In Enlisted, the offensive and defensive sides have to do almost exactly the same thing, just: build assembly points → rush to strategic points → kill the enemy → die → resurrect …
This is a bit boring, and there should be some differences between what the attacker and the defender have to do.For example, the defensive side should build more useful fortifications, while the offensive side should use heavy firepower weapons to destroy them and complete the task.
This seems unrealistic, because the fortifications have almost no effect in Enlisted:
Sandbag: single type, too low height, can not effectively block the explosion damage;Defensive against air strikes and shelling is poor.
Barbed wire: It’s very useful.Can resist explosives, but can’t defend against shelling and air strikes.
Engineer shovel: the excavation depth is too shallow and the excavation speed is too slow to dig out effective trenches before the enemy arrives; Defensive against air strikes and shelling is poor.
Czech hedgehog:Besides stopping tanks from advancing, they can also be used as bunkers, but they can’t resist air strikes and shelling.
We can easily see that none of these fortifications are useful in the face of air strikes and shelling! They will be easily destroyed and can’t provide cover for infantry!However, even though air strikes and shelling have been weakened many times, they are still very deadly in open areas, but they are completely useless to enemies in buildings.
So please add some shelters to defend against shelling and air strikes, such as trenches that can be built quickly, potholes to avoid shelling and higher sandbags.
Balancing explosives by strengthening fortifications, instead of weakening the power of explosives all the time, can not only make engineers pay attention, but also make attack and defense more interesting. In other words, it is “using powerful spears to deal with powerful shields” instead of “poking paper shields with wooden sticks.”
Then don’t build stuff if you don’t want.
But don’t take away fun from other ppl. If they want to build, allow them and make it beneficial to the team so they are not a dead weight.
It’s not fun to facing objectives when every door is blocked with hedgehog and on every fkn centimeter are 10 sandbags completely randomly built just to block you.
It looks disgusting and its completely boring to play against it.
But I guess exploiting game with overspammed structures can be fun for someone. So I shouldn’t be able to present my opinion about it.
And if speed of digging trenches would be increased. We can only imagine how hideous it would be. Disgusting holes everywhere just to explout tanks and so on. Very enjoyable gameplay indeed.
Funnier to play (if you ask me).
Current gameplay is quite homogeneous and heavily lacks variety. The game has a lot of mechanics but gives no reason to use them.
Like introducing bf3 style suppression for people with dogshit aim, since they are quite useless got to do something to improve them ?
Tbh entire concept of the game ( squads ) & state of the game makes it pretty much only viable in current state.
Cant really imagine any tacticool HLL style combats with absolutely retarded AI.
Outside broken AA ive found use to most stuff.
Except ofc mortar & radio squad, neither have much use.
Yes.
Is this a problem when a deadweight class becomes usefull and contributes to victory?
I don’t know either.
But I’d probably go for sometging related with spoting and sneak/infiltration (for rally point removal). Is this a good idea? I don’t know.
I meant AT mone used in AT role, not as an extra boom for your AP mine.
I still don’t follow what bf3 suppresion has to do with makind more playstyles variable.
Unless you can figure out a way for deadweight to become useful without breaking the game then I guess why not ?
How are you going to fix useless snipers for example ? Aim-assist so they might hit something everynow and then or some sort of suppression that prevents you from moving ?
Dont exactly consider either as a good solution for the game just because “deadweight” has to be buffed ?
Wouldnt mind, but hardly would fix the snipers being useless.
Its pretty much exactly what I use it for since the AP + AT mine apparently doesnt work anymore.
Snipers will sit and be useless, that wont change so cant really imagine any other way they would become even slightly useful while also making the game unbearable.
Well, one of the ways to make snipers more usefull is to make their targets more important. Problem is that we may end up with snipers being a musthave or other weapons being better for the task (like tanks).
Personally I’d try spoting related abilities first though.
Unfortulately I don’t have an answer for everything even though I’d like to.
If the fortifications become effective, the attacker will also have more ways to destroy these things, such as the scope of explosives will be increased, more powerful shells and anti-tank guns. You know, these offensive weapons have been weakened again and again only because they are "particularly powerful at some time."For example, indoors and open spaces that lack bunkers.If the defenders think these explosives are horrible, they should build fortifications themselves to stop them, instead of asking for weakening them.By the way, it is still very fast to destroy fortifications with explosives and tanks. Making these fortifications useful does not mean that they are difficult to destroy.
I’m tired of it, too.
But I still hope that developers can give us more offensive and defensive means (smoke and fortifications), not just weakening weapons.
I have a bad feeling. I feel that both the attacker and the defender are losing their weapons and shields, and it seems that they will have to be unarmed soon.
It’s more like two drunken hooligans fighting than war. It is so boring.
Thank you, but the Czech hedgehog is still a strange thing. It should be destroyed. (Although it’s easy to dismantle it by hand, it’s more interesting if it’s an explosive charge or a Bangalore torpedo. )