Would players be interested in such of thing, or should BR5 be the limit? Some examples are listed below
14 Likes
I think so…buuuut as long as BR 6 is hard locked away from everything else. (Mainly the super tanks, I dont think the Jets would be a big deal)
Select fires, and AS-44 can join them there.
14 Likes
I think it’s fine to leave it at BR 5
1 Like
No, just put those things to BR5.
Personally I wouldn’t mind a BR 6 to stop these from seeing 3-4
3 Likes
It’s naive to think more BRs would introduce more MM brackets/queus.
Otherwise we would already have ±1 MM or ±0 MM.
Until they don’t improve the way capture objectives are implemented, I’m not interested in seeing any other more powerful weaponry than what we have right now. The ideal scenario would be having big maps with broad objective zones like in Big Action mod. Otherwise, it’s just beyond ridiculous defending a little 2 floor building or a little circle on the ground with so much firepower. I do think that eventually the inclusion of such vehicles will happen, maybe not soon, but I’m sure it will.
But before they do it, there’s still lots of gaps that we’re missing from WW2 which Enlisted should focus on first before going beyond.
2 Likes
I already mostly play low BR because of too much imaginary gear at BR5 - I would never play cold war BR, I am a WW2 nerd, not some Yankee GI Joe that is proud about what the US did in Vietnam or Korea.
1 Like
Bizarre reasoning.
I don’t see how real historical prototypes are more imaginary than 44’/45’ stuff appearing on early war maps and facing early war stuff.
2 Likes
Like Kar 98 and MP40? Sure there are exceptions, like the VG rifles, but recently I have been enjoying alot of bolt action gameplay in BR1, now that it doesn’t face BR3 anymore.
Panzer III J and Kar98 is all I need to stay satisfied.
2 Likes
Trust me, we don’t like it either. I miss my Moscow campaign, it was perfect.
Only to get rid of the shit that didn’t exist.
No need for Br6, just give Me 262’s and heavier tanks to BR5 and isolate it from the others. To be honest, the Me262 should be in the game somewhere as it wasn’t an experimental weapon.
3 Likes
Like 1944 mosin, VG2, mp3008, puma, m8a1 scott… There are many examples. I would definitely name a lot more if I had access to game rn.
So I see historical aspect of thing as not valid reasoning. Because there’s plenty of not fitting BS stuff.
But I am definitely not saying it is wrong to prefer low BRs. The game is designed for players to pick whatever BR they prefer to play. Since XP/SL rewards are not influenced by BR level.
1 Like
My reasoning is that br5 can still face br3, it wouldn’t be ideal to let br5 stomp them with even more strength than before
1 Like
kinda but not to be there forever
but it should be an event
Sir, your pfp, where may I acquire this?
Right? The game is already so far from realism as is.
2 Likes
Thank you for your post.
I believe the forum is in agreement that BR 5 and/or your hypothetical BR 6 should be locked and separated from the rest of the game.
As long as theres zero chance that my BR III Allies will be facing a friggin jet fighter Im fine with this idea.
I previously made a post about adding the Korean War. Now as I said then, I 110% want us to get more WWII stuff first.
I also believe Enlisted should go no further than the Korean War/First Indochina War.
The Korean War would work fine since as Ive said a few times before, like 95% of the tech was WWII era.
Indeed troops were often fighting with weapons and kit that had actually been used in WWII, they didnt get new stock.
As Ive also said before, the vast majority of that tech is already in game.
All wed need are new maps and the addition of PRC and North Korean squads.
I have suggested previously that PRC would come under USSR while North Korea would come under Japan.
This would save entirely new factions (though the option for China as its own faction would be applicable to WWII) and allow all existing factions to fight.
The USSR of course did not actually fight in Korea, hence why all squads would change to PRC.
Japan in 1950-1953 was a U.S ally however since the game is set up for USA and Japan to fight, I think it would be easiest to just have North Korean squads under Japan.
Japanese weapons were used and Korea was occupied by Japan from 1910-1945 (Korean squads could be used in WWII setting.)
Whether USA and UK are separate or together they naturally would become U.N forces. South Korean squads Id put under USA since they used American weapons and uniforms.
Now originally I had said this would be for BR 5. After all, a lot of BR 5 weapons are actually Korean War weapons such as the M2 Carbine.
I’m open to debate about whether we should have BR 5, BR 6 or both and how those would interact with the Korean War.
Like if we add Korea, that means all factions can have jets. So my idea is as follows: (note this is ignoring the propeller aircraft like the Corsair and P51 Mustang [RAAF])
USA-UK: Shooting Star, Gloster Meteor (RAAF), F86 Sabre
USSR: MiG 15, MiG 17 (PLAAF)
Germany: Me 262 (theres also a Komet I believe?)
Japan: North Korean MiG 15, MiG 17.
Now, USA-UK would be queued as either fighting Germany in Europe (end of WWII) OR USSR/Japan in Korea (Korean War).
Im not sure about USSR VS Germany since the MiG 15 did not enter service until 1949. Im open to discuss this.
Perhaps BR V could be late WWII and Korean War (locked from BR IV and below), but jets are BR VI.
I think that would work well.
Tech only used in the Korean War could be put under BR VI (though maybe the Super Bazooka for example would be available in BR V for the sake of balance against very high level German tanks)
Remember that certain maps would be locked to certain factions, as is the case now. So we wont have Germans fighting in the Korean War since they are limited to Europe.
USA and USSR would fight in Europe OR Korea, Japan would swap from Pacific to Korean War and North Korean uniforms at higher BR.
USSR would fight in Europe OR Korea, as Communist China (uniforms and faces change)
Korean War is strictly limited, basically just US vs USSR. With both sides having their own “korea sub faction”.
Japan BR6 is impossible, Germany would need to face USSR with Korea content.
I just don’t see it to work.
Post WW2 content could probably no longer even remotely match historical realities.
What I mean by that is that factions that historically didn’t fight each other would probably have to fight each other.
Plus, it would be pointless to limit ourselves just to the Korean War.
I think it would just be better to completely separate post WW2 content from WW2 content. In the way that the campaigns before were separated. Not just by seperate BR queues/brackets.
And that content should focus on the whole cold war period. It should also be split into BRs like WW2 period and have its own factions.
This way, they could even retrospectively add WW1 in similar manner as well.
1 Like
Fair points. But I dont want Enlisted just turning into War Thunder infantry edition. Like there are soooo many games out there that already do the Gulf War/Afghanistan/ Iraq 2003 and so forth.
As Ive said, the Korean War I attach to WWII because of the tech itself. I encourage you to look up a list of Korean War weapons. Its a lot quicker to make a list of weapons NOT from world war two that were used in Korea. (as I keep saying its like 95%-95% of weapons used were WWII vintage)
So much of the tech is already in game. It is crazy to me to just ignore that.
Hell, British-Commonwealth forces were using (in Enlisted terms) BR II equipment.
Off the top of my head the only really obvious missing infantry weapon in Enlisted for United Nations forces is the Super Bazooka.
One of the main U.N tanks was the M4A3E8. Its not in game as yet, but as Im sure youre aware the E8 was very much a WWII tank.
Now regarding Germany facing USSR with Korea content. We’ve already got BR V for both. We could lock BR VI to just USA and USSR perhaps? Its a fair point which is why Im open to further discussion. I dont believe we should throw out the idea though just because of it.
Japan as Ive said would change to North Korea in which case they would have a combination in BR V/BR VI of Japanese and Soviet tech.
The other option is just to make it USA-USSR (with USSR uniforms and faces changing to PRC + North Korea).
I dont see the problem having some factions go high and others staying at lower BRs. Ive suggested France-Poland-Belgium-Netherlands as a new faction to only go to BR III, maybe IV.
It would certainly be realistic having only USA and USSR at BR VI. The main problem for me is jets, personally I just wouldnt include them. But it would be strange limiting BR VI (jet level) to USA, USSR and ignoring the Me262.
For post Korea conflicts as you say it becomes difficult since allies changed and the weaponry changes too significantly.
I say again, Korean War is basically all WWII weapons, of which most are already in Enlisted.
Whereas the Vietnam War for example, its all assault rifles, a completely different style of battle and for me the main issue is helicopters.
At the moment we have the following categories:
APC
Tank
Plane
(only 2 out of 3 of those can be in a lineup).
Now in Vietnam, Huey helicopters were basically all three. Troop transport + mobile rallypoint. Its an aircraft, plus kind of a tank given their armament.
After all wed have
M113 APC
F4 Phantom plane
Australian Centurion tank.
So where would helicopters fit? We cant have a Vietnam War game without helicopters.
And what about balance? You and I might just accept the history, but there are many Thanos players out there who would demand that the Viet Cong be provided helicopters despite them not having any in real life.
My point being clearly Vietnam wouldnt work in Enlisted’s current format (same for post Vietnam conflicts).
My argument has always been:
Enlisted 1 (current game)
- Second World War
- Korean War
- First Indochina War? (France VS Vietnamese)
Enlisted 2
- Konfrontasi
- Vietnam War
- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
- Rhodesian Bush War (?)
- Gulf War
- U.S in Afghanistan (?)
- Iraq 2003 (?)
- Syria (?)
I’m okay with the First World War being added. It would be easier in the current format to add the Spanish Civil War and the Chaco War.
We’re also discussing basically a game that covers almost every conflict of the 20th century. I’m not sure if thats plausible. Id also probably be retired by the time DF got anywhere near finishing a game like that.
A final note:
I hear you about pre merge style campaign selection for WWII/post WWII conflicts. Perhaps that would be an option for wars like Vietnam.
However (and apologies for repeating myself constantly) but it would be crazy to me having a completely separate Korean War campaign where the overwhelming majority of the tech tree is the exact same weapons/vehicles/planes as the Second World War campaign.
The only suggestion I could offer to amend your idea would be maybe something like Israel in War Thunder where you unlock the Korean War campaign after reaching a certain level in any of the WWII factions. That would suck though for those that want to start with Korea.
Maybe weapons unlock across campaigns?
So lets say I started with Korea, if Ive unlocked the Lee Enfield Mk III and Bren gun for Australian soldiers in Korea, that means when I go to the Allies research tree in the World War Two campaign those are already unlocked? (still have to buy them but dont have to research)