“You responded to that by saying you did not care about “total historical accuracy” … despite this being the standard promised by the devs.”
Yes, They said a lot of things during testing and release, there was a general consensus on what the game would be between players and devs, as with all games. this is not hard to understand, reading, coming to a consensus on the general nature of a thing/concept is not something new or novel, it is applied to everything in life, why are you pretending to not understand a basic facet of society?
Your constant momentum towards minutia, is going to have us arguing over the philosophies of antiquity soon. I know, you know, the point we are making. I know, you know, what you’re doing is dishonest. The exchange you had earlier over BF just furthers this point, you are arguing in bad faith, just be honest about what you want, and leave it at that.
“The original player base to begin with.”
I was there when War Thunder was in its infancy, same for Enlisted, not everyone immediately jumps into a game they’ve been following upon release etc…
“I’ve been consistent since this began”
That was in reference to the rest of your statement, I realize that wasn’t clear, I should have made another sentence.
Does this have to happen in every single franchise, does everything unique have to be watered down continually until its almost unidentifiable. Why must tank controls be removed from Silent Hill 2? Why must Homeworld get nerfed AI, and reworked UI? Why must enlisted become a modern Battlefield with squads and War Thunder match making? Will the masses only be happy when every single bit of individuality in this hobby is ground into dust, under the weight of remakes, remasters, and “updates”.
I’m just so tired of it all, when will people who clearly do not care about this hobby just move on?
Many of us DO want more historicity - we do not want Warenlistedhammer - we DO want reasonably HISTORICAL CAMPAIGNS with appropriate equipment and unit organisation
One of the worst things that happened to Enlisted was the merge which ruined the already tenuous links to historical context.
This change just takes that even further into fantasyland.
Check the steam charts. Your assertions are not backed up by the data. Battlefield V, for example, has more players than you quoted.
My statements are supported by data or I do not make them.
Enlisted has every reason to loosely follow “Historical Accuracy” Furthermore, they are more accurate than many. They will never make everyone happy and, so far, they seem to be plotting a decent course trying to make the most people happy they can.
And still upholding to this in 2025 is weird and makes no sense. It is clear that they lied from the beginning, at least by now if you reflect and not being in the second stage of grief for three years and more.
Again, what consensus? Historical accuracy the devs didn’t care for to begin with and are largely agreed by the community or moved on?
Yes, but you are evidence that some still struggle to do so.
Because Enlisted consent has been for at least three years now, if it existed in the time frame, it can be added.
Dunno, why can’t you accept you are a minority or show me some numbers of this big historical accuracy Facebook group that apparently does not bother to come to the forum?
I wouldn’t call what they wrote on their main game page, told us in their marketing videos and stated in the press statements as minutia, but since you joined long before me, I guess you are the expert.
Are you sure though?
Which is very important for Enlisted.
Joined forum in 2023, has no CBT tag (which means that you did not join CBT)…
Yeah Sure, bro.
Again, this makes your statements about what the player base wants even funnier.
But what do I know? I only joined in the winter of 2020, was part of CBT and read like 6 times more posts than you.
Well, where is your evidence?
The later is proven by the fact that the game is growing despite claims that “removing” “historical accuracy”/ the merge will kill it.
can we please stop auguring theres clearly 2 groups of player base. one wants more maps while the other one wants some historical accuracy on where battles were fought on im sure the devs would find a good balance
That’s exactly what I did. When I wrote this message, I went to the HLL schedule in real time, then to Enlisted and then to Battlefield, and showed you the current online. I can attach screenshots next time, since my words do not seem convincing to you
“larped” with a tiger H1 for most of the match. nothing much to note beside the fact that i killed a t34 through the wooden houses and destroyed an AI IS-1 of the 13th armored brigade or something. pretty cool, and first time i see it. a nice little detail. but yeah, a stomp rofl on the soviets. probably weak opposition. https://enlisted.net/en/replays/#!/replay/462808401459815416
second match at high br was on tunisia as the allies at al har/market.
not quite a steam roll as tigers proved to be quite challenging, but… the new jets sure make the infantry experience painful. https://enlisted.net/en/replays/#!/replay/462822634981435863
so, on my previous prediction, ( which i failed to mention air power )
vehicles do make things difficult.
but that goes for most matches.
so… i think i had fun, but jets are overkill.
as it goes for maps, hills are often filled with tanks.
it could work, but better AAs are needed, and some of that gray zone adjusted.
to quote someone,
this would be a bit better.
but spawns will need to be readjusted.
i’m starting to think that jet spawn should be further.
for the rest, a 7/10.
moscow and tunisia can work at high brs, but more cliffs and rocks may be needed.
and… as much it’s cool to kill tanks through houses… i’m not sure it’s enjoyable on the receiving end.
what is truly keeping it back, are jets.
for the rest, enjoyable and similar experience to others maps.
By doing this you have ruined the game for me in BR 5 for a week. If after a week you do not change your mind or dont give me ability to choose map, I will delete the game and go to HLL.
