Dont worry, Helpers already stated it’s mistake. Those tanks will remain exclusive.
1 Like
This makes my pilots and tankers concerned, please keep VG1-5 available to them as well.
honestly i am not gonna lie, the point that stuff that we though were going to be removed being back to the tree makes me happy. Now i just want to see a devblog about the BR system.
it really didnt do anything… you didnt get rid of any progression and it doesnt represent BR.
you just got 4 weapons per tier instead of 2.
Italy and the UK.
This overhaul is a great opportunity to make a standalone British/Commonwealth and Italy faction, a.k.a. brand new content with minimal effort (in comparison to building a brand new faction like France or Finland for example), so I really don’t understand why the equipment of both of those nation are integrated to the US and Germany respectively, I can only describe this as short sighted and close the door on so many potential content for 1) those said potential new nations 2) the nations they are integrated in where it will too the space other new vehicle would have been added and make the grind longer for vehicles and weapons that don’t belong here i the first place.
I’m just going to use the example of US SMGs to show that they really are not needed to make more contents in the US tree : why not introduce variants of each Thompson SMGs with each a subvariant for each available magazine size with a different BR each ?
For exemple :
- Thompson M1A1 w/ 20-round magazine
- Thompson M1A1 w/ 30-round magazine
- Thompson M1 w/ 20-round magazine
- Thompson M1 w/ 30-round magazine
- Thompson M1928A1 w/ 20-round magazine
- Thompson M1928A1 w/ 30-round magazine
- Thompson M1928A1 w/ 50-round drum
You can make exception to that however, like I wouldn’t mind the Germans keeping a MAB smg, they Historically used a significant number of them and it use the same pistol cartridge they were already using themselves.
Optional : same treatment for the Thompson 1928, and God knows I’m against giving the US the M1928 giving that it was never adopted by the US military but for some reason it was given to a premium squad in the Pacific campaign (but was by the British, an other thing that would make this faction more unique an appealing btw) :
- Thompson M1928 w/ 20-round magazine
- Thompson M1928 w/ 30-round magazine
- Thompson M1928 w/ 50-round magazine
But just with the initial proposition you have now 7 new SMGs you can give different BR to make things more interesting and more flexible and avoid putting stuff from an other nation needlessly.
I know this post isn’t about BR in the first place but it tie to my suggestion : you could for exemple make the last variant of a Thompson and the first of the next one the same BR, so now players can choose between higher mag capacity or lower but better stats like recoil and rate of fire.
Automatic Rifles
In addition, I HIGHLY suggested a revamp of automatic rifles in the game (the rifleman version of the FG 42 I & II, AVS-36 and AVT-36) those weapons are currently extremely imbalanced being able to be equipped to very class that doesn’t have a specialized primary weapon.
Imo they should really be switched to be entry weapons for the Gunner class, which would prevent needing to fill this spot by borderline fictional options but also give to those nations weapons that basically have the role the BAR has in the US tree : a LMG without the movement speed penalty. And of course address that late game unbalance.
Conclusion :
To conclue, both of those additions would make, in my opinion, a night and day difference on how this update is perceived, how future content could be easily added and how balance is done while respecting a level of historical accuracy that really seems to get lowered again and again as time passes.
I’m going to go on a slight tangent on that last part, I really suggest keeping in mind one of the main reasons games like the more recent WWII “themed” Call of Duty games and BFV overall failed : if you want to make a WWII game, your target demographic is people interested at different levels about WWII, and the less you make it feell like WWII, the smaller your pool of potential players is, especially if one of your selling argument on the mian page of the website is, and I quote : (about the scale of the game) “true historical battle atmosphere” , (about the atmosphere of the game) “dense historical battles”.
There is a point where taking too much liberty in accuracy while still claiming having “historical battles” is going to backfire.
I don’t wan’t Enlisted to be too historically accurate either because i would end up not be fun at all with how the core mechanics of the game work, but it still need to be imo a very important criteria when changing or adding stuff in the game.
3 Likes
I agree, this is important. I do use VG on tankers as well.
In H&G I used to play as “panzergrenadier”.
My friend (often even random ppl) was driving a tank and I was running around him with SMG and a repair tool. While he was dealing with long range and armored targets, I was killing enemy AT soldiers and repairing him when needed.
Good times.
Sadly I can’t really do this here.
5 Likes
This is fatal enough, and I think that many turning points in history are determined by details.
And delay after delay brings nothing but panic, fear that all the hard work has gone down the drain, that they’ve all been forcibly confiscated and deleted. Just like with Assault 1, the old version raised Italian and British, legions and soldiers. As well as a large number of German legions of the same type, will be dusted off in warehouses when the fronts merge. The guns, projectiles, engineering items, etc. you’ve amassed will likely still depreciate in value, and the cards you’ve even kept will probably depreciate in value as well, and you’ll have to re-invest after iterating and refining your tables without knowing which will be the final version. Not to mention not knowing if the corps you spent dollars and rubles on will be someone else’s gaming experience in the future.
Well until Japan has actual equipment beyond T2 I will avoid it like the black plague. Facing Jumbos and P47s doesn’t sound very fun with 1941-42 equipment. You’re killing off Pacific Axis.
Even the number of unlocks required to climb between stages will be higher, and developing new items will be more expensive once you get to the next stage.
they will just increase cost of all tiers. they will never be at the loss…
1 Like
I was doing the same, BUT with binoculars.
Spotted targets for the big cats. They were, in truth, very fat snipers.
3 Likes
It would be better to cancel this update and rethink of something new. The progress and BR are complex, confusing and honestly i dont believe it will solve the problem. The fun of the game will be removed as games in top tiers gear will be competitive matches only. I can see players downgrading equipment to play more accessible games. Cancel this update and replan. This is not the way
4 Likes
And now the histrionics begin…
Whelp there went the levelheaded practical discussion. Now time for the fearmongers to step in.
M3 SMG “What am I? A joke to you?”
Tier doesn’t reflects BR, it means literally nothing in the matter of balance. Japan still wouldn’t be able to encounter Jumbos, I am pretty sure of it.
1 Like
Not to mention the Zero will clown the P-47 in many cases.
Still I can see his fears. I can see it happening. A Jumbo could be awful. But, then it will be time to remind them that the get endgame infantry AT weapons ALREADY. And the pacific maps aren’t the most tank friendly maps. And Japan has good anti-tank attack planes.
1 Like
But I don’t share any of their basic views, I’m not arguing against the updata, my panic is that the df is too undisciplined, like one feels when one writes only the introduction, the overview of the study, and part of the first chapter of the study in a dissertation. And this thesis is still a draft, yes, what is posted today is also a draft, the Russian part has already said: “If there are enough proposals, there will be a third edition”, and the br, the price, etc. have not been written yet.
1 Like
possibly not. Possibly with another extension.