Yeah, it’s completely disgusting. It’s even more hilarious on Berlin. They would do way better to completely get rid off these flags.
3 Likes
I’ve only played a couple matches of Staligrad. I have no idea how the teams are balanced in that campaign.
I’m just saying, from a historical standpoint, you would expect the find the allies as the attackers in normandy, just like you expect to see the allies attacking in Berlin.
Why not make the germans the attackers 90% of the time in Berlin, and defenders 90% of the time in Moscow?
Yes. if they are going to censor the swastika, they did a terrible job at it. They could literally have put nothing on the tail of aircraft (except the aircraft’s paint), and it would be more effective than half of a swastika.
2 Likes
My name is Sheeple.
I haven’t been here for three weeks so I decided to create a topic where I dump everything I could think of.
That’s the only explanation that would make sense. To give people a chance to play offense/defense for their given faction.
But this is only taking the game further away from any form of historical accuracy. It’s simply becoming a FPS shooter with a WW2 theme. Nothing more, nothing less. History is irrelevant.
1 Like
No, your name is Forlorn, and you’re a useful idiot. You said so yourself, in your diary entry. So don’t even waste your time.
1 Like
Not as much as planned merging of campaigns. But that’s probably healthiest thing that could happen for this game. Playerbase isn’t really that big to fill 6 seperate campaigns properly. It’s kinda sad ngl but I think it’s nothing horrific. I think this game has pretty bright future. At least for me.
1 Like
It’s definitely a step in the right direction (from a business perspective).
But they really need to be careful with the direction that they take this game (a year from now and beyond).
If they deviate too far away from any form of historical accuracy… then another game is going to come along and take it’s place. There’s way too many FPS shooters in the gaming market, and if DF takes Enlisted down a path that is not what they have originally marketed the game to be, they will lose much more than they’ve ever gained.
1 Like
There’s is already HLL that does way better job in this matter. I think enlisted is more casual game tho. So it’s not that big par of deal.
1 Like
One of the single-best decisions they can make, to fix the broken matchmaking and low player count, is to incorporate continuous lobbies that take players from one match, to the next.
If they allowed players to stay in lobby, this will allow people to play match-after-match with each other.
People can come-and-go as they please, and there would be a constant pool of players who enter games to fill empty seats.
This would remedy the problem with matches that have 80-100% human players on one team, and only 30-50% human players on the other team. This simple implementation, would eliminate all the matches that are only 50-70% full.
And by allowing players to stay in the lobby, there would be a 60-90 second idle period for players to review stats, quick-swap gear/loadout, and also implement a map-voting feature that allows players a choice of 2-3 different maps/game modes.
Problem solved.
Well after spending enough time on this forum, a random person would probably not view this game as casual or friendly.
For example: How many posts have you read, where somebody has complained about their teammates for not contributing.
-Not building rally points
-Not pushing the objective
-Sniping when they should be up front with an assualt rifle
-Grey zone tanking
-Pilots who aren’t good
-PC players who hate console players
-Etc.
If the game was casual, why are so many people so concerned about what their teammates are doing?
Do you really think casuals are visiting forums and things like that? Every game has tryhards and decent players. But I still think majority of enlisted playerbase are just casuals.
There’s like 10 loud guys here on forum that consistently btching about nearly anything related to this game. Is it somewhat relevant? Nah, I don’t think so.
2 Likes
Blue berries are the real enemy in every game. 
very true lol
Cause its HEAT rockets no splash
BTW axis Normandy looks like this now
Germans also counter attacked allies
Art is interpreted by the individual. So what’s your interpretation of the image that you sent, in the context of Axis Normandy? The same photo could be applied to the game as a whole. And many other things too.
But at what ratio? Did the Germans lose Normandy because they were counter-attacking? Or did they lose Normandy, because they were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of allied forces that were pouring in from the beaches (once they were secured)?
133,000 soldiers landed on the beaches on June 6th 1944, during the beginning of the D-Day invasion. By June 30th over 850,000 soldiers, 148,000 vehicles, and 570,000 tons of supplies had been deployed to Normandy’s Beaches. And then deployed inland.
Logistically speaking, it was the entrance and gateway for the allies to coordinate/deploy soliders, vehicles, and supplies deeper into the country, as they attacked the Germans and pushed them out of France**[/u].
And also the 23,000 paratroopers that were deployed behind/within enemy lines…
Sure… the Germans attempted to counter-attack the Americans. But they were overwhelmed, and most of their energy was allocated towards defending and maintaining their strategic positions around the country-side.
There was also the difficulty of logistics (delivering ammunition/supplies) to German soldiers on the front lines, when the paratroopers were sabotaging/occupying bridges and key transportation routes. Where most of the counter-attacks by the Germans, were attempts to keep the supply lines open.
(France was liberated of German occupation August 25th, 1944)
For this game, the Germans should dominantly play as the defenders during Invasion game-modes.
When you reach for historical facts, don’t take a passage out of its full context.
D-Day is just a landing. The fighting in Normandy is a whole series of campaigns to establish a foothold to strike at Antferp and the river Rhine. Counterattacks by German forces were very frequent there.
Why do you believe I am confusing Normandy campaign and D-Day?
I was referencing the maps D-Day and Ver-Sur-Mer as the only beach-landing maps within the Normandy Campaign. And I said one of these maps is rarely on rotation, because Conquest and Assault are the dominant game modes (which voids the beach-landing segment of Ver-Sur-Mer). Thus, leaving D-Day as the only beach-landing map on rotation.
And then I explained how as of recently, the German team is being placed as the attackers for the majority of the matches in Normandy campaign (for invasion game-modes).
And I touched historical facts, regarding the allied forces dominately being the attackers during the Normandy Invasion, while the Germans were defending the territory they had been occupying for four years (Normandy and France as a whole).
The point is that the Germans should dominately be on the defending side for this campign (during invasion game modes).
And* it would be nice to take conquest/assault off of Ver-Sur-Mer’s rotation, and make Invasion as the primary game mode (so we can have a second beach landing map available to the players).
And* it would be cool to get additional beach landing maps that are historically accurate.
Take your pick: Omaha Beach, Juno Beach, Utah Beach, Gold Beach, and/or Sword Beach.