And Japan is the last faction you wanna put with mid-war gear against late-war US… even if its just Pacific.
I would like to remember that the Junbo was tEcHnIcAlLy ready for this front…
2 Likes
i dont understand your point. how exactly would japan mid war gear end against late war US if you unite eastern and western/african front?
So you’re telling me that almost 4 years of fighting and conflict depicted in a single campaign where there were different uniforms, terrains, armies/peoples, units, equipment/vehicles, is not oversimplification? Guadalcanal and the overall Solomon Islands are separate from the Philippines as they are separate from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, or the Mariana and Palau Islands, or the Gilbert and Marshall Islands. If anything, i’d be fine with those Islands being grouped up as one campaign, if the Philippines and Solomon Islands were separate.
Your suggestion complicates more things because it will lead them to put more historical inaccuracies, unless you suggest them to put checks on. And yes, this whole campaign is rushed and oversimplified, look at things like customization from Stalingrad and then the Pacific.
A loose grouping is better than a direct grouping. Have matchmaking be based off theatre or front, or in general allow queuing up for more than one campaign, but keep the campaign progression separate. And separate tech for nations away from campaigns. The only thing that should be unlocked in campaign progression is the squads themselves. Then have checks to see which equipment would be allowed in what campaign due to presence and availability.
1 Like
so your suggestion is to split one campaign in 5 separate campaigns so you can get your uniforms which will be mostly the same, with weapons that will be mostly the same (think that only infantry weapon that is different from early and late campaign is grease gun), with vehicles that will be mostly the same (few added at later campaigns), with terrains that are mostly the same (cause most battles were fought over generic jungles and hills). and all of that with splitting playerbase further into 5 new campaigns. ffs if you want to kill this game and make it PvE then sure lets adopt your suggestion.
I don’t know if English is your first language, but read literally the line after that.
and still it is not an argument over unifying campaigns. what you want is actual MM, but that cant be made before campaigns are unified.
Uh, no? Did you not read what I post at all? You don’t need to oversimplify the game in order to expand the playerbase.
campaigns must go. simply as that. no to any campaign grinding. that is simply overcomplication.
like i said unification into theaters is second best solution and unification into nation is best. i would take any solution that would unite playerbase, even if it is not the best one.
btw here is what i wrote 2 weeks ago
i dont want to write anymore everything that was said, but there was whole discussion on:
Because they dont have anything to kill a Jumbo.
also forgot to mention that even with campaigns united in theaters, there doesnt need to be “oversimplification”. you just need to MM that can recognize equipment year/level you have on your squads and put you in appropriate campaign (well map from that campaign) and high/low equipment match.
Then Japan would simply vanish from late-game games.
Thats… a final solution.
explain to me how will jumbo end up on pacific if western front ends up united? not how japan will counter that.
also this is problem for any campaign. ffs in normandy stuarts, scotts and shermans are getting raped by tigers and panthers, but nobody is making a fuss about it.
Actually chi ri experimental can be balancing factor but im not sure will be added
North africa has nothing to do with western front. If it can be considered as some part of front it is mediterannean in general. Maybe you can add italian front all way from sicily to po valley offensive and operation dragoon in southern france.
Western front 1939-40 ,1944-45 had no effect or relation on progress in italy or north africa . Hell, Even the invasion of greece can be categorised with the north africa but absolutely not west.
The experinced us troops after torch and already experinced british troops from egypt ended up in sicily and mainland italy with same/ similar gear and arsenal.
ofcourse it has. who fought on both those fronts. it is like saying that eastern front doesnt make sense cause germany advanced in 3 directions; leningrad, stalingrad and moscow.
anyways for unification idea (at least for fronts idea) there must be only max 3 fronts. allies (western) vs axis (german), allies (SSSR) vs axis (german) and allies (western) vs axis (japanese). so in simplified terms western front, eastern front and pacific.
historical difference can be resolved with MM system that matches campaigns/maps with selected equipment (based on year and presence in particular campaign).
i already said that progression would be eased up by allowing us to pick the already unlocked weapon for free in another campaign, right now you’re free to unlock the same weapons over and over again; stalingrad, moscow and berlin is the prime example
people will definetly request more battles within each theatres of the europe (west front, south front, and east front, maybe even north front), and adding a million campaigns with each having to unlock the same equipment over and over again doesnt seem fitting for the majority of playerbase.
as said already the way to fix this is to allow us to get the already unlocked weapons be practically free in other campaigns when it comes to grinding for them.
and the battle timeline should also be considered, and within that time period is what type of weapons you will be able to have, and not have. obviously it doesnt make sense to have a 1944 IS-2 in battle of moscow which took place in 1942, so to solve this, such tanks and equipment will simply not be available for use
That is not overcomplication if that’s how things have been and people have been ok with it for over a year, and have been advertised when I was playing in the CBT, and for the people who played the CAT before me. The change with the Pacific, and what your proposing, is simplifying the already established structure of the game, and what everyone is used to and enjoys. People just don’t want to regrind the same gun over and over again and would like better MM (Of which I suggested above without changing the campaign system present)
And here I was right about the oversimplification.
This I feel will be better then combining all the campaigns. As there will people who will run out of progression and complain. Also, this could allow for a separate Italian progression and a separate UK progression, alongside some other countries like Romania. Merging all the campaigns will be impossible simply due to Premium squads, or you’ll have a hard time getting the company to risk it.
Also it’s 1941, not 1942. The 7 days into 1942 do not count compared to the entire months of fighting, that’s why things like the MkB are out of place.
like i said you didnt read topic that i put where this was discussed all before. while you see on 3 “campaigns” MM would actually deal with complicated parts.