With the next big update approaching, one of the most discussed topics is the merging of campaigns.
I know this has been a controversial topic, with varied opinions among community members. I would like to share my perspective on why I believe that merging campaigns can be beneficial for Enlisted. By merging campaigns, we will have access to a wider range of maps, units, and equipment in a single campaign, which can lead to more varied battles and more diverse gaming experiences. Additionally, with more content in a single campaign, there is potential for better balance between factions, which can result in more competitive and fair matches. Having a unified campaign can also help consolidate the community, making it easier to find matches and interact with other players.
The fact that the game is no longer divided into campaigns facilitates the development of new game modes and new mechanics.
Advantages:
Before, a player who was playing in a specific campaign could only have access to a limited set of maps and units. With the merging, this player can now experience battles in different historical scenarios and use a wider variety of units and equipment without having to change campaigns.
If the developers want to introduce a new game mechanic, they can do so more efficiently and consistently in a unified campaign, instead of having to adapt and balance the mechanic for multiple separate campaigns.
Disadvantages:
A new player who is just starting to learn the game mechanics may feel overwhelmed with the amount of maps, units, and equipment available, making the learning harder.
Possible Loss of Historical Authenticity
I invite you to highlight more advantages and disadvantages and possible solutions to these issues.
Disadvantage (to me): not being able to choose the campaign you fight in. One of the biggest draws to enlisted (for me) was being to choose what campaign I could fight in.
Can add new equipment or vehicles wherever in time line, doesn’t always have to one up, like the last system.
more inline with Warthunder, can potentially pull from Warthunders vast resources
More potential for minor factions/gear
Disadvantages:
I love moscow maps, But I might end up in Tunisia or Stalingrad. Bit of a bummer when I have a hankering for just Moscow
uptiering will stilll be a thing. Wouldnt be suprised if a Panzer II or Panzer III 37 mm still ends up seing T-50s or T-34s, Or KV-1s seeing Tigers
Population Shift will still be most popular around the Strongest BRS. There will be sweet spots (example first t-34 will likely be a sweet spot and see many Soviet players, and few Germans, Tiger Likely to be another sweetspot)
Don’t you think this can be compensated for with several new game modes?
What if one day we can choose which location we want to play and the game mode? With lots of new players it might be possible
Most of the gamemodes are the same (to me at least) capture or defend a point and kill anything that moves. (except the train gamemode, but everybody seems to hate that). I would like the option to choose to play maybe Normandy sometimes with bolt actions, instead of getting thrown into the Pacific or Tunisia.
I also like the idea right now that the USMC (pacific) is separate from the US army (Tunisia/Normandy).
My ideal campaign merge, is if you bought an M3 in the pacific, you could use that same one, in Normandy.
That’s true, but what if you just started to play the game, and you didn’t have any high tier weapons that separate campaigns, and you wanted to play a specific one?
Maybe unlocking campaigns? (like we do with weapons and materials) This way people wouldn’t be chucked into games with veterans of the campaigns with high tier weapons and could start in campaigns that have relatively low BRs.
