Finally, I’m so happy you added it, please make it permanent! Imo it should be complemented by theatre or map selection so everyone can choose to be closer or further from historical accuracy but change is great anyways. Best decision since I started playing Enlisted, praise the snail!
1 Like
so much this. It’s frustratingly annoying to the point of fck it these clowns will never grasp it… feeble minds with zero creative thinking.
2 Likes
"OH OHHHH Sherman Jumbo in Normandy?
URGENT! Add SU-9 (1946) and King Tiger to Tunisia!!111, let it burnnn"
5 Likes
Lovely sand! Here I come!
It’s fucked up I get tunisia in BR5 now more than I ever did in BR2.
Enlisted is not that popular because it’s a half-assed Game and it doesn’t have a fanbase of OGs like BF series which been around for a while.
The Graphics are not that great, the realism is not that great, it’s too much arcadey and they introduce feature and vehicles without thought, seemingly unknowing what impact or how game is played.
It’s too much skill issue due to rush spray n pray and braindead gameplay. Where Tryhards can just laser pew pew whole enemy team rushing around like wild chicken, it’s frustrating and turns you offf, cause it’s not good represnentation of combat and lacks that realism too it.
It’s neither Arcade nor Sim.
Even devs seem quite clueless what the game is or where going.
It’s a good Game but bit lacking and has that feel of unfinished.
A Free to play Soviet half finished game, that is the feeling it has and that’s not the best attraction force
BF or Cod is all about the brand IP, people play and pay for it cause it’s the big names.
Enlisted needs to find it’s own niche, no point competing or try be carbon copy.
A somehwat historical, prettty realistic game where WW2 battles and somehwat historical matchmaking that alteast in general has the immersion of it. centered around the Squad based bit that makes it unique is what they should focus and develop on.
For me going down the path of further watering it down and make it even less historical matchmaking is a big turn off.
And it’s shame and a miss cause Fortninte kids will play that and CoD people play that.
I was interested in this, a bit more serious, with combined arms, Squad based which makes it feel more actual you know realism, irl you fight as a Squad you know, not a tryhard single player taking out the enemy team with superpowers laser pew pew…
whatever but this is defintely a step i do care f all for
5 Likes
I thought the only problem would be tanks and planes, but after a few battles in the Soviets and Germany I realized that SFs and MGs are the main problem, all your bots will be killed before they reach a point to defend. Those maps are too open and that’s their nature, they can’t be changed and that’s what makes them so enjoyable in low BR.
“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.
Worst idea ever - this looks like just compounding the mistake that was the merge.
What we need is the make the game campaign driven again somehow - not make everything generic!!
9 Likes
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?
So help me God if the new Half Life sucks…
4 Likes
Which weirdly enough does not exist despite the huge numbers of potential customers where we still do not see the numbers.
1 Like
You do not speak for me!@
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.
6 Likes
I think you misread my statement friend. I mostly agree.
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.
It’s just that this number is lesser than the number who want more diversity in gameplay.
Did you know you can actually quote sentences instead of putting goosebumps between sentences?
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
¨that a few more casuals joined that after few year just to try out can barely be called a success…
And it has fck all todo with making the game less historical