Testing expanded BR for maps

News
696

I’m okay and even happy with the fact that I can play all the BR on all the maps, which doesn’t seem to help anyone, but since the appearance of BR, I’ve found it a shame to be restricted in terms of maps AND weapons. I find it boring to play the same maps all the time, with the same weapons. It’s a game, and either it’s 100% historical, or it isn’t. And then, in wartime, your enemy doesn’t care if you know how to fight back with equal weapons, he’s still going to slap you on the wrist! One or two solutions for everyone would be to be able to tick off the campaigns you want to play:

1: completely exclude campaigns you don’t want to play
or
2: check off the campaigns you want to play first, which would still leave you some chance of playing a campaign you don’t like as much.

But actually, I had a BRV game in Tunisia, against the Germans, it was impassable, maybe you could make some small modifications to the terrain, add some cover or a bit of relief to reduce the open fields. as has already been done on various Enlisted maps.

French (Belgium) Translated with Deepl

2 Likes
697

Well, Moscow and Tunisia maps (with some exceptions) plays like shit in high BR. That was expected, I guess?

By the way, was this necessary at all?

In my opinion, it would’ve been better to focus on creating new battlefields than allowing non-suitable maps that will only temporarily satisfy bored/burned-out players. The recent map changes are just a quick fix for the increasing craving for new battlefields. The question is essential in my opinion, especially since it will upset a portion of the player base that cares about history and only temporarily satisfy the general yearning for new maps.

Let’s not forget: a lot of players are here because they’re interested in WW2 not cuz of they heard of this game-breaking FPS game called Enlisted with amazing and groundbreaking gunplay/features. Don’t get me wrong. It’s an amazing game. I love Enlisted. Probably one of the most lovable games I’ve ever played. But most of us aren’t here because we think Enlisted offers a unique and great gameplay experience.

And I must stress: I’ve always preferred gameplay/fun over historical accuracy (HA), but they have never been mutually exclusive. The recent changes make me think this game has progressively lost its identity and charm, unfortunately. At the moment, Enlisted just feels very uncharming; a generic WW2-themed shooter, without anything unique to offer (Besides a sadly undeveloped and unused squad mechanic)

You might be able to correct a few more maps to make them playable for high BR, but what is that worth?
I can accept these changes if you make the new map selector/exclusion work; you need to make it on a “campaign” basis, and not a single map basis.In other words: In order to make this work, you either need to rework every single map of these campaigns (and upset ppl) or nail the new, upcoming "map preferred system by making it possible to exclude camping and not only maps. (But here we have another concern: Do we have enough players for a campaign ban? I don’t want to fight bots like pre-merge).

What’s also kinda contradictive: the original post-merge BR/map bans have always meant somewhat freedom for players to choose what campaign to play (remember you also advocated the upsides with merge, talking about this). But these recent changes mean I have no freedom or ability to select maps I wanna play what so whatever.

Nevertheless. This gaming is very uncharming at the moment. It’s time to decide what path you wanna choose. Enlisted has never been historically accurate, and should never strive to be strictly accurate. But at least it was somewhat historically authentic, (in decline). This is another big blow.

What I said before about "HA"

So what’s the difference between historical accuracy and historical authenticity?

Basically this: Historical authenticity is more soft-ish and about being faithful to the time period being portrayed and historical accuracy is more hardcore and about being faithful to the historical facts.

it is possible for something to be historically authentic and historically inaccurate at the same time. Enlisted have always been historically inaccurate in several respects, but still conveyed a sense of authenticity or realism.

This latest changed just made it even less authentic in every way possible. And it’s just a quick-fix, ad-hoc solution for ppl asking for a new experience/map variety.

This just feels like a desperate move, a mascara to cover up for the ever-decreasing content in this god forsaken game.

19 Likes
698

well i think that this is probably preparation for preferred map system. this way they can try to balance maps for high BR based on this test result and let map choice be on players. but i could also be wrong and this is just brainfart from devs.

2 Likes
699

That’s what was my thought as they have map selection in their roadmap so i dunno why people got so insanely mad when they will be most likely be able to disable those campaign maps from their playlist.

If not then we will complain, they will refine it further and then we will be one happy family again. I think we are going in circles and repeating same steps every time.

Insert definition of insanity.mp4 clip.

2 Likes
700

depends on how they implement map preference. it could solve everything or do nothing. i am afraid if they implement WT model that is shit.

11 Likes
701

If it will be like WT then it will be really useless as dislike doesn’t do anything and maps are very limited and mostly used by premium players. So yeah better ready yourself to complain (as always), so they will rework it again (as always) and then be happy (as always) for 15 minutes before we will complain about something else.

2 Likes
702

Yeah it does - the trouble with the system is there’s a LOT of maps - each different game type on the same map counts as a different map you have to dislike separately :frowning:

And you have a very small number of dislikes.

But it does work within that small number

1 Like
703

Yeah, I remember certain reddit post and associate group boasting the new BP format is 100% better than the old format and beneficial to the players. Still can’t believe people actually fell for those clowns.

6 Likes
704

If memory serves, new maps have been the most desired addition to the game every time the topic is broached, uniting most of the player base, yet it seems to be a secondary priority. I assume they have received a great deal of pressure from above to prioritize other aspects of the game.

12 Likes
705

Please keep it, I think it’s very interesting, it would be boring if all you could do was fly jets in Berlin, the game should be more entertaining

706

Spot on. Exactly.

Before I discovered Enlisted in 2020-21, I was mostly playing BFV, with some HLL, PS/S44, WT and even CoD 2/WaW/WW2 single player play throughs - I just like WW2 games.

But they all lacked something – some were too c
old, some too woke, some too hardcore.

Then I found Enlisted, and despite me never really caring about the bots mechanic (I will die on the hill saying 25x25 customs lone wolf Enlisted is its best version), I finally found a game that’s almost in the sweet spot.

Finally I was able to freely run around my native Russian countryside with a crappy early war PPD fighting against Germans with similarly crappy Pz 38 t.

Fighting in Berlin with crappy Volkssturm weapons against the Soviet late war steamroller, or enjoying Tunisian sun with Carcano and Lee Enfield.

Tbh after Enlisted’s top notch vehicle damage mechanics I just couldn’t take BFV seriously anymore where you can take down any tank with any caliber HE shells just if you shoot long enough.

I always felt that the campaigns system was not sustainable, and some sort of Merge had to happen.

But it happened by the lowest denominator.

The devs had all the time in the world to prepare but we still got water based planes in Ardennes and sandy Italian tanquettes near Moscow.

And after the Merge it’s only been getting worse, not better.

Now we’re basically becoming poor man’s BFV, exactly without anything much to offer.

9 Likes
707

Well, why don’t you go play the BFV then?

Because in my opinion, that’s a completely ridiculous statement. BFV has a thousand times worse gunplay, the factions there are only customization based, there are no squads or complex vehicle gameplay.

BFV is far worse in gameplay than Enlisted. The only thing it is vastly superior in is the graphics and sound design.

2 Likes
709

I think games should showcase and maintain their own characteristics, with squads that have existed in history for players to choose from and play.Restoring the real battlefield is the feature of Enlisted, isn’t it? Even the slogan says so, which is undoubtedly eye-catching in recent World War II themed games. But it has to be admitted that the current development direction of the game is on par with BFV and Call of Duty: Vanguard. But what are we playing this game for? Aren’t we all tired of the so-called ‘unknown World War II’?

2 Likes
710

How many offer this type of squad system?

Not really unless you still believe their marketing in 2025, which at this point is your fault.

712

This game no longer has a history a long time ago, especially after Japan obtained tanks designed in 2017 and jet planes flew to Moscow. Every word “history” that appeared on the game’s promotional website was like a punch in the face of the developers.

2 Likes
713

A all time low should give reason to improve - not make it worse!

10 Likes
714

I have no clue what this introduction of maps to more BRs has changed in relation to HA.

Starting from the merge up until now, we could already see Volksturm stuff in Moscow or late war stuff in Stalingrad.

So can you tell me what is going to be so different from now on?

Literally nothing changes in this aspect. It’s not like maps are no longer going to be faction based.

It’s just that this change to map pool is being used by some individuals to try to push outdated concepts into the game that were thrown out long ago, specifically with the merge.

This discussion should be primarily about the quality of those maps that potentially can now be on all BRs. Or other side effects, like the fact that some squads will now be using customization presets that they didn’t use before due to their BR.

It shouldn’t be about pushing some outdated concepts that are no longer even being considered.

6 Likes
715

Yep fully agree, although plz gib map select so I can deselect the stupid seelow hights and Hurtgen Forrest (the older one)

2 Likes
716

I don’t know his motives, but in my case, it’s because… Enlisted still has the potential to be better than it is now, and its development is always downhill and uphill and you can’t say next update will improve or destroy stuff?

Even though the Jumbo entered Normandy, the grayzones were introduced the way they are, the BR settings have thrown out some important historical aspects and took away my chance to play mostly Tunisia and Moscow, and they removed the old lone fighter mode and replaced it with something that misses vital parts, it’s still a good game.

But.

Enlisted was a versatile war game engine. And still is. Just… Not heading in the direction I like.

  • Not with zombies.
  • Not with infinite Fedorovs and never widely used weaponry dominating the battlefield.
  • Not with the amount of explosions it still has.
  • Not with going the easy way and nerfing everything to useless levels instead of limiting them in creative ways.
  • (Not with each and every step away from WW2 history? I assume, but unsure.)
  • Not with custom games not gaining important filter features and proper webpage, and more time spent on banning too curious evil content creators than on custom content.
  • Not with the upgrade points still not highlighted after 3 years so I need to kill my eyes looking for those f.king upgrade points. Really, orange color please, or keep the potential squads on top of the upgrade list maybe? :pray:

Now that I complain, I also don’t like the 20 000 score limit or the 50 vehicle kills task, they are too much for me. But I enjoy 70% of the matches so it’s not that bad, especially for a free game. And I had no problem with playing BR II in Berlin, and once I can tell the game engine to focus on Tunisia instead if possible, I’ll be okay with this BR map extension. (The way they implement map preferences will probably be broken as they did not share any screenshots about their plans, so my expectations are low.)

2 Likes
717

To turn my comment into a constructive rant, e.g. instead of reducing AP mines so much that you can sprint over them and stay alive they could have implemented it so that

  • once you place enough AP mines, from the 4th mine you placed, your soldiers forget your mines so they become dangerous to your own squad beside the enemy team, so you need to be careful as well
  • and only AT guys, engies and guerillas are okay to place them?