that would be nice to but the option just to buy the guns would be cool aswell
I think I’d be okay with this. Kinda like buying expansion packs for the groups.
And if they ever take any of what I said seriously in my Balancing thread, the ability to expand my infantry squad to say…12 troopers, at the cost of removing say 2 from my Bomber squad etc.
see the guns on this squad of mine…
they are all batlepass weapons. wouldnt mind your option tho. so i could buy said guns right away more…
ps: mk35/III its avaiable on normandy, berlin and moscow. next batle pass i ill buy 2 more, so i can have another “batlepass” squad … lol just because…
1 Like
no same weapons as premium squads but you could buy just the guns instead if you dont want the squad with extra benefits
that, would make the premium squads even more “useless”
i wouldnt mind buying said weapons, but at the end of the day, what i trully want its the same squad composition as normal squads.
there is not a single reason to have premiums with 4 man that cant change soldiers or weapons or what ever just for the 100% xp .
Why do they need to do that and then add a whole other layer of monetization, when they can just add back random troops for bronze orders and keep the new level up system. Make it so that soldiers from random troop reinforcements are always of rank I, and then players will use bronze soldier orders to either get a bunch of low-tier troops, or upgrade them. This fixes the biggest problem caused by the academy removal, which is getting enough troops at the start of a new campaign. My Berlin Axis squads are all 1 member short, and I don’t have any spare troops in reserve. I can’t even strip soldiers from new squads I unlock and assign them to my main ones since I need to meet the 4-man minimum for a squad that’s immediately going to the reserve. If I can’t get enough troops in Berlin, how am I going to get any in future campaigns like the Pacific?
They need to because if you remove one layer of monetization you need to replace it with something else. And to be honest this idea makes the most sense because it adds something useful, for F2P players, while removing nothing. And the layer of monetization, does not break game balance etc.
2 Likes
So, im not aware of “paint jobs” done in WW2,
which makes we wonder why it wasnt done.
Cool cosmetics for guns could be something like cloth netting on your mosin snipers, since that was rly a thing.
But spray paint on your Stg? dont know, can someone find real footage of guns getting interesting modifications? That would be a good start for a discussion like that.
Yes, yes, love that idea !
ppl: what part(s) of this thread do you like?
me: YES
1 Like
Thank you all for the support in this thread, its appreciated.
1 Like
BIG TIME!!!
I would love to see a cosmetic layer added to this game, however since I am such a fan boy of immersion, I would also like to see it have some standards, such as historically “inspired” aka… no large top hats on units, and or bright pink guns.
1 Like
100% agree, sell the cosmetics, but historically accurate only.
I don’t want Blue Digital Camo on a troop of Panzergrenediers.
makes me sad to see the same threads of alpha closed test where me and many others in the alpha suggested the same thing ( outside of bronze and silver orders, because those were not a thing there. it were mainly under one category of trooper cards and weapons cards. no bronze, no silvers, nothing of all of this. ).
but yet. people are asking for cosmetic options ( and back then ) different type of premium models.
didn’t changed much since then.
just, not many alpha testers are still around as " we " used to before…
i have this impression that… they are not willing to listen, and never will.
with this said, you still got my support, if that’s still means something now days.
because i’m all about cosmetics. different camos, different uniforms, different insignas, different type of woods, and many other things.
but…
let’s just still hoping for some miracle.
maybe will happens.
or maybe not.
1 Like
I was unfortunately not around during the Alpha part of this game so I never knew that this was something that was already suggested (i’ll redact my thoughts as if they were my own then, I don’t want to take credit for someone elses idea).
I used to think that way, for the longest time. Then I got the opportunity to work on the opposite side of the fence for WG, and it helped to temper my one sided thoughts. Devs do, at times listen and are actively watching forums for ideas that they can help implement.
The difference maker is, and its why you’ll see me almost always make rational posts, because Devs will not respond to vitriol posts of anger / hate / and ultimatums
Your support is always welcome, no matter what. Thank you.
1 Like
nah, you don’t have to.
just a my reflection about the past. i don’t blain you for not being there.
i was, and things weren’t that different. that’s all 
eh… i find this one hard to believe as well hun…
i often was delusional, and our delusion brought us here, i almost feel guilty because back in the alpha despite being:
the opposite, always being nice, posting suggestions on the actual problems, and solutions that would benefict everyone.
and yet, fgs are still here, and the other trilions of problems.
the reason why many of us becomed ranty and stuff, it’s because things didn’t changed that often ( and if they did, not for your own good as you can see ).
cheers i guess
I wish I could show you the emails and the chat transcripts just to give you a glimmer of hope. But I can’t risk it with an NDA not set to expire until next year ( I think).
Not saying that that is the case here, I have zero experience with Darkflow.
But I can hope right?
I can’t speak of the other problems, but I can say that in terms of weapon balancing, it is not a quick process if you want it done right. Look at what happened when they ‘adjusted’ bolt action accuracy. It was a knee jerk reaction to a problem that they didn’t fully understand the consequences of.
As a result, they had to basically trash god knows how many hours of Developer and engineer work as a result.
Things, especially in Betas can take a long time to Iron out. One game I was involved with was almost 2 years in Alpha, and 1 in Beta before there was a solid enough foundation for a 1.0 release.
Paitence nowadays with games can be non-existant with a player base and that can lead to rash decisions by the Dev team (look at the pressure the poor Valheim Dev team is facing as a result of their games success, they are struggling and the player base is annoyed that 5 people can’t give them content faster, we have become a ‘me now’ society which can kill games).
What I would like from DF is more communication with the player base on acknowledgement of issues they are current in the works with.
That alone could help appease the player base.
He never suggested doing that in the first place. You just went out into the fields and built strawmen so you could say something negative rather than constructive…