You buy a premium pack, only for 1 campaign, all progress lost on another even though same faction.
4 campaigns total… I don’t know how successful this game design will be…
it separates playerbase
premiums / all equipment is reset on each campaign, makes you feel everything you buy is temporary. As there will be another campaign that would become the focus of the playerbase.
I prefer the War Thunder design, where there are different nations fight along with each other, I hope Enlisted takes the same turn. It’s really boring to grind through the same nation on a different campaign… and really makes me not want to spend money on anything.
Enlisted tries to “recreate the atmosphere of real WW2 battles”. How are for example Russians storming Normandy beaches realistic in any way?
Yeah, it separates playerbase a bit but I belive that majority came exactly for that realism when it comes to particular battles, not another BFV chaos.
I think you misunderstood me, I’m not in any way suggesting Russians storming Omaha beach.
Right now we have 2 sets of German squads, one in each of the 2 currently available FTP campaigns. This means twice the grind. Consider as they add more campaigns, in each one your German squads start from scratch again in each new campaign.
What I’d like is for your German squads, for example, to be common and shared across all campaigns.
Yes, but each squad has different equipment that is specific to the time they are fighting in. That just would not work. You want to have the same equipment for every one of them or shared exp do that you unlock everything simultaneously?
So then Germans would be exping all 4 campaigns at once, Russians two, US one and probably British one.
Devs stated that clearly many times: Enlisted as a whole is like a launcher and each campaign is like separate game: ammount of maps, weaponry, equipment etc. will be something that would sold as a whole game by other companies. Treat campaigns separetely.
Russians in Normandy were suggested by this quote:
I agree, perhaps instead of separating playerbase between each campaign, they could have 2 different modes, historical and arcade (just like in War Thunder).
Just throw all allies together and all axis together in every map for the arcade version. But allow the historical mode for those who are more keen on historical accuracy.
But at the very least they should combine the progress for each nation throughout all campaigns.
So how would you combat fully upgraded German squads stomping the newly introduced British in North Africa since they’d be fully upgraded? The current system is the best way to do it without having one team be massive underdogs for a month every time a new campaign drops. Also, different weapons are worth different amount of stars (or aren’t available because they didn’t exist) so you can’t really balance that with a shared campaign.
But why should they waste time and resources to create another “mode”"that is completely against their vision of the game?
One can not satisfy literally everyone so it you came to Enlisted expecting such arcade mode that you described than sorry, you are not the target of the game.
I mean they did created Lone fighters to attract people who want more generic FPS experience, but splitting modes to arcade (unhistorical) and historical is a bad idea as that would split players far more in a single campaign.
But I agree, that if Enlisted wants to retain choice what to play (which it should… I refuse to grind for years to get to battle of Berlin for example), it needs to stop splitting playerbase of each campaign.
As much as I dislike Lone fighters it its still nothing compared to bs that would be created by putting all fractions on the same maps… Tiger IIs farming T-60s or Panzer II meeting Sherman Jumbo in a fight for monastery in the middle of Russia.
I’ll say it again, I’m not advocating having just an Allied v Axis game or game mode.
Where I’m coming from is the sheer huge amount of grind that will be required to enjoy multiple campaigns. The devs will 100% have a design ethos and intent but you need to recognise that not all of that intent is driving gameplay… With so many different gring systems in the game the intent is to get you to spend money speeding up the grind…
I reckon a more streamlined game (less grind) would attract a larger player base and hence in the long run more $$$ for the developers.
Finally, I’m new to the game & forums so perhaps this has all been discussed at length in the past.
If people can complete everything quicker and grind less, that means less money for the devs considering theres no point to buying premium anything. And the grind right now isn’t that long compared to most ftps