Reworking of Classes - my recommendations for changes to the present class system

Suggestions
1

I would like to make a few suggestions as to ways to rework the present classes, to provide both for a better gameplay experience and more worthwhile choices to the present squad upgrade system, as well as to weapon selection.

  1. Squad leader class - I would recommend the replacement of radio operators with a new class - the squad leader. While this has been suggested elsewhere, I feel that it should be reworked in a manner that makes them more worthwhile. In addition, I would like to further limit artillery strikes.

How the class would work;

  1. Replaces radio operators 1:1 (e.g. would swap all radio operators class to squad leaders.) In addition, every standard infantry squad would be able to have one squad leader in them by default.

  2. Would put a firm ammo limit to one artillery strike period per life per squad leader.

  3. The squad leader would have the basic engineer functionality that Engineers in non-engineer squads presently have.

  4. Artillery strikes would no longer give the present “red circle” warning for the enemy team, until the ranging strikes begin, while providing the warning as present to the friendly team as it does presently.

  5. Other classes
    Selection rework; Selection of multiple-choice additional class units would either be;
    [Engineer, Assaulter, or Bomber. Squads with one of the above replace the in-use unit with Flame Troopers as an option]
    [Gunner, Sniper, or Mortarman. Squads with one of the above replace the in-use unit with an Engineer as an option]

Engineer rework; With the above re-work to squad leaders, additional engineers would have available to all choices normally available to Engineers in the Engineer squad.

Mortarman rework: Remove reloading of Mortars from ammo crates, but double base ammo to compensate, to limit spam but retain usefulness.

  1. Weapon rework for specialists;

Creating a new category of weapons - effectively encompassing carbines, automatic rifles, and Assault rifles which includes (but is not limited to) the M1 Carbine, M2 carbine, Johnson M1941 LMG, AVS-36, AVT-40, Fedorov Avtomat, VG.1-5, FG-42, STG-44, STG-45M, M2A1 Carbine, Gewehr 43 Kurz, etc. But also Shotguns, and a few select longer-range suitable SMGs like the FNAB.

These weapons would be available to Assaulters, Gunners, Engineers, and Squad Leaders as weapon options. This would reduce their excessive use while still leaving them as a widespread option to choose from.

I think that these changes would make for a bit better gameplay on the whole, and I would hope others may agree, but if not, I am also fully interested in seeing what others in the community think could be done to rework things to improve the feel of the classes in the game.

Edits 1 and 2: Fixed spelling errors and expanded on a couple of sentences to better get across my ideas.
Edit 3: more spelling fixes.

8 Likes
2

I hope if they either add realistic mode for squads or have limited events where squads are to their historical composition.

adding squad leaders would not be a bad thing I think. What if while they are alive they have a soft buff to everyone in their squad, once they are killed, it goes away. (breaking unit cohesion)

4 Likes
3

I don’t think it would be necessary, with the flexibility offered by what was suggested above, there’d be little reason not to take a squad leader in the first place.

That said, historical squads for events or something would be interesting to see.

1 Like
4

no class system is adequate (with apologies to Marx) - the artificial division into “hard” categories has no basis in real life, is basically copied from Dungeons and Dragons, and results in BS arguments like whether this weapon should only be restricted to assaulters, or some new artificial class needs to be introduced to cope with that weapon - eg the various arguments about who should get FG42’s or M2’s is a classic case in point.

The developers missed a great opportunity with the perk/star/advancement system where they could have made “upskilling” part of the system - so if you choose to have a soldier train to use a SMG or a MG or a FG42 or whatever, then it “costs” something - either an opportunity cost in that he then can’t train on something else, or some sort of economic cost.

Combine that with proper limitations on the quantity of rare weapons and there’s a basis to develop a really good historical basis for progression.

too late now - we are stuck with stupid classes where gaps have to be plugged with more of the same - like this suggestion :frowning:

3 Likes
5

for the flame and anti tank units i can’t get rid of extra weapons of flame throwers and rocket pistols

6

Great points, but I don’t think its too late.

After all, this is the point of beta, and all things could invariably be adjusted.

I also think this would be the best way forward. Leave the current “thingy” as the AB of WT equivalent, where ppl learn to play the game on easy mode, with lots of markers etc, penetration or accuracy markers for vehicles etc…

Make a realistic campaigns mode, where there are no markers and you have to ID what you shoot at, and where the squads follow their historical composition - this would be a good way to create distinct nationality characteristics that exemplify the various tactical doctrines of the warring nations. The MG squads could morph into MMG/HMG squads 4-5 men as ppl commented, the Mortars squads would be more specialised 3 - 6 man teams depending on calibre introduced, as would the Sniper (pair) and Radio squads, where the latter would morph into FO teams of 2-3 men. Upgrades can be adjusted to match the capabilities or buffs associated with those squads.

Once the AI gets a bit of an IQ buff, the squad leader concept could be introduced to improve the reaction and obedience of the AI to players commands - could also be a performance buff, but that’s one for discussion as to how to abstract the effects of good leadership. Nevertheless, if they didn’t want to go around buffing and re-buffing stuff, then a simple C2 modifier would certainly introduce a nice bit of friction into the game - not necessarily surprising for the beta test community since the bloody AI doesn’t do what its told anyway, but once it does then it might be a significant game effect and a very good abstraction of what happens with panicked or uncontrolled troops IRL.

2 Likes
7

So basically you want to add a class that is jack of all trades. I have mixed feelings about this.

2 Likes
8

this, is something i don’t like.

this would lead to artillery spam again, and again.

no thanks.

weather as far as i can understand those artillery strikes are limited, doesn’t change the fact that literally everyone have them.

it’s a big no from me.

and lastly, one thing that i don’t get is:

so, you are implying that squad leader should be Enginners and Radio operator at the same time?

just… why?

obviously it’s not going to be balanced.
nor ideological.

i do love perhaps the class as squad leader.

but i do not like the composition that you would give them.

you just become a “super soldier”.

they do too much for what they are supposed to.

i guess this could make sense.

what?

yes.

ha ha.

no.

for no reasons what so ever, those weapons should be available for enginners or gunners.

i don’t want hell of full automatic weapons in my lobbys.

i’m sorry, but i do not share the same opinion.

the main issue that i personally have with the suggestion is,

too many autmatic weapons more than they arelady are.

and the squad leader would be just strictly better than two class all together.

1 Like
9

10000 YES to this. Any element of the game that is responsible for the soldiers should be thought out as much as possible, and more seriously respond to the average playstyle.

The same applies to the management of the academy, squads improvements, wearable equipment and its variety, as well as adjusting the AI and its further development.

Screenshot_3
Screenshot_31595Ă—469 491 KB

Everything else is just as important for FPS, but insignificantly within the setting of a game that focuses on the enlisted soldier.

1 Like
10

my personal suggestion to make the squad leader somewhat logical and balanced,

they are basically like the assaulters class, but have no restriction on weapons outside the machinegunes and scoped rifles ( mgs or any weapons with scopes that are usually given to snipers, otherwise they would be too much powerfull ).

and they get acess to binocles, ( the only class that has acess to that along side tank commander ) and if they have a radio operator in their squad, they can call additional artillery strike for smokes, and flak artillery for air in that specific area ( like @VoyoMayPL suggested somewhere if i remember correctly ).

this way the squad leader can somewhat make sense, and be usefull at the same time without replacing anyonbe. just in real life, they are just there to be as “supporter”.

5 Likes
11

I suggested the officer class two months ago, it was supposed to have the ability to summon temporary respawn points. The engineer, however, must remain purely fortification functions, as well as support (ammunition).

They don’t need to tackle the problem of the unpopularity of engineers among the average player - they need to isolate the most key function to win and present it in a more attractive format.

1 Like
12

It’s rude self-advertisement I make here, but if you want squad leader class I would suggest to give him sth like this:

In my opinion it would sute him better than being great combat class.

13

I’m not exactly sure how they would be a “super soldier”, being weaker than the present radio operators, or engineers in their own squads. As-is, everyone can have radio operators in their squads, which can make multiple artillery strikes.

The reason I’m suggestion they be both basically a radio operator and engineer is how core respawn beacons are to gameplay, and how use of engineer type abilities need to be bolstered across the board.

I suggest engineers getting the ability to build all they could in an Engineer-only squad as a greater reason to consider taking them over bombers or assaulters - see the point above.

Most of these automatic weapons are already available to more classes than they are now, I’m suggesting limiting them - sure, I am suggesting the inclusion of more, but limiting the classes that can use them further.
E.g. while Engineers and squad leaders are getting access to more types of automatic weapons under my proposal, this is removing entirely the access to such by; troopers, bombers, flame troopers, mortarmen, etc. Thus, no more trooper squads full of FG-42’s and the like.

Properly good close-range SMGs also remain Assaulter only, and LMGs remain Gunner only, under my proposal. This just bridges the “assault rifle” question to multiple classes. At the very least also to Engineers - they’re already tied to such in the tech tree anyhow, and any additional game pressures to increase the use of engineers is beneficial to the game IMO - but I figured squad leaders having them as well wouldn’t hurt.

Adding the selection of such automatic weapons to Assaulters and Gunners then just increases the flexibility of such classes and creates a pressure towards choosing the secondary weapon option. (not so much now for gunners, but definitely so if gunners get reworked to where LMGs can no longer be ADS’d from the shoulder or something down the line.)

14

I see it like Erika.
The SL should je smiliar to the Squad Leader in BFV which is able to call artillery, smoke, supply, rockets and special vehicles for points.
In Enlisted he should be able to call strikes (explosive and smoke (maybe more like rocket artillery if we get more content)) and air supplyment and lose credits (similiar to the building credits of the engineer). He can call them with colored smoke nades (he can carry 1-4 like anyone else) or with his binocular and the radio from the radioman in his squad without being restricted to the amount of grenades.

15

exept, you suggested and here i quote you with your own words:

so, this squad leader is basically " stealing his job " and since everyone squad can get aceess to this squad leader, overclass the older radio operator. because not every squad could get a radio operator.

and additionally,

i quote again:

which doesn’t make sense because now he can actually do two jobs at once when he isn’t supposed to do that.

doesn’t make it any reasonable to put it under one class.

exept, it becomes almost a priority.

and this one, doesen’t exscuse the fact of making every single weapon almost available for all classes to make a shit show.

which to clarify, 4/5 weapons =/= " most " automatic weapons can be given to everyone.

but you are adding classes to those limitations…

it’s not much of a limitation if now additional 3 classes up to the already other present classes can gain ability to use automatic weapons.

tha’ts why almost everyone is complaining about giving fgs, m2s everywhere at everyone.

exept, they become more common that they should.

is this your view for the future of enlisted?

i greatly disagree.

exept it is!

they are not enginners?
doesn’t make much sense?

it’s pretty much like giving machinegunners the ability to do something else.

like, perhaps carry an anti tank weapon ( bazooka and/or anti tank rifles )

or like give the ability to mortar to use snipers.

doesn’t make sense whatsoever.

just because it’s convenient, it doesn’t make it ok/justifiable.

that’s not flexibility at all.
that’s creating unbalance and un fun gameplay.

i don’t recall enlisted being the next bfv just because they like having automatic weapons for almost every class ( which it’s start getting to ).

automatics weapons increase problems.

no one likes enginners squad made full of automatic weapons over moscow, or normandy.

considering the already present automatic weapons.

ah yes weapon carriers.

no thanks.

not a huge fan of it, and particulary not even the others.

i’m not aiming for total historical realism, but too many automatic left and right, where also class start to do other jobs or even to the slight weapon carriers because of situations it’s far from ideal.

and as far as i’m seeing from various people, they don’t like it either.

16

“not every squad could get a radio operator” one sec let me check the upgrades tree, cause I could have sworn it was available to every infantry squad.

Ok yes it does basically two jobs at once compared to now, but how does that not make any sense? Or unreasonable?

With the squad leader gaining the base engineer ability, then why would people take engineers over bombers or assaulters? As is there’s no reason to take more than one engineer in a squad anyway, save for extra building materials or having one of them build for you (when it works, half the time the AI forgets what it’s doing and doesn’t build what it’s told to.) Thus I was thinking of incentives to bring more engineers.

Plus, I don’t understand why engineers don’t get their full abilities outside of Engineer squads in the first place, given no other class works that way of where their abilities are limited outside of their own squad, other than radio operators right now (which we’d be effectively removing as well through my suggestion.)

I’m also not suggesting giving “almost every weapon” for all classes - SMGs are more numerous and more capable at close range for the most part, LMGs are more powerful at all ranges. And as I stated, I’m suggesting to restrict the classes further than they are now for their use.

Is my view of an ideal future enlisted one where everyone has engineers in their squads, and use them extensively, thus they build fortifications to help their team on a regular basis? Yes, absolutely. But the only way that happens is with more incentives to utilize Engineers in game by the crowd currently using nothing but assaulters when they can help it at the moment.

The reason machinegunners carrying anti-tank weapons doesn’t make sense is a question of IRL weight. The reason optics weren’t everywhere in WW2 was cost of the optics, not because it wouldn’t make sense to give them to the likes of mortarmen and everyone else, thus limiting their use to the highly skilled.

Assaulters and gunners already have automatic weapons - and should realistically have them - most of the above are either assaulter weapons or all-class weapons right now anyway. I’m not sure how adding more weapons as options for them to choose from does not increase flexibility?

Or is it that you dislike the secondary weapon option game mechanic to such a degree that you don’t want it to be there?

Unless you think that automatic weapons that were widely used in WW2 should not be present in a WW2 game? Or should they be limited even more than they were IRL?

17

Classes definitely need to be changed, but about weapons, this is nonsense, to be honest.

18

Might you be willing to cover your opinion in greater detail, in regards to weapons?

19

This will make the fighters even more useless junk,and there will not be a large number of automatic rifles if there is a normal balance of levels, for example, something like that.
1-2 players 20+ campaign level
2-3 players 10+ campaign level
4-7 players 0 + campaign level

In any case, in the same German army, there were much fewer semi-automatic rifles in 41 than in the Soviet army.

20

So, just to confirm, your complaint is that it would remove automatic weapons from the majority of classes?