While some suggestions can be cluttered, this is important so a good idea isn’t overshadowed by people saying there is ‘no counter’ or pointing out biases (eg. the body armor that gets brought up frequently) in the game at the moment.
A meta suggestion, huh?
No, the rule exists for a reason.
The people who jump into single weapon/vehicle post suggestions about adding something new to the game, going something along the lines of; “b-but what about faction [X]…!?” or “you can only get [Y] if we get [Z]…!”, really should understand that such talk only distracts from the suggestion itself.
I am thoroughly unimpressed with anyone who does this, especially on a regular basis. It’s not constructive, I wish people would stop doing that.
I also wish that forum staff would be a little more proactive against letting such talk devolve suggestions into faction wars because mains of a specific nation whining about their enemies getting something shiny… But I realize that their time is precious, and they’re not omni-present.
That being said, you can group ideas into one major suggestion, they just all have to be hyper specific and related to each other.
I’ve done it before. Seems to have gone over quite well.
Basically, only do it if it serves the interests of the suggestions themselves that they are grouped together, and when making seventy-eleven individual suggestions about basically the same thing… Because that’s unreasonable.
While it can devolve into no counter or other unrelated talks the rule exists for a reason. Weapon or Vehicle, even BR suggestions are suited to the one thing at once rule so a discussion can be had without a totally different discussion interrupting and being a jumbled mess.
^ This.
^ Also this. But then, it’s why we have a flagging system, so people can report out-of-control arguments, trolling, and general nonsense. 
Well, isn’t the BR placement / balance against other nations a core element?
Yes, but the problem are people who when something for a different faction gets suggested immediately complain about their own faction when that isn’t related to the topic at hand.
Like when a weapon for the Axis gets suggested and someone immediately complains that the Allies don’t have something filling the exact same role despite that not being related to the actual question of whether or not the Axis should get that weapon. Especially infuriating when the same person who suggested a weapon for the Axis does the same for the Allies immediately after.
cool. distraction is better than then listening to an imbalance.
Hm. Well perhaps US players should have thought about that before social media spamming for pershings.
Because that’s what happens when they push symmetrical balance so much… you get distracting talk like that.
Same reason why i did it for your enfield post.
Why should one faction get something cool without counters for others… dead ass.
Why did US get B25? Their p-47 did the job better and giving them their attacker 3 just gave ANOTHER imbalance… so i guess they’re not too exact on symmetrical balance.
Whenever people do this you run to using the wikipedia definition for what about ism.
flashback Well what about tiger 2… what am i supposed to do against that? use my p-47?
Then no one gets anything new. Easy fix.
Seems reasonable.
Just match everyone’s equipment and drop support for the game if adding something cool for one faction isn’t allowed.
Quite hypocritical coming from me however i’m only going with what the devs seem to support… symmetrical balance is a priority well then no future imbalances are allowed.
I… Don’t see how knowingly and purposefully trying to derail a suggestions makes you seem reasonable…
Not a great example… The Pershing was a produced and used tank of the war, it should absolutely have been added to the game on that basis alone, and it’s actually quite strange that it wasn’t added sooner.
The one-off Super-Pershing I am less happy about though, but the inclusion of this tank in the tech tree has opened the door for other similar experimental vehicles… So I’ll take advantage of oppertunity when I see it.
Personally, I am waiting for WT to add a Mk I Centurion with a coaxial 20mm auto-canon, which would be the most appropriate model for Enlisted… Theoretically the best Commonwealth BR V tank, without dragging in a Tortoise.
There’s a difference between faction mains acting like faction mains, and people discussing reasonable balance arguments. You can tell the difference, when a guy heroically comes in to “save” the same faction over and over again in different topics.
It gets quite tiring, especially when there’s multiple people doing so for several different factions.
I actually did not write this reply here with you in mind, but a whole slew of other active members who I shan’t name.
On the topic of that suggestion though, I wrote a thesis the day afterwards about the design space of future BR II sniper rifles, and I believe I was quite charitable when writing it. I get a sense that you didn’t get to see it, so I highly recomend you check it out.
That being said, I’d ask why you identify so strongly with the disruptive elements of the forum (especially when I didn’t naturally make that connection about you), and why you think it’s okay to knowingly behave in that way…? It frankly seems counter to the very ideals that a forum is supposed to represent.
Another poor example… How is adding a worse vehicle with a squad type the US was lacking a imbalance…?
I’m still waiting patiently for a Japanese Sniper III squad.
May I speculate as to why…? One would assume it’s because you might be using poor or flimsy arguments, and when they fail you fall back to whataboutisms…?
It’s just a guess, going by the poor examples provided here…
Best advice I can give is to stay on topic, derailing a topic is technically against the forum rules, and just bad sport in general.
I’ve never gotten into the KT debate, and I can’t be bothered now either…
Also don’t know what the prurpose of this argument is, unless it is, ironically, to derail this discussion too…
sorry to be a downer but multiple posts can be made - but I admire your enthusiasm sir!!! You can also link posts together, if u expand on it, or rely on things made in previous posts, kind of like a mini substack
agree with this, annoying when people go off topic
One of my most favourite things to do, and that I intend to do more of.
It’s a good feeling too, working off the ideas from other people, combining our efforts to refine a idea to the best it can be. Isn’t that why we’re all here, after all…?
I actually intend to revive the closed Rider II squad suggestion… Just as soon as I’ve finished writing both my APC III suggestion, and finished contributing to another project on this forum… No details on that one though, I’m not the main author…
And here I go being dangerously off-topic… 
Here here! I often rely on old posts when I refine them further or simply like what someone said, here are my examples, look at me also going off topic.
My first post:
my refined post, relying on similar concepts:
Germany gets ju 188 as their only good high br attacker, us gets p-47 and now b25 that can be ran in the same lineup… albeit that could be countered by giving them the fw190 that is of controversy.
They didn’t lack ANYTHING… their attacker 3 functionally was the p-47 squad… granted you could make the argument it should get put into the attacker 3 squad.
Don’t have to respond to this as it’s furthering the derailment and i shouldn’t have but that is an imbalance now the US gets 2 high performing attacker while germany and soviets only get 1… japan i wont speak of.
I mean
I did and enjoyed reading it, i liked it but didn’t comment as my care for snipers is on the lesser side.
I imagine Germany will recieve another attacker plane shortly, similar to the P-47