Would you give up the right to pick faction in exchange for more factions?

Suggestions
1

There are two points we often see discussed:

  1. “Devs, add Italy/Britain/France/Finland/China”, etc.
  2. “We don’t have the player numbers for so many queues”

With that in mind, if you want new factions to be added, would you agree to always have the “play any faction” option active?

That way there would be no playerbase division by factions.

Personally I don’t care about faction picking, I almost always play with “join any” on.

Other games like Battlefield 1/V and probably some others have shown that joining a server and fighting for either side is not something rare.

Additionally, maybe there could be a short “side switching” period while/if the teams are being filled up, so a player could switch sides if they strongly don’t want to play as faction X today.

If the removal of faction picking meant Britain (BR1-3 only), Italy (BR1-2 only) and France (BR1-2 only), I myself would be all for that.

2 Likes
2

that’s the thing.

YOU may enjoy that.

others that dont have much time and spent grinding one faction get kicked in the stomach to reverse all of their progress to a faction that they never played, nor were really interested in playing with.

battlefield is not enlisted.

because battlefield progression is far smaller compared to enlisted one.

but as factions goes, there is no need for any of that.
sub factions into their own faction is the answer.

so you can have both mixed units, and " only x without Y ". ( without sacrificing queue times either. or literally an entire match in italy’s case. or even player choices as adamn rightfully pointed out. )

4 Likes
3

That would make me quit the game. Not even being able to choose at what point I get to play the squads I paid money for. That’s a total joke.

7 Likes
4

Maybe we should just make Italy and Germany combined fights, and therefore combined online.

And yes, the developers won’t leave the same Italy at only 1-3 BR, they will stretch it to 1-5 BR and they don’t care how much they have to add paper, prototypes and such. Remember Japan and its Tech Tree? It’s going to be the same with Italy.

5

And in general, regarding the secession of the new nations. You know when that’s going to happen

NEVER!!!

Because we have a small online and it’s unlikely to get bigger, rather on the contrary less.

6

There’s never any need to worry about such things. A new faction is bound to attract more new players, perhaps even a massive number of them. Does anyone believe that the number of players will remain unchanged forever? Come on, the number of players was the same ten thousand years ago, and it’s still the same ten thousand years later! That’s simply impossible. The number of players has not even come close to reaching saturation. Anyway, there is already an imbalance in the number of players among the four existing factions. It would be better to add a new faction and strive for some positive changes.

7

Obviously.

That’s why I use the word “personally”.

And that’s why I’m enquiring if others would sacrifice faction selection for more nations.

How would that work differently to the current system?

Let’s say I have an “Italian subfaction” lineup as BR2 Axis - do I never get sent to Normandy or Ardennes now?

Isn’t that exactly what’s happening right now?

So why not combine 4 faction queues into 1 and add new nations?

8

Then why do we even have factions and a TT at this point?
This is by far the worst idea in a while, it pretty much undermines the joke of Enlisted: To play as a faction you want.

Yeah, we have seen multiple times now how little care about the fallout of your stupid suggestions.

That game series does not have faction TTs, which is quite funny how much you ignore the elephant in the room.
Also funny that Mister historical-accuracy mentions Battlefield V which was known for having Allied black amputee women running around with Swedish semi-auto rifles in Norway.

9

Like Japan which has by far the smallest player base?

Again, where is the proof for your stupid number claims? So far, you NEVER posted any numbers.

Is that way we 9/10 times have full matches?

10

It already starts with the fact that BF progression (apart from the vehicles in BFV) is not split among factions but more or less unified.
Making big split-tech trees but not allowing people to play said factions (let alone letting them buy premium squads for said factions) is probably one of the dumbest and most contrary designs I have seen since always-online single players.

11

it doesn’t have to.

it yet agains all boils down to " muh historical accuracy "

i don’t know how long we’ll have to go around the rosy with this point.

but it was never here, and it will never be
unless you turn to custom mods. that’s one of the very few thing that can offer.

the subfaction is there for representation and choices of a specific nation that has to offer without sacrificing efficency if one has to.

sure, you could play M13/14 in brV.

but it’s different being able to play one for choice, and the other for lack of better alternatives.

12

Then I’m completely lost as to how this “subfaction” concept is different from the current system.

Just a visually separate tech tree?
But still the same “Axis BR x” matchmaking?

13

yes.

it doesn’t have to be separate from germany.

that’s the biggest mistake one can make.

you don’t need to separate them as there are 0 reasons for it ( gameplay speaking ).

so in an ideal world, you can have your italian squads with italian equipment while also using some german equipment ( such as panzer IIIs IVs and even panthers if needed ).

but not to be outright casted out with powerless equipment.

the difference is if one choses to being that ( like i do for volkssturm equipment ) another is totally different when you don’t have said equipment to use.

which i’m sorry, but as war thunder taught, italy isn’t even remotely interesting on it’s own.
it wouldn’t stand much of a fight past br V.

and no, it’s not just gonna stop there. look japan.

so, if anything, subfactions offers flavors.
nothing more, nothing less.

14

But then how is it different from what we have now? Just a UI icon with the Italian flag?

I have a BR2 Italy squads/soldiers/weapons/vehicles lineup already.

No sorry in my book anything “add Italy” shall automatically mean not being sent to Ardennes.

15

that’s why the game doesn’t play by " your book " because quite frankly, you’d be probably one of the very few playing it.

and you can nitpick all day of what you don’t like.

but as we seen from time to time again, italians are the least crazy or controverials thing being in the ardenne.

so, just give them winter uniforms, and call it a day.

perfectly reasonable i might add.
than seeing germans dressed soldiers speaking italian.

1 Like
16

Create new faction won’t split the playerbase, create new frontline will.
If you split USA and UK into different faction but let them join the same frontline. It’s will be like split the pipeline in two but feed into the same pool.

2 Likes
17

I believe many would rather have them separated but be able to join same games as factions they originally came from. But I also think that in the future Italy campaign Italians could fight against Germans even because 40% of their total losses during WW2 were coming from them

1 Like
18

why not have free for all at at that point…

2 Likes
19

That’s… exactly how it works now?
Just in the same UI tech tree

Because no one is talking about Japan vs USSR in Tunisia.

20

So not only will we not get to pick our game mode but with this we would also not be able to pick our faction? Progression would be extremely slow since grinding would be randomized.