Balanced = at the same level of strength as the weakest thing it can encounter.
So I’d be really interested to know how you’d balance anything that makes a boom to be at BA level.
It’s just extremely unrealistic argumentation by people who are extremely biased to one specific play style.
In that case, Enlisted just isn’t the game for you. It’s that simple.
You’ve just said it’s balanced but it’s annoying.
Now you argue with me about things being not balanced?
I have no clue what is your point.
For such individuals, Devs should make completely dead game mode that would be only BAs vs BAs and nothing else.
Pure balance, enjoy.
Completely unrelated.
Just shows your bias.
False 
Because rockets of Calliope make it an easy target for aircrafts. Strafing run with 13 or 20 mm cannon and tank explodes.
But how a guy who use only tanks can know that ? 
sorry, as much i can sort of get behind a better customization, i do not think that should be monetized ( that is, more than it already is ).
especially since the vehicle customization ( and to an extent, the customization it self ), bp, premium accounts, slots, fomo buy-to-skip events, buyable gold, silver, premium squads which don’t have to be meta, and many other microtrasactions.
with that being said, the customization is alot worse than everyone can imagine.
not for the fact that it lacks all options in the customization it self, nor that you have to buy the same items ( technically, yes, it is bad ) but what’s worse, is that if you want to add a single helmet, you have to add it for all 120+ squads and multiply it by 4 for each squad.
meaning that, the customization is not campaign based as they want to make us believe, but it’s tied to squads that contains presets for all factions and each preset has the campaign name.
so ideally, you have to to go through all squads just to add one single cosmetic.
good luck for more than one. ( which, i have been told only one person is in charge of the cosmetic presets… for all factions )
which means, the customization as adam putted it, requires an actual update of it’s own.
one that i’m not sure they will go through.
anyway, for the rest, fully on board i guess.
i mean, i’m sort of conflicted as i do believe limitations are needed for balance.
but… given how things are, it goes both ways.
People reached level of consooming that it reached the point of defending P2W mechanics as ordinary game design.
This is next level degeneration.
I see you’ve read only this half of the conversation that suits your point instead of trying to understand what we are talking about. As always.
How convinent.
Hint: caliope is just an example / case study
Reading is for free so its boring.
And the rest?
I like the attention to detail like the hairy cleavage.
I didn’t even notice until now
Is it something you look for instinctively? 
I instinctively look for boobs (like most men), hair just happened to be in the way.
I was hoping for a funny remark or come back.
Its not funny if you simply admit it.
poor monetization - a swift but painless death
customization - its not just how much you can sell (not much) but how much you can make selling it most games outside like Fortnite cannot run a game on custmoization…why most people don’t spend in a free to play game, second casual gamers make up the majority of spenders and most people would not be able to tell the difference of most uniforms…yes selling silver and a few other things work…but no way is selling uniforms going to support the game the way less appealing things do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqk9V0fBl7w sucks but it true
yes i know it is not a one for one fit but sadly applicable
this cracked me up 
Exactly, Enlisted is a multiplayer shooter, not a fashion show.
Most players do not care about such things as uniforms 
considering all the microtransactions in the game i dont see game suffering from poor monetization. p2w mechanics should be avoided at all costs. most popular games today all dont have any p2w in them cs2, fortnite, cod, battlefield, etc. some have pay 2 skip grind, but so does enlisted.
