Hey guys, so I figured it’d be fun to redesign the Normandy campaign from 1-40 on stream with my chat. Turned out pretty good and wanted to share it here for your guys’ thoughts. Couple points before getting into it:
1.) We followed the rules of the current system, meaning Assaulter I’s, II’s, III’s, etc all were included. No new classes.
2.) Limited repeat/variant unlocks (M3 vs M3a1), and all weapons are American. IMO, British should have their own campaign tree within Normandy.
3.) Historical accuracy is important (several historians in the community like Jeiseun and EE were present) but we did follow Darkflow’s general rule of thumb of “if it existed at the time, it’s fair game”.
4.) Campaigns REALLY shouldn’t be 40 levels. Both from a grind standpoint and also from a content standpoint. It’s pretty rough to fit 40 levels of unique stuff without repeating or having a-historical stuff.
5.) Theres tons of stuff that could absolutely be better (I think especially on the Axis side, things got weird over there), but on paper it seems better than what we have now.
6.) The design philosophy between the Allies vs Axis here is that, very generally speaking, the Allies excel in close quarters, while the Axis excel at medium-long range. The Allies are also going to have generally better planes, while the Axis have generally better ground vehicles.
Anyway, heres the levels. I’m just going to take a snip of the notepad file because its way smaller of a post that way:
Allies:
Axis
I’ll also link to the video I made over it in case you want to hear why I chose each level. You can skip the intro, it’s just going over the above points:
Sorry should put this in the points above. The design philosophy between the Allies vs Axis here is that, very generally speaking, the Allies excel in close quarters, while the Axis excel at medium-long range. It’s why the MG34 is early, the MG42 has a 250 round variant, and why they get a powerful semi-auto while the allies get a CQB powerhouse.
some people know how to abuse M2C, what if people use trooper 1 - 2 - 3 full M2 C ?, fair ? people will start “aLlIeS sTroNK pLZ nErF”, also dont forget SA nerf
Really Appreciate your ideas , innovation and hardwork Quadro. Enlisted will become a legend game if the devs actually implement reliable and worthy thoughts and ideas of people actually playing their game, but the sad reality we all know, many important updates and suggestions are not implemented.
Exceptions are a few suggestions which might have been implemented.
No I think that’s absolutely a fair critique. Not sure what would go in instead, maybe the M2C over the Remington, and then the Remington goes in place of the M2C? That wouldn’t be too bad. My logic with the M2C is that it isn’t firing a full rifle round and thus isnt one shotting, so it balances out, but that may not be the case.
I don’t think the BAR should be a trooper weapon, nor should the FG42. Giving fully automatic, rifle power weapons to troopers is a bad idea imo and makes gameplay way too fast because a single trooper can wipe a squad. Thats why both those weapons are moved to a gunner squad (or ideally, an “Automatic Rifleman” class).
I will say that in our current build, that if the FG42 is a trooper weapon, I do think the BAR should be as well. But I don’t think either should be in the first place.
but the germans are the worst offender in this thou full atuo sniper, trooper, engineer, radio guy, literally every class for Germans get full atuo just give us the same as them that would solve the problem and i really like fast game play
Having iconic weapons on high levels across the board is just ridiculously grindy especially when you don’t buy premium, even after months since the Moscow and Berlin campaigns were released, I still rarely see Soviet players actually use PPSh with drum mag which is one of the high level weapons where most of the PPSh SMGs I actually see are from my guys or in some cases like Berlin, box mag versions but rarely drums.
Normandy Axis is one of the most popular factions in the game so I get to see some other guys with MP43s and FG42s besides my own more than I ever see even atleast a PPD-40 on a Soviet team in Moscow or Berlin. I get to see more Thompsons used in Tunisia too.
A big part of that is that assault squads are not really that good even with the PPSH.
I get far more mileage out of squads with the AVS, especially with the Axis MGs having insane accuracy and rof at all ranges. The AVS does medium to long range much better and can actually hit back against the MGs.
There are players who prefer to use rifles over SMGs yes since not every player has the same style of a Soviet shock trooper or a special assault squad like I do which is why I also have an MG, an AT and a sniper squad with SVTs or AVTs in Berlin especially for open areas.
Allies excel in close quarters is more of a Soviet thing than an American considering the Soviets used alot of SMGs especially in city battles since Stalingrad to the point that PPSh was a standard issue weapon while PPS was used for special assault units, crews, scouts and some other specialist roles. The Western Allies did excel in air superiority with their heavy use of aircraft while they have the rifles for medium and long ranges like M1 Garand and a huge number of soldiers use M1 Garands even in cities alongside BARs and other weapons.
When it comes to the FG42, there were more FG42s used in this game much like Return to Castle Wolfenstein than in real life and this is actually a complicated situation since they added this gun since this is more of a modern select fire battle rifle than a machine gun while the Germans have pioneered and embraced the General Purpose Machine Gun concept with the MG34. Putting this gun to machine gunner role would make it a worse option as why use this over an MG34 or MG42. Atleast the M1919A6 is reasonable where they can finally have a proper MG like the Soviets do with the DPs against the German MGs.
We have yet to see Tiger H1 in this game so maybe this is a more reasonable choice while Tiger E was in Berlin.
The historical relevance of infantry doctrines are fairly irrelevant to me for designing and balancing. Armies didn’t just stop and say to themselves “Okay guys, were gonna suck at long range and be great at close range!!!” because that’s not really how war works, it’s obviously more complicated than that. Allies in my setup have the Thompson, M2C, and many shotguns which make them the obvious choice to balance around exceling at CQB. The Axis have powerful MG’s, and are often defending open areas and so it makes sense to balance them around mid-long range combat.
As for the FG42, I don’t really care what the weapon is classified as in real life, or in game, or wherever. It is too powerful of a weapon to be given to every soldier, as I’ve said in other comments, posts, on stream, on youtube, in youtube comments, at my family Thanksgiving, and in my suicide note. It is placed as a gunner weapon because it allows players the option to turn their squad of gunners into a powerful, albeit slower, assault squad. Suppression doesn’t even exist in this game, so weapons like the MG42 don’t operate in the same context they do in real life or other games, and offer a different playstyle. Interesting decisions are what make games work, and the choice between using a more aggressive FG42 (or BAR), or a more defensive MG34/M1919A6, is an interesting decision.
If you give every soldier those weapons, the gameplay stop being fast. Enlisted’s gameplay is fast because you can actively swap between soldiers and stay in the fight for longer. It creates long, drawn out engagements and keeps the game action packed. If you give everyone a BAR or FG42, then that stops happening because you can wipe 4-5 guys before the other player can even blink.
