The ZH-29 was used by Chinese forces in the Sino-Japanese War and some were captured by the Japanese (they even made their own experimental copy). The ZH-29 is compatible with the 20 round magazines from the ZB-26, which would make for a good Rank V rifle for Japan. This would be more significantly historically authentic than the ZH-29 in the German/Italian tree.
Besides that, I’d support the addition of the already-mentioned Te-4, Type 98 ground-use field mod (MG 15), and perhaps the Type 92 7.7mm (Lewis gun). Lastly, it would be great to have the Ki-43 “Oscar”, as it was the 2nd-most produced Japanese aircraft of WWII.
EDIT: Japanese nomenclature is making this more difficult than it needs to be…
Why do people want Japan to be forced into tier 5? The current situation has no downsides (Japan doesn’t face US tier 5) and introducing tier 5 for Japan is an objectively bad decision which can significantly slow down the game’s development - if the rule now is that every faction needs 5 tiers no matter what, then we can’t get any new factions and campaigns: no Poland, no Finland, no France and so on.
well i think you say’s thing is da-dao also is chinese’s “大刀” in normal can say that but i more want tell it Huan-shou Dao or chinese “环首刀”
It is a heavy weapon that requires both hands to slash.
Well, considering that every Japanese soldier in the game uses two hands when holding a sword, they will fit right in. I’m hoping the animations for the long sword are based on the manual for it.
They don’t really have hard and fast rules about this … It’s just an expansion of ambition, Japan has a level 4 and they’re going to a level 5, that’s all.
Dev already decided and currently making Japan tier 5. The only thing we can do is to suggest stuff that are suitable for tier 5 so Japan can suffer less.
Implement these faction as independent faction will only split the player base. It is better to implement them as a sub faction.
Not necessarily if we have teams consisting of multiple nations. The main issue is that the tech-trees of minor nations would be rather lacking.
Or as event squads. Sub-trees could be a hassle to implement, but I’m sure there are some creative ideas. As with China, all of their weapons can contribute to Japanese gold order rewards since Japan had a comparatively lackluster arms industry.
It will if you don’t have a 5 tier tech tree.
Lets say we add France.
We assume that France can join any US map within its br range.
You will split the western allies player base into France and US. Low br battle is fine since you have both faction, but you will decrease the number of high br western allies player because there is no high br France and high br France player must grind the low br US to reach high br US.
The problem is China arms industry is way worse. Most of their weapon is imported weapon or domestic version of foreign weapon.
Players will just see them as another lazy copy paste and many of them don’t like captured weapon.
It’s not better to make sub factions because it’s impossible in the long term. Italians never fought in Moscow, Berlin, Normandy or Ardennes, seeing them there is exactly the same exact thing as seeing Soviets in Normandy or Tunisia or US in Stalingrad. And it won’t split the player base if done properly - UK and US fought together on all the theaters we now have in the game, so there won’t be no splitting whatsoever since they’ll always play together on one side. The next faction to split could be Italy, with the Liberation of Italy maps coming to the game as part of an update.
Devs sometimes actually listen to the player base, and this is one of the moments they really should. We already have prototypes in the game, but fictional vehicles like the Ho-Ri shouldn’t be added at all, they’re just unnecessary.
I’d like to remind you that the player base constantly grows. Nobody wants all the WW2 factions in the game within this year, they should be added as the game grows and develops. As I wrote above, the 1st logical step would be to split the US and Commonwealth trees as there would be no downsides to that, and the upside would be that we won’t see Americans running around with Bren guns and Brits with M1 Garands.
Lol you literally gave the Italy example that is splitting the player base at first and now you say it won’t split the player base if done properly? Don’t use the British as example because it only applies to British, not the Finland, Poland and France that you stated on top.
Lol British army appearing in Guadal Canal and New Georgia is historically accurate? What about the battle of France that you suggested? Should US join France to fight Germany because British is also there? They will eventually need to be split from the same queue.
They may listen to other stuff but they don’t listen to request of no more prototype. They already threw HA away.
Lol not related to the stuff you quote. British has the potential of a 5 tier tech tree, France does not.
How about you read what I wrote before commenting on it👇? Pacific maps aren’t based on any specific location btw, so it’s OK to have UK there.
It’s related to your “argument” that splitting the queues between more factions will hurt the game. It won’t unless you somehow believe that there won’t be any new players coming into the game. Enlisted playerbase will grow larger and larger with time (which is obvious, at least for some people), which means that adding new factions will not make queue times longer.
The point is that the Ho-Ri is not a prototype, it’s a wooden mock-up, the vehicle never existed. This way we’ll have the E-Series tanks or KV-5 in the game soon, because someone at some point drew them on paper.
Lol it is you complaining that sub faction is impossible in the long term.
Now you present a solution that will not work if they add France into the game, very long term solution is it?
Lol no, the Pacific maps is based of Guadal Canal and New Georgia. They are not some random created island. You never read the news about the Pacific war campaign?
Lol if new player can cover up the splitting queue why is dev even doing the merge? One of reason of merge is because the player base is split into too many queue. Causing a lot of bot in team.
Now you want to repeat the same thing is it?
It is basically the same, they never exist on the battlefield. Produced or not doesn’t really matter.
The only E-series tank in War Thunder is E100 and the BR is too high for this game.
KV-5 is not in War Thunder. So both are not gonna be added. Moreover, Germany and USSR doesn’t need such tank to fill the tech tree but Japan does.
Why would it not work if I already proved there are no downsides to adding smaller factions as the player base grows?
OK then, no Commonwealth in Pacific until the Burma campaign maps get added. It would still cause no issues whatsoever.
The main issue with the campaign system was the repeated grind (unlocking the MP 40 five times). And the merge allows to add new campaigns (sets of maps) without making people grind the same weapons over and over again. You can still add new campaigns without repeating the grind.
And once again, you don’t seem to understand that the player base of the game gets bigger with time. This means that new factions can be added overtime without making queue times longer. The same way War Thunder got ground forces and then naval as well as more and more BRs (which technically splits the player base) without the queue times getting long - because there is enough players.
And btw, what’s the main purpose of an FPS game that advertises itself as realistic? To be realistic and fun or to have short queue times?
Why does Japan need it? Give me one good reason why Japan should get tier 5, I’ll wait.
You know where this logic gets you? Here - this thing also “never existed on the battlefield”, and since it “doesn’t really matter” if it was produced or not, then why not add it to the game?
Lol so you didn’t know what you are talking about? This is replying to your “How about you read what I wrote before commenting on it👇?” comment which is related to UK, not smaller factions.
Then there will be split unlike what you said.
That is not the only reason, decrease the number of queue is one of the main reason.
Currently they can’t even increase the number of queue to contain less br per queue due to not having enough players.
Lol very funny that you use the War Thunder example, it is literally the opposite stuff that you want to implement. There is no low tier faction that you want to implement. France was stuffed with lend lease copy paste vehicles, Finland is in Sweden tech tree and having copy paste stuff all the way to the top br, and there is no Poland.
Moreover, there is situation where US, USSR, UK, China, France, Sweden fighting Germany, Japan, Italy in Stalingrad even in simulator battle.
So no, War Thunder can sustain not only because it has enough player, it also due it mixing everything together.
They no longer do so? At least on their website.
Dev decided it go and ask dev.
Lol, apparently you are just exaggerating things. We don’t need such thing in game.
According to your logic lets add these into the game because it was actually used lol.
I’m asking you, not the devs - you’re defending that stupid idea.
You’re right, we don’t need the Haunebu, the same way we don’t need tier 5 for Japan.
You don’t know how War Thunder works either, do you?
Notice how in the fragment you’re responding to I said nothing about Gaijin adding new factions. Why? Because War Thunder has all factions in the battles so adding new ones doesn’t split the player base. What does split the player base in War Thunder is adding new branches (ground forces and later the navy) and mainly adding modern vehicles and thus new BRs. Gaijin was able to add all this without making queue times unbearable because the player base is constantly growing and. And the same will happen to Enlisted - once there is enough players, a new faction will be added, but the queue times won’t be longer because of that.
Queue times seems to be the go-to catchphrase when DF/Gaijin doesn’t want to improve the game…
But let’s say this is true and the queue times are indeed unbearably long (which they aren’t, at least as far as I’m concerned). In that case Darkflow should focus on other aspects of the game and wait for more players to start playing. That’s my whole point - all of the changes I proposed here (splitting factions, not destroying Japan with fictional vehicles) if DF waits for enough players before implementing them.
You sure? This is a screenshot I took on their website, what does the last sentence say?
I didn’t say Japan need tier 5. You really need to improve your logic.
What I say is Japan need Ho Ri if it is going to have tier 5.
It doesn’t mean Japan need tier5.
Lol then you are comparing apple with orange. Both are different mechanism you can’t compare both.
This a poor example of splitting since it is basically integrating a new game that have very different mechanic into War Thunder so it will in fact increase the player base instead of splitting it. For example, if you add world of tank and world of warship into world of warplane, it will not split the player base because their gameplay is very different.
Lol how is it the same? War Thunder add new BR because of new player. The same thing will be Enlisted add new BR because of new player. Adding new faction is not the same as adding new br.
Only if there is actually enough players…
Having some features in line with historical facts = realistic, I don’t know your standard for realistic is that low lol.
- this thing also “never existed on the battlefield”, and since it “doesn’t really matter” if it was produced or not, then why not add it to the game?
