Vehicle gameplay improvements & balance changes

Green things commanders!

I’d like to share a few ideas that I believe could greatly improve the vehicle gameplay experience in Enlisted, making tanks and other vehicles feel more immersive, realistic, and fun to use.

  1. Immersion & Control Improvements:
    • It would be great to have animations for soldiers entering and exiting vehicles. Not a priority, but a nice visual touch for immersion.

    • Manual reloading of the cannon or machine gun (by holding a key) could add a layer of tension and control during combat.

    • Implementing an interior view for vehicles when switching between crew members would make the experience more realistic.

    • Allow other players to enter your vehicle and serve as loaders or gunners—this would encourage teamwork and coordination.

    • Improve AI behavior inside the vehicle: for example, if you’re exiting a tank with one soldier, the AI could stay inside and continue firing the main gun or MG for cover without moving the vehicle. This would make tanks feel more alive and self-sufficient.

  2. Customization & Gameplay Variety:
    It would be awesome to have some customization options for vehicles that slightly change gameplay without breaking balance.

For example:
• Add side logs or sandbags to increase resistance to penetration slightly.

•	Equip a heavy MG on the commander’s hatch for extra firepower.

•	Increase carried ammo or let players choose between HE, AP, or special ammo depending on the mission.

These tweaks could bring more depth and personalization to vehicle play.

  1. Infantry vs Vehicle Balance:
    Right now, tanks are too vulnerable to infantry weapons, which hurts realism and battlefield dynamics.

I understand tanks are powerful, but:
• Throwing TNT like a baseball isn’t very realistic. I’d suggest replacing throwable TNT packs with proper anti-tank grenades that require more skill and positioning.

•	Nerf rocket launchers by reducing their penetration or blast radius. Currently, they can feel a bit too effective against armored vehicles.

Overall, these changes would make tank gameplay more rewarding, strategic, and immersive, while also maintaining a fair balance with infantry.

What do you think? Would you like to see any of these features or adjustments in the game?

3 Likes

Absolutely not.

Greyzone tanks are already the bane of Infantry, especially when you have something like a King Tiger, Ho Ri, or Super P sitting 100-200m deep in the grey zone slinging HE into objectives or default spawns. Saying that reducing TNT, reducing launcher penetration, and giving custom ammo loadouts (it’ll be 90% HE) to tanks maintains a “fair balance” with infantry is beyond delusional.

The thing about tanks is that they are extremely vulnerable to infantry. They always have been. Theres combat footage from
WWII to the Modern Era showing lone tanks getting absolutely smoked by a couple of dudes with a PZF, Bazooka, RPG, TOW, etc. That’s why you have dismounts pulling security near the tanks.

The infantry are the squishiest type of troop in the game. They are also the most vital, since only they can take objectives. The game should prioritize balance towards the infantry, and so far it does a decent enough job of that.

This entire post reads of a tank main that is mad he can’t be invulnerable inside his metal box and farm infantry.

9 Likes

I mean, I like tanks as much as the next guy, but I’m gonna have to agree with Gladitor here. Although I do like the points you brought up in 1.

3 Likes

I get your point, but honestly, infantry already has plenty of ways to destroy tanks, especially in close-quarters combat. A well-placed TNT pack, a rocket launcher, or a Panzerschreck can easily take out a tank. It’s not uncommon to see tanks wiped out by a single soldier who manages to sneak up. So claiming that tanks are “invulnerable” is just not accurate.

Yes, it’s a game — but it’s also a game trying to replicate World War II combat scenarios. And the reality is, war doesn’t have balance. Tanks exist to dominate at range, support infantry, and provide fire superiority. That’s not “unfair”; that’s their intended role.

On top of that, infantry in the game is already stronger than it realistically should be, considering there’s no simulation of fear, suppression, or combat stress. Players can sprint through gunfire, explosions, and artillery while aiming with perfect accuracy — something completely unrealistic. In that sense, infantry is already overpowered, because they can aggressively push objectives without hesitation or disorientation.

And honestly? I see way more infantry abusing off-map mechanics like artillery strikes, mortars, or stationary anti-air guns from the edges of the map than I see tanks camping in the greyzone. People love to complain about tanks, but they forget how easily infantry can rain down destruction from complete safety too.

They could easily make that animation to only last for 1sec like in BF1 and then fade out to enter/leave.

5 Likes

If you actually read my post, nowhere did I say they were invulnerable. Just that you want them to be.

Last time I checked, reality didn’t have a magical grey zone that choked people to death if the crossed an invisible line. Games have balance because it’s a game. “Muh reality” is such a dumb argument it’s not even funny (especially when you want to nerf infantry AT when their penetration value is similar to IRL).

And tanks never break down, have a magic penetration indicator, and can magically repair critical damage with a turn of a wrench. I don’t know if you’ve ever tracked a tank before, but it SUCKS. It’s not a turn of a wrench. This all comes back to it’s a game, and an arcade combined arms shooter. It’s not a milsim and has never claimed to be.

Calling radio arty, mortars, and AA GUNS the equivalent as a tank (which fires every 6-12 seconds with pinpoint accuracy) is hilarious. I see GZ tanks almost every game, in my some 1500 hours in game. They’re an incessant plague, especially when you get to BR 5 and they have heavier armor.

2 Likes

I absolutely agree that greyzone tanking is a real issue — no doubt about that. But I think it’s also important to acknowledge that infantry enjoys significant advantages too, especially when it comes to mobility, respawning, and situational awareness.

A tank, once it’s set up in a spot — even at the back of the map — often can’t reposition without exposing itself or losing effectiveness. Meanwhile, infantry can redeploy quickly, gather intel, and come back into the fight with the advantage of knowing enemy positions. That’s something a tank rarely gets to do.

The real root of the problem, honestly, is that the game’s structure isn’t designed to support true combined arms balance. To fix this properly, they’d need a totally different game model — like a massive map, one-life system, and no respawns. Imagine if a soldier died and had to go back to matchmaking; that alone would change the way people play completely.

Regarding realism — I get that it’s an arcade shooter, but the entire concept of the game is built around a WWII setting, and the more it deviates from realism, the more subjective and fragmented the balancing becomes. If the game stays relatively true to reality, then it gives devs a clearer foundation to work from — and gives players fewer reasons to argue about what’s “fair”.

Also, for context: I’ve been playing Enlisted since launch and I’ve logged thousands of hours too. Personally, I’ve never felt that tanks were more decisive than infantry. If anything, infantry currently dominates the game far more than tanks ever could, especially with the tools they have at their disposal.

I did some research, and here’s what I found:

During WWII, infantry didn’t have it easy against tanks. Only with dedicated weapons, ambush tactics, and a lot of personal risk could they hope to destroy one.

That’s why, in war simulation games, it’s important to remember that infantry effectiveness against tanks is often simplified for balancing and gameplay reasons.