so we are combining campaigns and separating them at the same time ?
Doesnt really make sense.
fronts just mitigate problem existing in campaigns. problem will still exist, just in lesser quantities than in campaigns.
1 Like
Onlyway I could see fronts work would be combined campaign progress aka playing to max lvl in what ever front grants the levels to other fronts as well.
Would decrease the grind significantly.
Ofc theres still the grind for weapons & upgrades, squads & perks and what else.
Would make trying other campaigns significantly easier.
1 Like
Aye I had the same thought which is why I see it as an bad idea. This is after all Enlisted we’re talking about and we can’t get the grind reduced right now so I’d say we can safely assume that the devs won’t allow you to grind multiple campaign trees simultaneously.
This is for the most part true. However I think trying to implement the campaigns we already have into fronts would cause a bunch of problems. Ergo I don’t think it’s worth the trouble
I see, then it can be a single grind for each fraction:
When you grind to late-game levels, you can use MG42 in Moscow, and something better if it exists in Berlin. But at early stage you can only use MG42 in Berlin, you’d be using MG34 in Moscow because your level is not high enough.
1 Like
You forgot the most important and fun one:
- 9: MOON CAMPAIGN
Enough said.
3 Likes
I like this brainstorming and I hope the devs are looking at it. But I hope everyone agrees campaigns as of right now are not sustainable.
everyone knows that campaigns are not sustainable. it is just matter of approach on how to handle rework.
You could use the “year” as a sort of WarThunder’s “battle rating” meaning the squads with 1943 equipment could only be spawned on the maps relevant to 1943 and later, but this too “splits” player base in a similar way how WarThunder does. Inevitable, the “year” will turn into “br” and just as in WT, you will get some undesired overlaps when matchmaking.
When I was thinking about a different way to organize “progression” I thought of something similar to WT tech tree but without a split by nations.
Major nodes are squads, sub nodes of squads are their equipment.
Then Map decides which squads are allegeable for use by the player out of those that he unlocked. Kind of how it’s done in Sim battles in WT.
This way you won’t see a German level 3 MG squad with MG-42 in a 1941 for example, or on Tunisia map.
And that’s what we are discussion 
Basically what we have with SG and Moscow… at least for the most part.
Still same shit show.
Funny how the mg42 wo showed up in tunisia as first time, is excluded to join in tunisia for you
Ohh, I thought it’s not there, so it’s bad example then.
Yeap, imho it’s more of a specific map problem than a whole campaign problem with weapons. If selections of squads is map based, one could limit not only types of squads but specific levels of squads on maps. So some maps would have access to basic aviation or tanks for example.
Like if the map is “themed” to paratroopers fighting garrison infantry, you could appropriately allow only relevant squads on that map.
From the player perspective, you would see a list of maps currently in rotation and choose whichever is more appropriate to what you already unlocked or want to unlock.
there should be a eastern front early and a eastern front late as two sperate theatres
as well as a western fron 1939-41, western front 1944 and a western front 1945
1 Like
that is 5 fronts… then you would need pacific early and pacific late, africa, italy/mediterranean. so minimum 9 fronts. in a game where even 5 campaigns is overkill…
FTFY:
- Eastern front
- Western front
But yeah Eastern front would definitely need a division to Early and Late with no bullshit MKBs, MG-42s and Pz IV F2s in Moscow.
Oh wait…