stop forcing these maps on us, lots of us play br2 so we can enjoy moscow and tunisia we dont want those other campaigns, if we wanted to play them we would go br3 or 4, in addition to this the game states that the br2 maps are moscow and tunisia but i keep getting thrown into normandy and stalingrad when all i want to play is moscow and tunisia. apart from that it also hurts historical accuracy
15 Likes
Wut? Stalingrad should be BR 1-3 map lol
Tunisian campaign literally began few months after the battle of Stalingrad.
So this 
statement doesn’t make any sense.
12 Likes
I like the “Ardennes” maps… even as low br. I don’t mind the huge steel factory either…
As for Stalingrad, I don’t mind either: it’s Berlin with a Russian flavour.
Please leave it as is.
1 Like
With the exception of Stalingrad, I agree for several reasons.
On the beaches of Normandy, the presence of M1903 rifles and Panzer II is somewhat odd. Also, there are too many battlefields in BR1~2 and you can hardly see the map in Tunisia.
Besides that, Moscow is a map that has been around since the CBT days, so I feel it is extremely optimized for combat in BA. The battle of Moscow without Fedorov or Mkb is very interesting.
And for new players, especially Steam players, it is a fun way to experience new late war battles as the tier progresses.
6 Likes
The famous grandpa stories of Seagull biplane in the air and A13 British cardboard tanks in 1944 beaches of Normandy.
With Italian Bersaglieri on Semovente TDs defending the bunkers.
But yeah OP you’re tripping with Stalingrad, it should in fact never see anything beyond BR3.
4 Likes
If this game was aiming to be completely historically accurate it would follow that rule, however, this game like War Thunder deviates quite far from historical accuracy(specifically that hideoes bullet dispersion/nerf for machineguns and some other facts too).
So with that in mind, adding more content/maps for all BRs is not a bad idea. Only a small group of historical nerds might get triggered by the idea yet most could care less for historical accuracy as long as the game is fun. Personally I like games that aim to be historical and fun altogether, it’s a balance the games need to find.
I find it extremely difficult to imagine my opponent being over the age of 10 when they call Stalingrad of 42-43 infested with 45 weapons and vehicles “fun”.
Moscow and Tunisia are only BR 1-3 because early war, deal with it.
Your definition of fun is 100% your definition. You have an opinion, at the end of the day, this is a game with minimal simulation aspects. This game isn’t trying to be simulator levels. If that was the case, it would follow that notion under every aspect of the game, not just location(map) by historical timeline.
I don’t know how immersed you are when playing Enlisted, but to me and most, it’s a pretty casual game and map design doesn’t have to be historically accurate for the timeline per se. It just needs to be a good map design that’s what the majority of players want.
LMAO.
Nice superiority complex. I find it fun and I’m far from 10.
Having read his response I fail to see how you read “superiority” complex into it… I guess it a sign of the times.
I tend align more with @TAHKO_AC as its just a matter of differing opinions.
Having said that if Gaijin is going to abandon all vesitges of historical reference, then they should remove the names off all the maps and just call them City 1, 2, 3… or Farmlands 1,2,3 they could also just go down WT route and call out generic countryside, so Fields of Poland or Fields of France can do as a generic naming convention. At this point it doesn’t matter what the city or landscape looks like as long as its relatively representative of a WWII aesthetic and everyone will be fine with random maps for any BR.
As it stands the current system is a shitshow trying to be everything to everyone.
Similarly @TAHKO_AC, I don’t think you grasp what simulation actually is, and no this game is not a simulation game by any stretch of the immagination, but equally I don’t understand why you conflate historical accuracy with simulation. There are a lot of failcakes on these forums that do, what you typically write did not strike me as coming someone who sits in that camp.
Uh. Well, I’m 50 and I find it fun.
He thinks that anyone who finds it fun must be 10 or younger. I see that as him having a superiority complex.
If you have more questions, feel free to message me. 
I know what a simulation is and location, specifically time-appropriate location, is a factor in a simulator. You can’t have a full-on simulator unless all aspects of the game are in that category, including historical accuracy.
Want an example? DCS’s most popular map is of Syria, modeled pretty accurately for that game’s age too. Then again, my point was this game isn’t a full-on simulator and I was only referring to that to make my point.
As I said before, this game isn’t aiming to be a simulator-level, and having historical accuracy in terms of location is only one step for a simulation game.
Ok, I guess I was wrong, you clearly don’t separate historical accuracy from gaming concepts such as simulation or realistic or even arcade which is what WT basically runs and Enlisted is going to morph into/
Let me clarify it for you then - historical accuracy is very very simple, as the wording implies it is to have historically representative weapons available to the troops.
Now, the degree to which those weapons are represented in the game will then go into the depth of gameplay which the developers have in mind for the experience, so that will include weapon performance, handling and anything else the devs consider balancing for the sake of the “game’isms”
That is the issue we’re struggling with here.
IF the devs want historical maps, then they have to find a smarter way of separating out the BR of the weapons and tying them into the correct maps for the historical representation of those weapons.
This therefore gives players a number of choices - pick a nation you like, equip them accordingly and follow the progress of the war, since that is the intention of the devs. They’re just very clumsy about its implementation and are using a hammer to fix an electrical problem - this is respected soviet practice so no one is holding that against them, they just need to hammer a bit more broadly for consistency.