Yes, that’s unfortunately the bitter contradiction and mistake Enlisted made with its strategy of trying to balance all factions at all costs. Instead of accepting that each faction had advantages and disadvantages at different phases of the war.
And even disadvantages can be balanced at any time using the rock-paper-scissors principle of the three military branches.
But I see it the same way. On the one hand, they’re trying to recreate historical battlefields.
I recently saw a documentary about Stalingrad around 1940 by chance, and it felt like I’d already been there. Because Enlisted really tries to recreate it with very good historical accuracy.
Troop emblems, armor and hit zones on vehicles, damage models, different ammunition types and types, simulations of explosions through blast damage and shrapnel damage, squad configurations through different specializations, the possibility of changing the propeller blade control on aircraft, etc…
All these things are part of a simulation.
For me, these are all factors that try to provide the most immersion possible.
And those are exactly the things I love about the game and why I’ve spent so much time in it.
But I think the attempt to tailor and streamline everything for the casual gamer, a group of players for whom it doesn’t really matter whether they’re playing a WWII scenario or an arcade hit-and-run fantasy shooter set in space, is a mistake.
Exactly, these attempts to be as accurate as possible are what, in my opinion, made the game special. I play the game precisely because it’s a WWII scenario, and weapons play differently, and not all the same, like in Battlefield or Call of Duty.
I would think it a great shame if the developer continued on its current course of turning Enlisted on its head to create a second War Thunder. Then too much of what has defined the game over the past few years would be lost.
Tunisia premerge meta in reverse here i come. 