One thing that gives me even bigger headaches is:
imagine we would have like 8 campaigns in like 2 years or so, I think that would “divide” the playerbase into so many different maps and “sub progressions” that ppl will just stick to one or two campaigns AND also only to the same faction. Which means match making times will take ages on some campaigns.
The devs rly should have done something like “early eastern front” “late eastern front” as a campaign select.
To many splits based on year it may cause the same problem, as some equipment didnt change that fast, and intorducing the same weapons, but +5% rate of fire is not really what I would like to research. I think that 2 years is optimal. So we have like 3 main phases of the war, plus kind of end campaign. Perhaps Berlin should be locked until reaching lets say 10th lvl with both german and soviets in any year bracet, or 43-44. That is to promote a bit better players, like veterans, and also allow for better starting equipement.
Oh glad you mentioned China and Japan, it would also be interesting theater of war. So many early designs from all of the main factions could find their place there, not to mention domnestic weapons. Also Spanish civil war. So we actually could have additional 2 years, 1937-39.
Edit*
I just had a game where only two on the scoreboard had a positive KDR.
so the third best on our team 6 kills and 8 deaths- and the rest of us looked even worse - meaning we only had two real players ,against by the looks of it 10 real players.
The game is already split in a way, that Tunis alone might even kill the game already.
The way the games matchmaker works is terrible, this game cant handle more dividing. In fact a “game mode” select for conquest - which we all want to have, wont be working. Even the dividing between “lone fighters” and “squads” gamemode is hurting the game.
Thats how bad the team setup is right now.
something NEEDS to happen…
I strongly hope A) it’s true, and B) it happens rather sooner than later.
BUT
Considering that skipping the grind is supposed to be one of the main sources of income of the game, I’m quite skeptical about how much bonus would this boost actually bring. I wouldn’t expect anything higher than 20%.
2 campaigns per year. Next is Tunis and Stalingrad.
Only WW2.
This is why I don’t propagate my ideas. I don’t need to, the devs make them come true on their own.
That’s not a solution. And why would they solve a problem they’ve intentionally created themselves?
I predict that all it’s going to do is even further lock everyone into one faction in one campaign in hopes of eventually maybe getting that bonus.
Or just “eastern front” with certain weapons being unavailable for the early part.
Who would play copy+paste tech tree just for new maps? Would you?
?? I have clearly said that many including me do not want to play to rigrind the same things just for a new map
Me too 
then get ready that for sure the british will have stuart and garand in tunisia and the germans well you want the copy of the tech tree in berlin or normandy
Just hope they can add something new for Normandie and Moscow. I’ve been used MG42+FG42+FG42 II for three months. Just want to try Stg44.
And, if that’s the case, I would definitely not gonna play Tunisia, you can try its map in CRSED now lmao
I’m willing to use STG44 too, but admittedly when it comes US will get powercrept even harder than it is now. From then on, “Germany suffers” will evolve from meme to straight up absurdity.
Why? They get P47 and Jumbo. One P47 can make three squads not be able to even get into the cap
US arguably has an edge in tanks with jumbo, but CAS is more or less even if not in German favor (hello Ju188) and, infantry wise, German endgame guns are generally WAY ahead of US counterparts.
(I’m lvl 24 with US and lvl 25 with GER btw)