“What’s with the Britain hate?” – A discussion about subfaction expansions
You only need to read the first two parts to join the discussion—everything else is just extra rambling and thoughts.
Part 1: Introduction
Now that you’ve fallen for my clickbait, stick around for what might be a slightly rambly discussion on why some people seem so opposed to subfaction expansions in Enlisted.
If you’ve got thoughts, please share them! And if you’re someone who is against expanding subfactions—especially the British—I’d genuinely like to understand why. Isn’t it a good thing to let players pick the nationalities they want to play? Why is it bad if someone wants a full British or Italian lineup, or wants to play as a specific part of the Commonwealth?
Part 2: So… Why the pushback?
(Quick disclaimer: Most of what I’m referring to here comes from YouTube comments, not this forum. So don’t worry—this isn’t a jab at anyone here.)
There seems to be a surprising amount of resentment toward the idea of expanding subfactions—at least from what I’ve seen when it comes to the British specifically. That might just be because they’re the most commonly requested, and also the ones I tend to notice the most since they’re of particular interest to me. So maybe I’m seeing more pushback simply because I’m paying closer attention, but maube there is something specific about Britain that rubs some players the wrong way? Either way it still feels oddly strong.
I’ve even seen takes like “Britain was just a US sidekick in WW2" and therefor they don’t deserve full representation in the game. Which, honestly, baffles me. Saying Britain was just a “US sidekick”, well that take is really disgusting to me (and I’m Swedish!). The British Empire was the largest in the world at the time (and world history depending on meassurement), and they were fighting years before the US even entered the war. Writing them off like that isn’t just a historical distortion, it also undermines the massive contributions and sacrifices made by both the British and other Commonwealth forces. A lot of people gave their lives, and brushing that aside just feels wrong.
To put it in perspective: more people from the UK died in WWII than from the entire United States, despite the UK having less than half the population. And if you include the whole British Empire and Commonwealth, the death toll climbs to well over a million military personnel. That’s a horrifyingly high price to pay, and it deserves to be acknowledged.
Maybe it’s just a loud minority? Maybe not? We don’t really know how widespread these views are since most of the Enlisted player base isn’t active on forums. But what stands out is how strongly some people oppose the idea—as if adding subfaction content would somehow ruin the game?
So here’s my honest question: Why?
If you’re against it, I’d love to hear your reasoning. I’m not trying to argue— I just want to understand.
(Optional) Part 3: Common arguments I’ve seen
Here’s a breakdown of the most common arguments I’ve seen, and my thoughts on them:
- “There’s not enough interest.”
I’d ask—by what metric? If we got a full British subfaction, I think it’d be as popular as the Japanese are now. But yeah, I’m guessing too, just like the people saying the opposite. - “There aren’t enough weapons or vehicles.”
Hard disagree. There’s plenty—from stuff already in-game (like SovietLend-Lease weapons and vehicles) to yet to be added vehicles and weapons: mortars, SMGs, rifles, aircraft, tanks, even things like different version of already existing weapons like the Universal Carrier with different gun configurations. And don’t get me started on the rest of the Commonwealth and all cosmetic options for the both of them—there’s tons of potential there. - “There’s no high BR content.”
Mostly true, but also kind of missing the point. Shouldn’t we avoid power creep? Not everything has to be top-tier to be fun or valuable. Besides, people already mix weapons across nations to build their ideal lineup. High-BR options may be fewer, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing worthwhile. - “The only high-BR stuff is paper.”
Fair point—but BR V already includes plenty of semi-fictional, prototype, or field-mod gear. Adding British equipment wouldn’t be out of step. Plus, some late-war British stuff did exist and was fielded, even if it wasn’t widespread. The Centurion, for example, at least made it to France before the war ended, or the Stirling/Patchett SMG.
To wrap up:
The real issue, in my opinion, isn’t about paper tanks or lack of high BR content. It’s about giving players the option to fully build their lineup around a nationality they like. That includes getting all squad types and soldiers of a given nationality—something we can’t fully do yet.
Would love to hear other takes on this, especially if you disagree. The worst thing with disagreeing with others is when you don’t understand why!