im sure the only campaign you’ve played is normandy
2 Likes
I play all campaigns and Normandy allies is the only allied campaign where my win/loss is close to 50% and lower then my axis win rate. The other campaigns I dominate as allies. In other words, Normandy is balanced, the other campaigns favor allies.
yeah wow like 2 weeks ago axis players were only in normady and axis moscow and berlin were like 70% bots, no shit you have high win rate on allies.
win rate rn doesnt mean much if your/the other team is 70% bots
I believe allies has more players because they get better early and mid level equipment to attract players. Axis always get their counters at the end of the campaign when they are redundant because there’s no more levels to grind.
no ppl just dont want to farm the same exact thing (some times even worse) 3 times, axis is just boring after the 1st campaign completed.
1 Like
I don’t understand how that argument became so popular. I use garand and sten in both tunisia and normandy and the moscow/berlin campaign is also same for russians. What I like about allies is big magazines, fast reloads, superior early tanks and planes to make grind fast and easy.
bc farming the same things 2 times is berable but 4 times it’s not, oh look i’ve unlocked the mp40 for the fourth time wow.
2 Likes
the only thing that needs a redesign its the horizontal progression.
a tree style like warthunder would be beter. making the players decide what they want to unlock or not.
i m not interested in radio squads, semi autos,flamethrower squads snipers etc. but, i have to waste a 180k xp slot just to recieve one.
a techtree where players could decide what they want next, would be way better than any redesign over a horizontal progression.
another thing, back in alpha for ex (mostly for testing tho) we would recieve more stuff per levels.
wasting a 140k tier just to unlock a kar98k sniper isnt something to be proud of, or actually make sence for the game future/player interest.
an horizontal progression will mean huge levels per campaign or limited content, none ill have my interest .
i want to see rare items, vehicles, gear what ever. and if they dont add stuff to current levels, we gonna have a huge levels per campaign, or, we wont see apcs/bikes other tanks other weapons ingame as much as we would like to.
a techtree , a vertical one where the player can select what he wants, would open doors for way more content per campaign, as the player wishes for , with way less cost to get - player enjoyment on the game - player retention.
7 Likes
They can’t make engineers at first lvls and buff shotguns…
100% definitely agree! Current system works up until level like 20 and then it just falls apart. Progression just gets so weird so fast at higher levels.
6 Likes
what do you think of a national tech tree where R&D only the nation you are interested in (war thunder style) this would allow you to add any weapon or vehicle without unbalancing anything, obviously there are a lot of problems even so but taking into consideration every alternative is the first step to solve a problem
2 Likes
yeah sure, you could just port the War Thunder system over to Enlisted and it’d probably be better than what we have now. I think theres more elegant solutions out there though lol
1 Like
I dont se anyone put elegant solution outside change the order of unlockable in the campaign level and this is not an elegant solution is only another way to make people grind 40 level, face the reality if you dont want grind the same axis and allaies equipment every time we need a sort of nation tech tree like war thunder, but yea if there are another solution say it im all eyes
3 Likes
Ahhh, here we go again. I swear I’ll respond to every single comment calling the FG 42 a light machine gun or wanting the BAR for infantry to balance the FG 42.
FG 42 is not a machine gun. It’s not a semi auto rifle either (obviously). It was designed to be either depending on the situation, and still be light enough for German paratroopers to jump with it. The only way to balance this weapon that would be somewhat historically accurate is to make a paratrooper squad and make the weapon locked to that squad (Yes, the squad, not the class. Kinda the same way premium squads have weapons locked to theme) so that it could be equipped only to soldiers within said squad. The allied counterpart might be armed with the Johnson LMG (although that’s a bit of artistic liberty - Johnson was used by the Paramarines, but only in the Pacific theater). I’ve already made a thread about this: Some suggestions to balance the Invasion of Normandy
I think that implementing tree-like progression would be really good for the game, however there might be some problems with it. Mainly regarding ways how branches in the tree are divided (by weapon/squad category or by campaigns in which they could be used). If it was divided by weapon/squad category, so for example machine gunner branch, assaulter branch, AT branch etc., people playing one campaign will be frustrated by having to unlock squads not usable in their campaign. If it was divided by campaigns, so for example Normandy branch, Moscow branch etc., the same result could be achieved by adding a possibility to research different campaigns on the same side (so that while playing Normandy Axis I could research Axis progression from any campaign I choose). This would also mean splitting USSR and Western Allies. And the third problem begins here. Western Allies (and also Tunisia Axis) were multiple nations, so why not separate the Brits from Americans or Itals from Germans. That’s why I think that making bigger, but still not national, progressions, adding more maps into campaigns and implementing at least partially historical matchmaking into the game (so that we won’t see Kingtigers defending beaches of Normandy or T-34-85s in Moscow if they decide to make campaigns larger) is a better idea. I’ve described my idea in detail here: Campaign rework idea
2 Likes
Pershing may be too much for the Axis to handle. The Jackson can hunt the Tiger with the drawback of being a tank destroyer and not a tank. If DF implements the Jackson, they’ll probably introduce the Pershing as a premium as they did with the Firefly.
1 Like
well this is too bad most allies cant deal with panther either so its fair
Unless there’s a total rework of the progression system there would always be lower playerbase in Axis unless in speical case like Normandy, which is impossible since it need to change too much, and devs have already confrmed that it would never happen
where did they confirm they won’t rework campaigns?