Honestly just speaking my mind, but a lot of research went into this to form my opinions. Yes, it’s controversial, and yes, not everything may be 100% accurate (I’ve tried my best), and I do mention the reasons why it SHOULD be worked on. But I still think it shouldn’t be of utmost priority, and here’s why…
ah, it’s that time again where mr MajorMCdonald release a video out of no where, refuses to elaborate, and leaves.
i see a pattern here
Speak for you
Personally I was looking more foward to a Sicily/ Italy campaign but I’ll be happy with a Pacific campaign anyway
I know we’re going to get a lot more campaigns anyway so the more the better
We didnt need to split the player base across 5 campaign but here we are. Might as well add a 6th and keep the bot campaigns going
Pff Lessons from Stalingrad for me:
More than just one map would be cool.
Its a cash grab. Make new campaign, sell the initial squads, people spend money for the grinds. More profit from the initial release of any campaign
Or, hear me out, we make a burma campaign and just skip the overdone Pacific
The reason it’s overdone is because it sells, just like Normandy and just like Stalingrad, so I doubt they will skip the Pacific.
I think the Vietnam War would have been better and it might get a lot of players’ attention if they didn’t act like Stalingrad.
I think Stalingrad was kind of experiment, as it deviates from the normal model in many ways.
I would think they would add another map, at some point, but they have limited ways to earn off it, so… ?
Lets make people buy the stalingrad map pack
O, yes ok, thats an idea
Stalingrad’s biggest mistake was not the fact that F2P players progress 8x slower. They are already progressing piss slow in every campaign. The issue is when I buy a year long premium account to get 2x exp gain (and the two extra squad slots in battle) and then I’m told that I need to buy the premium pass, yet again in this campaign as well. If they plan on doing the same with the next campaign they might as well not bother adding it in.
Other than that, I don’t see why they can’t improve the game and add the pacific at the same time. It’s not like the same teams work on new and existing stuff. (Also weren’t you the guy who did a 20+ min long video defending Stalingrad after it came out? Now you are referring to it as the reason why Pacific shouldn’t be added?)
You’ve got me down to a tee there.
Honestly I’m baffled that people actually notice and care that I do that lol, I didn’t even think I posted that much
i mean.
i ain’t gonna stop ya.
although, i’m a bit disappointed.
Valid points there, very true.
Yes I was defending Stalingrad saying that it is not pay to win like the majority of people thought. It had other problems of course, and many that I could predict and did mention in the video, which eventually came to pass. These “other problems” are what I was trying to get at, and even though I was saying it’s not really pay to win, I did accept it was plain annoying for F2P players to grind up a level for nothing and not get some fun stuff.
And by “improve the game” I was talking about more fundamental issues that aren’t going to be fixed suddenly with your average minor update, like the insane length of the grind and the other things mentioned. Yes they can do both, but these key aspects surely won’t be addressed by the devs at the same time as the Pacific comes out…
But I’m open to surprises. 
Yea… Interresting video. Some relevant argument. And you are close to convince me that the game doesn’t need a Pacific Campaign.
On the other hand, I refuse to live in the world where Japan has not been nuked:
I’m already looking forward to Vietnam campaigns