Joe’s analysis is right on target, and he does an excellent job of pointing out the most important problems that this game has.
It is the most fundamental problem we have had since before the merge.
Enlisted is like a house under construction on muddy ground. Muddy ground is exactly the trend factor that Joe points out.
But people ignore the muddy ground and only look at the height of the columns they are building.
“The columns over there are a little high, let’s cut them down.”
“That column over here is a little low, let’s graft it in.”
But all these efforts are pointless if the most fluid parts are left unattended. What may seem like a good balance for a moment is ruined by another change in trend. It only changes the direction in which the building leans on the muddy ground. And the “balancing” that people want comes back with a worse imbalance.
For example, the Devs took player input and gave preferential ticket recovery rates, etc. to teams that lacked players in the legacy version. The U.S. Army at Normandy had a terrible ticket recovery rate. This later became a new imbalance as the US Army’s playing population recovered.
This is an example of why you should not try to average with what you are building on top of when the foundation is tilted and in flux. The mere change in the direction of the tilt is not just a waste of previous efforts, but a new flaw.
The game still has many problems, but we need to address the trend factor Joe points out first before we start tinkering with gear performance.
You’re absolutely right. The balance problem was even solved better by Reto Moto at H&G than here. They gradually filled up both faction sides as the players were available. However, the K/D was decisive there. As far as I remember. This system was much better. The problem of the high K/D ratio, which was caused by bot farming in Enlisted, could have been solved by setting the K/D to 0 during implementation and starting with new numbers.
Then, for example, 2 very good, 3 good, 2 average and 3 new players would have played on each side in one game. That would have worked too.
And Garand and G41 semi-automatic weapons are issued as starter weapons.
If they just fixed the issues with maps that people wont play because of what ever reason they have,(conquest/ivasion/dest/any other map they hate?) ticket bleeds was another thing,
maybe there wouldn’t be a trend factor.
also, i find when ever new stuff is out, people swap to those sides, always have.
EDIT, and yes ofc the player base 500k a month, (from 2.2mil when i joined) spread over time zones, has a bit to do with.
My takeaway on soviet teams at top tier to add is they’re either stacked or play like utter shite spamming T-60s and T-26s to the utter detriment of our team
So once again its not a gear issue, but more playerbase spread like normal
from my experience russian barely get any people when something new get add to them it kinda weird ngl since other faction will be flooded but not russian for some reason
Ok, this a way out there idea, so i know you will all probably hate it, 
What if USSR and US become Allies, and Japan and Germany become Axis?
Would make the MM numbers not spread out?
i mean it kinda like warthunder that way isnt it? where russian can appear in normandy and stuff tbh idk
IDK, have not played it for 2y
yea me too but i still have some memory of playing US and german against UK and russian
I bet there are some ppl that would like to see it.
Because “the game is already not historical so who cares”.
I understand what you mean, and most certainly dont take useless posts about one side dominating the other serious.
Though I dare to say that “boosting or nerfing” things being “irrelevant” is more than a very bold statement from your side.
Yes, you often can’t change trends, people play what ever they want to play - however to say that trends are in no way influenced by faction balance seems kinda ignorant to me. I myself have avoided certain campaigns in the past because of broken and OP tanks that dominated one side. I highly doubt that I was the only one skipping contend based on game balance.
Same goes for Germany BR5 at the moment, I would say its the most desirable BR for axis mains simply because the Tiger II H has no rival.
So balance would most likely lower the amount of tryhards in German BR5.
There are only two things the devs can do to make people play all sides rather equally:
-
Make all sides balanced and fair to play at all BRs
-
Give bonus XP to people who like to play on both sides.
I really can’t think of any other way than maybe special events for only one faction.
I would also argue that a good team with BR1 gear will still win over mediocre players with BR5 gear.
Still that shouldn’t mean balance would be irrelevant.
Yeah but that’d take a lot of effort
To beat a team without using your faction’s advantage is quite the feat
Like @remnar and his juiced up German team getting rolled by Yanks not using any planes or heavy tank spam.
A team doing something like that is a fearsome opponent to anyone
How dare you speak of me
But nah, the entire imbalance is almost entirely player focused. There’s a few things that each nation has that is sort of OP, like the tank vs AT imbalances of german vs usa, or the thompsons kinda actually sucking, or auto-rifles in this or that nation for all soldiers. Or impact nades vs no impact nades.
But generally, the team that is getting on the point and actually doing their job will win vs the one that gets more kills.
Every nation has good bolt actions
every nation has good semi-autos
every nation has decent to good SMGs
every nation has good tanks
every nation has good planes
at least 2 nations have good AR’s (m2 carbine kinda sucks for anything but hip fire but its what they got so they use it)
every nation has good MG’s
The actual equipment balances are generally minute and don’t REALLY play a role aside from some standouts.
The real imbalance is in team composition. I’ve seen countless pz4 J’s blown up because they’re stupid despite being the best tank in the match while some people use lower tier tanks to great effect.
edit: woops also yeah tanks and planes can’t cap. you can get dozens of kills in either but if your team isn’t on the point you aren’t winning, and if you’re in a tank or plane all day you probably aren’t capping either.
I myself can agree with this post, only for the last 24 hours. (Australia time). I played at least 6 games BR3 and won 5 out of 6 and played 2 games BR5 and won both. Now it just seems to me the German sweats are on holidays temporarily. This post is accurate but for some reason I don’t think the German mains were on. 
Edit. (As soviets)
I played soviets (br 2) since merge day and never experienced big bad german stacks. (i did meet “bad” german stacks) Mostly just dumped on them
Dont forget the game pretty much hinges on the top 2 players. It depends what side the veterans choose that day.
who could have thought the player tide would be so fickle? why, why noone said it before in any media, forum post, phone call, message bird? who could have foreseen such abomination!!!
Maybe we should push to go to steam so it won’t be suffering such player base issues but wait if that happens DF might get burnt at the stake by the players on steam
No complaints here, I was able to actually jump on my t5 squads and enjoy playing, usually I have to stay on lower BR with a pps43 and a dream to enjoy myself. Maybe it was a dream?