Expanding the conflicts in enlisted and heading to the Middle east where the USSR clashed with Afganistan. New faction representing the Middle Eastern armies and typical weapons which are recycled from world war 2 or captured from USSR as well. I am sure many people would be eager to alter history if possible. Which side wold you volunteer for.
WW2 only no cold war please, maybe a one of like me he or modern war but not permanent
If you’re going to make an Enlisted game themed around post-WWII wars (Korean War, Middle East wars, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War), building it on the same game base would be repeating War Thunder’s mistake.
If you do make it, it should be as Enlisted 2, separate from the current Enlisted.
Facing modern units equipped with jet fighters, missiles, ATGMs, and autocannons in a WWII tank in that game is utterly uninteresting—it’s precisely why I quit.
nah man you’re wrong just look at the vote results
I think the idea is not so stupid, but in this case we would have to create another game mode, WW2 the default mode, and the Cold War mode which would all be the same as WW2 mode just not the same era.
We already have alt-history at home: Soviets storming Berlin with AS-44, RD-44, Fedorov Avtomat, AVT-40-20, and Su-9 (1946) while in reality they had a grand total on 0 of those things there.
However, if we ever get Enlisted 2 or BR 6+, which do not cross paths with WW2, I would definitely love to see Afghanistan alongside Korea and Vietnam, all with their exclusive uniforms and vehicles.
The Soviet-Afghan war is criminally underrepresented in video games, indeed.
No, if anything there could be Allied invasion of Iran, but only as a PvE mode
For event yes i say
no, thank you
Hm . . .
Sorry mate absolutely not.
As others have said the idea of a USSR vs Afghanistan game in of itself is okay, it just doesnt belong in Enlisted.
Personally I would like to see an Enlisted 2 which would cover from around the mid 1960s onwards so Vietnam, Rhodesian Bush War, Soviets in Afghanistan, Gulf War etc.
Whereas Enlisted itself I have previously suggested the Korean War and French-Indochina War be added for high BR as they used almost exclusively WWII era tech.
When I discussed the Korean War before, the only real argument against at the time was we’d need jets.
Well now we have jets in game, including the Gloster Meteor which is what RAAF units used in Korea (in addition to Mustangs which are already in game) and the Americans used Shooting Stars.
The M4A3E8 should already be in game (it’s a WWII tank) and I’d argue the Superbazooka as well as it was tested in 1944 and would be a much better alternative to giving USA a German rocket launcher they never used. The actual rockets for the superbazooka came later and could be reserved for high BR.
I have further argued before that USA-UK already covers United Nations forces and their tech. Republic of Korea forces just used WWII USA tech and uniforms so no issue there (we could even use the squads in WWII battles as Korean or more broadly Asian-American soldiers)
For high BR I would have Japan swap to North Korea. USA and Japan factions are already set up to fight each other and Korea was a part of the Japanese Empire from 1910-1945. North Korean forces also used WWII era Japanese weapons in the Korean War.
For the PRC I would add them to the USSR tree. USSR and USA-UK may be Allies in WWII but as Enlisted factions they dont fight alongside each other so having them queued against each other in high BR Korean War would not be an issue in my opinion.
PRC forces used Soviet weapons so again I dont see that as an issue. The USSR also supplied Communist Chinese forces during the second Sino-Japanese War (i.e WWII in China) so that checks out too if we decide to add China to WWII battles.
While I don’t particularly care about adding a USSR vs Middle East conflict to the game, I think creating “Enlisted 2” is a far worse idea. Because I would love to pay for another premium account on another game and have to grind a whole different game for something that could just be built in the same engine, just separated into different matchmaking 
.
I really don’t care what is added to Enlisted, so long as the game continues to grow. I play Enlisted because it’s fun, not because of the time period or historical accuracy.
Well no one forces you to get premium.
Youre also going to have to grind new trees anyway given that tech by the mid 1960s onwards was substantially different to that of WWII.
Indeed if we go with your idea (if I understand correctly) we would have a War Thunder situation where a guy like you wants to use an M4 in the Gulf War but youre stuck grinding Springfields and SMLEs.
It would take AAAAGGESSS to get to the later conflicts that people want to play.
I also play for fun but time periods and historical accuracy are VERY important.
One of the reasons current Enlisted sucks is because the devs have stupidly focused on this late war/Man In the High Castle fantasyland with constant jet dogfights and prototypes of prototype draft weapons… or just pulled weapons out of the seat of their trouser like the M2 Carbine sawn off for Japan.
There is nothing worse than ignoring over half of WWII and then claiming that there’s no enough content so we have to rely on completely made up weapons…
You suggest matchmaking, yet as we see from both Enlisted and War Thunder this just leads to mish mashes of weapons so I ask what’s the point of even having a WWII or Soviet-Afghanistan game if some guys have stuff from Vietnam and others have stuff from the early 2000s.
One of the main reasons that led me to Enlisted 2 was Vietnam. Id love a Vietnam War game with Enlisted style gameplay.
But in my opinion Vietnam is too different to WWII to work with Enlisted’s current style. For example, where would you put helicopters?
In Vietnam helicopters (in Enlisted terms) acted as APCs, aircraft, even tanks to some extent.
So what class would they fit into?
Secondly, the Enlisted playerbase is obsessed with ‘balance’. Well, the Viet Cong and NVA never used helicopters or at least only in a minor transport/recon role.
There is no North Vietnam equivleant of a Huey gunship. Some people would suggest giving the Vietnamese side a Soviet helicopter of equal armanent but that would be entirely made up and in my view ruin the experience of a Vietnam game.
Same goes for USSR v Afghanistan. The mujahideen didnt have aircraft. Eventually they got U.S supplied missiles but you cant have helicopter dogfights between USA and North Vietnam or USSR and Afghanistan, it just doesnt work.
The M113 is an obvious choice for U.S Vietnam APC, but what about the Vietnamese? There may be an option but if we think of Vietnam the Vietnamese soldiers were all about stealth and ambushes, not mass APC and tank attacks like in WWII. (hell one of the reasons the US lost was because it refused to accept that it wasnt fighting WWII anymore it was fighting a Communist insurgency)
Enlisted as it stands is designed around WWII and that style of warfare. (a shocking concept). The Korean War, as I have argued, fits into that well. But post 1960s, Cold War conflicts were very different and in my view we need a new game to account for that difference.
Bro. Not trying to be rude, you wrote a whole essay on things I never even suggested. I literally do not care about the time period of the game. I don’t care about the game staying in WW2 or going into future conflicts, it makes no difference to me. How do you say a “guy like me wants M4 in the gulf war vs springfields and smles” when I haven’t even made anything resembling that as a suggestion. All I’m saying is people stress out way too much over historical accuracy and WW2. Is it historically accurate to have a giant circle in the sky where planes can fly to supply? Obviously not but it makes the game more playable. I just was pointing out, if the game were to expand to the future, “Enlisted 2” would be a terrible idea. I’ll restate once more for clarity, I am not suggesting future conflicts for enlisted, I am simply indifferent to the idea. You may not want to get premium and be a free to play player, that’s fine. But how do you think the game stays running? Certainly they wouldn’t continue working on a free to play game if they weren’t making money. Adding a sequel to a free to play game is almost always a terrible idea and will split the player base almost certainly killing at least one of the games.
