WW2 German Heer (Army) training movie. It is called “Infanteriegruppe als Spähtrupp” (which translates more or less into Infantry Squad (Infanteriegruppe) as Recon Troop (Spähtrupp)). The training movie shows how an Infanteriegruppe (infantry squad) is to conduct a recon mission. The movie shows how a standard regular Infantry Squad is to conduct a recon patrol, the squad in the movie is not some sort of special recon squad with non standard equipment but a regular infantry squad. The Squad Leader is Unteroffizier Berning. The rank of Unteroffizier is the equivalent of the rank of Sergeant in the USA. He designates Obergefreiter Haller as his second in command. The rank of Obergefreiter is the equivalent of the rank of Private First Class in the USA. The Squad Leader Unteroffizier Berning already has his regular issue 6x30 Dienstglas. At 1:35 in the movie Unteroffizier Berning orders Obergefreiter Haller “zweites Fernglas mitnehmen” (take a second binoculars) for this mission.

(Issue 5) First of all real life doctrine does not come into play here. That is a non argument. Again: Enlisted is not a simulator nor a realistic game. The best it can hope to be is authentic. And realistically speaking: real life Combat Engineers (Sturmpioniere) were not equipped with a PAK and Flak in the German Heer (Army). When it comes to “realism” that does not apply to Enlisted at all. A real life Combat Engineer did not carry around an Anti Tank Gun with ammunition and Anti Aircraft Gun with ammunition in his back pocket that he could “build” with a hammer and then crew all by himself. The Anti Tank Gunner class that I propose basically consists of two types of real life soldiers: hand held anti tank weapon users and anti tank gun gunners. Combining all Anti Tank Gun activities in one class in Enlisted makes more sense than splitting them between Engineer and Bomber as is currently the case. The Anti Tank Gun that the Engineer Squad can currently deploy in Enlisted is more effective than the hand held anti tank weapons of the Bomber class (for example the Sturmpistole is far inferior to a PAK in Enlisted). So currently the Engineer is the superior Anti Tank specialist in Enlisted. That is just silly. Having classes with specialized Anti Tank and Anti Aircraft roles in Enlisted is authentic.

(Issue 6) First of all realism does not come into play here. That is a non argument. Again: Enlisted is not a simulator nor a realistic game. The best it can hope to be is authentic. And realistically speaking:In the German Heer (Army) combat soldiers filled sandbags with sand and used them to construct defensive positions for themselves, up to and including Machine Gunners. They did not need to call Sturmpioniere (Combat Engineers) to do that for them. In fact that is preposterous to suggest. And the real life Combat Engineer (Sturmpionier) also did not carry around sand filled sandbags and a MG 42 with unlimited ammunition in his back pocket either. Back to the Machine Gunner class that I propose in Enlisted. You may not have understood my proposal clearly for the Machine Gunner class. I wrote nothing about the “static MG 42 on sandbags” that the Engineer could deploy/build in the Closed Beta of Enlisted. To my knowledge the deployable/buildable “static MG 42 on sandbags” is not available in the Enlisted Open Beta. I instead proposed a new static weapon for the Machine Gunner class: a deployable/buildable static MG on a tripod. I suggest you re-read my proposal concerning the Machine Gunner class. Combining all deployable/buildable Machine Guns in the Machine Gunner class is authentic.

(Issue 7) That makes no sense.

(Issue 8) If anything it would simplify matters. My proposal creates specialized classes which excell at one job and one job only. Currently the Engineer excels at everything he can do, even things that really are not the job of a Sturmpionier (Combat Engineer) like being an Anti Tank Gun Gunner, Anti Aircraft Gun Gunner, deciding where entry points and ammunition crates should be etc. Currently in Enlisted the Engineer has the most effective Anti Tank weapon, while the Anti Tank Gunner (Bomber class) has the least effective Anti Tank weapon. That is silly and does not make sense. The current Engineer simply has too many tasks in the game.

(On a side note) Like I wrote earlier realism does not come into play here. That is a non argument. Again: Enlisted is not a simulator nor a realistic game. The best it can hope to be is authentic. Having said that: as to realism, in the German Heer (Army) you had Sturmpioniere (Combat Engineers), Pioniere (Engineers) and Baupioniere (Construction Engineers). You had different types of Pionier-Bataillone (Engineer Battalions) at Divisional, Corps, Army, Army Group level. They had different equipment, training, roles and even differently equipped companies. Then you had special Pionier Kompanien (Engineer Companies made up of Sturmpioniere as well) within Panzer-Grenadier-Regimenter (Armoured Infantry Regiments), Panzer-Regimenter (Armoured Regiments) etc. Enlisted is not going to take all of that into account. In Enlisted one has to think in terms of specialized roles per class (anti tank, anti air, field works, command/control etc.) that makes more sense for the player.

16

(Issue 1) We both agree on this.

(Issue 2) Artillery killing soldiers is ok. Artillery destroying armoured fighting vehicles and objects is not ok for the reason I mentioned earlier. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

(Issue 3) Artillery destroying armoured fighting vehicles such as tanks is not authentic. Indirect fire artillery in WW2 could generally not destroy tanks, they could only do so very rarely and only if they scored a direct hit with a very high caliber shell (which was not likely). Most artillery fires High Explosive shells in the indirect fire role and not armour piercing shells. The Germans generally equipped their artillery also with armour piercing rounds for use in the direct fire role but that is not the case in Enlisted: artillery in Enlisted is off-map indirect fire artillery, so they fire High Explosive shells and not Armour Piercing shells. Mortars were even less of a threat to armoured fighting vehicles than indirect fire artillery was, and mortars too fire High Explosive ammunition, not Armour Piercing ammunition. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

17

I would say that barbed wire, hedgehogs and sandbags may be invunerable unless hit directly, while AAA, MG and AT should be destroyed as they have multiple vunerable parts that may be destroyed by schrapnels (optics for example but also “more important” parts).

During Berlin test mortars did nothing to the tanks.
Arty may damage tanks and apparently destroy them but I haven’t seen it (nor anything even close to that). Because we have good damage system we can make compromise that tank is destroyed when hit directly by arty and damaged if near missed. Tanks should be penalised for camping and arty should be good way of doing that.