Points against that aren’t mine, but from a company’s perspective:
“Mains” sticking to one faction won’t possibly spend money into content for different factions = as you see, the game tries to encourage playing multiple sides and campaigns with tasks and events.
Apparently, the company isn’t interested into keeping players hooked through “feeling of belonging”, but rather with a long grind requiring either a lot of commitment or money (or both) to get through, so that at the end you’re like “I’ve spent too much time / money into this to quit altogether”.
Besides, there’s more than enough Axis-Allies antagonism in the forum already, without the need to make it an official thing.
We all have preferences, but so far, the people here whom I’ve seen enjoying the game the most are generally dudes who play most or all of the campaigns and factions.
Well firstly Enlisted is a pass-through game. The course won’t change into anything so don’t worry about that. After you’ve unlocked that stuff you’ve unlocked, it’s done. The next big thing is going to have factionizing, I’m quite sure of it.
Forced factionizing won’t happen here as it’s too complex to make a campaign to this dumpster anyway. But for a game perspective it would be a wise move for longetivity. Enlisted isn’t aiming for longetivity. It’s aiming to get as much of money from one player as possible in as fast time period as possible.
I don’t keep up “dreams” about this game ever changing, it won’t.
Also there’s never enough antagonism. I suggested even clan-tags to the forum PVP game with medals and flair and stuff.
We all have our preferences, but I would never ever if possible play the Soviets unless a formal hand written apology letter comes to my doorstep. It won’t, so: status-quo.
i think it will be easy to implement this, making the map will be easy, making villages/towns will be easy, but its just that the cities cannot be all the same, they’d have to be modeled according to how they were during ww2.
i’d really look forward to actually fighting inside of the moscow suburbs, maybe even kremlin, or the red square.
the idea is, villages could be a easy battle, it could either be just 1 conquest/domination battle, or multiple depending on the size of the village.
the towns would take a bit more than this, as the battles will be more significant
the cities on the other hand would be insane, possibly over 10 segments of battles, making it difficult to capture a large city easily
in that case i think what needs to end the repetitivity of the current game is making matches vary on its pace, make some slow, and make some fast paced. for example a blitzkrieg match would be ideally fast paced, meanwhile a stalingrad campaign should be more slow paced like it historically was.
that also could be very intersting idea,like one big massive map where we can all play in the same time,beleove or not just now game in making is about percisely thar subject,game is called i think WWII online…
yeah but what would be more interesting if we could have different timelines, like lets say june 14 1940 timeline when germany freshly captured france
or even 1st may 1945 scenario with germany at its lowest, and our task would be to push back the enemy with some miracle, i personally would be quite fascinated at being able to get germany’s shit together, push soviets out of berlin, re-take vienna, push the allies across the rhine river and so forth
