I completely agree that their physics need desperate help, but even with that being the case, the sheer number of them on the board at once is very problematic.
(My group was trying to play as Axis Normandy last night, as we RARELY see them win, and we wanted to see just how bad the issues were. Anyways, we were repeatedly running into teams that had 4-7 active flamethrowers at any given time. There was absolutely nothing we could do about it.)
1 Like
If the area is too large though, such as in the case of Moscow “Monastery”, the attackers don’t actually have to ENTER the position in question to capture it. Instead, they cluster up outside of it and spam the inside with explosives and fire, while keeping constant artillery on the back.
The ONLY thing that will fix majority of the issues is allowing for actual defenses to be set, and I’m talking about defenses in FRONT and SIDES of the objective. Not spamming barbwire in the front door like everyone does right now.
This is also the reason that flamethrowers are such a big issue. The whole idea of how to counter them is to not let them get close, but to do that you have to be able to build adequate defenses/ hazards that make killing them at that range viable. It currently is not, which is exactly WHY so many people run flamethrowers to begin with. They are incredibly difficult to effectively counter.
that is a design issue, not a size issue
but it’s not really, because that is how the game plays on any map
one team pushes the other team back far enough to the point where one team can get on the objective and the other cannot, that is just how it works regardless of what you do to flamethrowers or anything else
and if both teams are just sitting and not clearing, that can happen on any objective size, that is a player thing
There is nothing stopping you from setting defenses except the enemy killing you, which will happen regardless of the size of the objective
the real thing you want is more time to prepare a defense, and I understand that, but that is a different topic
we used to have the ability to stack barb wire, that was a lot of fun, but they killed all that fun and now you can only put it in limited places
it’s like the rally point placement nerf, we used to place almost anywhere, then somehow they thought it would be a good idea to limit it to only perfectly flat surfaces, and so they literally killed many placement locations overnight, again, bandaid solutions to the wrong problem, the story of this game
Well larger objectives would make it more difficult for them to clear a small objective so easily, and they would have to move around more making themselves more exposed to get taken out, which would help a little bit
but again that won’t stop one team full of them from spamming the battlefield
my guess is that they probably think the new br system will be the fix
and it will be for the br that don’t have the flamethrowers as they just won’t see them in their games, but it won’t fix anything for the br that do have them, if anything it will be worse for the br with flamethrowers as there will be less players in that br playing other things, so the flamethrowers in that br are going to reach new heights of toxic, which then pushes players away from that br to go down and beat the other players that don’t have a choice of br
which again highlights and exposes the stupidity of the br system
So hear me out here:
If the objective sizes were smaller, such as only within the wall and on defenders’ side on monastery, only INSIDE the bunkers on maps like Normandy, etc. rather than a big chunk of area OUTSIDE of the structures as well, it would force attackers to actually push into the objectives. This means that choke points are effective again, and where breakthrough forces are necessary to get in and clear the objective.
Right now, the area is so large that you have defenders trying to focus on too many different entry points AND having to clear them off the outside as well, leaving the fortified area to clean up the front, just to hold the position.
I’ll come back to this.
It’s not just about TIME to prepare a defense, its about the LOCATION of the fortifications for that defense. As I said before, spamming barbwire in the door should not be the main form of “defense”. An extremely important part of GOOD defenses is TRENCHED WIRE. Putting wire in the trench not only makes it more effective, but its the ONLY way to make it survive at all against the constant rain of artillery fire, rockets, and bombs. This takes time but it also takes knowledge of where the objective will be in order to be effective.
By using fortifications like this, you actually get to play the field in front of the objective as a defender. This is the area that SHOULD be slowing down enemies and giving you the space to deal with especially lethal units such as flamethrowers.
Instead, we are forced to fight directly on the objective almost every single time, which will usually result in loss for defenders. Especially due to the fact they can’t remove any of the capture progress that attackers have made on Invasion mode. So attackers just throw bodies on point and spray the entire area with flame and they take it.
My overall point is that smaller objectives, within structures and not around them, coupled with time and knowledge of where objectives will be, allows for better defensive strategies to be implemented. In turn, it gives attackers an actual interesting fight (including a reason to use smoke and push up with tanks!) rather than just spraying HE and fire at the objective then standing around and capping.
that is all that will happen if they make all the objectives tiny as you suggest, one flametrooper, one or two grenades and all your preparations get undone in one second, and now with paratroopers, it’s easier than ever to bypass any defenses you can prepare
a larger objective and more time to prepare would make battles more interesting and make flametroopers less attractive and prominent
also larger objectives and if they made the effort to program the bots to run to more than one location would put a stop to the stacking of bots all in one spot that makes them like a pinata that is a race to see who pops it off first in those tiny objectives
much larger wider front objectives would best suit the amount of players in matches now
if you wanted to make tiny objectives as you suggest, then the player per match should be reduced even further to say 3-4 player per side and total 6 squads max including bots
even now that is how it should be, there is too many bodies on such tiny objectives that easily get wiped by anything such as flames
it’s a waste of the map potential and battlefields that this game can provide but chooses not to use
if we look at all these wonderful maps they have, and they applied a heat map of the areas most commonly used, you would notice that barely any of the map is used, it’s just wasted
having larger objectives would force players to fight over fronts more, making the battlefield more dynamic and interesting and would stop the dominance of such things such as tanks, planes, flames, nades, arty etc…
would also bring back a focus on communication and teamwork, because players would actually benefit from keeping each other informed of where the front is shifting
whereas currently, the front is very obvious, and it’s easy to blindly deny it to the opponent, paratroopers changed this a little bit, but not much, as the players per team is the real decider for which team dominates
even if they gave you the next objective ahead of time, so you could go prepare defenses
the amount of time you sacrificed to build that stuff, is not worth the benefit it might provide later, especially when it is so easy to destroy
it’s fun to do, and I get that
but the lack of your unit fighting is more destructive to your team, then the benefit of the stuff you built
only two things really worth building on most matches, rally and ammo
and in some maps/matches the emplaced weapons
To some degree, I get what you are talking about with the larger objectives, about them not all get wiping out at once. HOWEVER, my issue with it still stands that its too easy to overtake large objectives due to a lack of a way to thin out the enemies coming onto the objective.
Invasion mode is the primary mode that is played, and I refence the balance particularly with that in mind.
Defenders cannot reverse the amount of the objective taken. Once progress has been made, there is nothing that they can do.
So the BEST thing that they can do is try to keep the majority of the fight off the objective as a whole, and deal with the reduced and injured enemies coming in to fight on the objective.
The whole point of smaller objectives is to force the enemy to attempt to “breakthrough” to capture.
Perhaps they can work on increasing the durability of them. Even so, they would still be forced to go through fortifications one way or another by decreasing objective size, rather than just allow them to cap by standing on a big wide open area.
To loop this exact point back around with the main topic, which is my entire point, consider how much more difficult it would be to get that devastating flametrooper in to the objective. The defenders might be packed a little tighter, but if there aren’t 4+ different flamethrower squads to constantly be trying to contend with, then a LOT of that pinata effect is removed.
Plus it makes the feeling of using the flamethrower squads and successfully getting in and burning out a fortified position FAR more satisfying, whereas right now its overused and not really special at all besides being busted OP.
I get what you are going for, and I do agree the game as a whole would be more enjoyable if fortifications had more of a role to play in the game
however the devs have proven repeatedly that they don’t care about that type of game, they nerfed fortifications already in the past
they want this game to be speedy arcade game
they ruined the mortars, they ruined the radio squads all for the same issue, they fail to realize that having a tiny objective was the real problem, so they ruined other aspects of the game
the pinata effect only gets removed if the objectives get larger, much larger, and the ai is better programmed to spread out more and not stack in a tiny area
regarding the idea that a tiny objective and improved fortifications would keep out flamethrowers is a pipe dream and not reality
what keeps the flamethrowers out, is if your team is better than their team, then you kill them before they get to the objective anyway
so this notion that a small objective would give you that result is false, it already happens
the thing that determines if it happens is dependent largely on the players and what they are doing and which team has the stacked team with better players and gear, vehicles etc…
a team decides whether it allows flametroopers to be effective or not
Flametrooper players usually quit out of those matches because they cannot even get on the objective, and it has nothing to do with the fortifications being used at the objective, because if they could get there, they would just burn everything anyway
players are what are keeping the other teams flamethrowers from getting near the objective, not the fortifications
No actually the devs DO listen to their players. It might take them a while to implement things, but they do listen.
The issue is that the players pushing for run-and-gun and speedy arcade type stuff just happen to be the most VOCAL. I guarantee you that if enough players got together and agreed on slowing the game down, involving more strategy, finding a stronger balance, the devs WOULD listen.
Their ultimate focus is to make money, and there is no problem with that. They are currently trying to match up against other fast-paced shooters like Warzone, Apex, etc as a F2P game. If they see that players are overall more interested in a UNIQUE game experience that they have the means to provide, and profit greatly from, I have absolutely no doubt that is what they will do.
I beg to differ.
On the few maps that DO have guaranteed objective locations, I go back and set up. The scoreboard tells a really interesting story, and no I’m not talking about the scores.
At the start of the game there are always at least 3 people that quit from the defenders side. As the game carries on each side may lose a player. If its a steamroll and they hit the fortified lines, there is almost a guarantee of 2-3 players quitting from the attackers side.
This tells me that many players automatically assume a loss when being put on defense. However, when faced with decent fortifications, players that had no problem steam rolling and caring none at all for game balance got frustrated and quit, rather than even attempting to adjust their tactics.
My point is that a better balance needs to be achieved to where defenders have the “home field advantage”, so there are less defenders quitting outright, and attackers are pushed to actually ADAPT in different fortification situations, keeping the game from getting boring.
you are making an arbitrary assumption that quitters quit because of being on the defensive side without considering or more importantly KNOWING the exact reason why they quit, there could be many more reasons, and it could be completely unrelated to being on the defensive side, they just happen to be on the defensive side…sure some might have that as a reason for quitting, but to presume that is all of them, sorry, don’t buy it
I like your optimism on the direction of the game, however I do not share it, because obviously there is a track record that does not support your conclusions and that track record is consistent to this day
there are maps where players will cry that it’s too hard to attack, but it’s never the map, it’s the players playing the match…because if you swap the teams, the other team will easily attack and easily win
you have the same issue, you don’t understand the issue, so you invent these ridiculous notions out of thin air and expect us all to go along with them, but they are just your fantasies, they are not based on reality
the reality is still the same, the players are deciding matches, not how much fortifications you put up or how much time you get to put up fortifications…if you are going against a weak team with only a few players and your team is stacked, then your fortifications might be a little helpful to annoy the few that reach them, but if you are on the weak team, the strong team will overrun your fortifications easily, and no amount of fortifications can replace a good team of players, it just doesn’t exist, it’s a fantasy world you are living in
and I don’t mind if fortifications are beefed up, I preferred when we could stack a tonne of barb wire on top of itself, that was better than what we have now and was more fun to face and to have
but the arcade players cried and cried about it, and then got their wish, so you can thank them for it
and don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of digging in and entreching the place, I tried to drive a tank down one road and saw someone had dug up a massive deep trench, and having experience being stuck in a trench with a tank before, I was forced to find another path, I appreciate that kind of thing in this game, so I do agree with having it in the game
and I do agree that flametroopers need to be limited to maximum only 2 out at one time, probably only one really. But then you risk upsetting the players that want to play it and can’t because someone else has the slot, but I personally rather that than seeing 6 flametroopers out at the same time throughout an entire match, which is where the new system will make more common
same issue that exists with tanks and planes, but it works there, because otherwise we would be playing warthunder 
notice it was also an issue with radios, but it was forced to be the way it is, and now people have no choice but to accept it or leave
same with this new system they bringing in, they forcing too much that is gradually squeezing certain players away and only catering to a limited group, shrinking their playerbase with every change
don’t have to state the obvious that this is a bad idea and always kills games do I?
I WOULD agree with you, if it weren’t for the fact that I am seeing it happen across all campaigns, every map, different factions. The common denominator being that it is defense that they are quitting out of.
Please tell me, what other reason could there be for people leaving primarily from the defenders side every single game, OTHER than because they are on defense?
Every game does this in some way or another. Ultimately it comes down to either “what is the developers’ vision for the game” or “what brings in the largest playerbase”.
As for “the developers’ vision”, the original advertisements and videos they put out made it seem like they had the vision of large scale conflict with a mix of grunts, vehicles, and fortified positions, that immersed the player in WW2 combat.
That is still achievable, but in order to do so, certain restrictions need to be made, as you are allowed to respawn and other arcade features, rather than actually valuing your life and trying to survive while still winning the scenario.
Flamethrowers as my example: actual flamethrower units didn’t run ahead of their squad and start spraying in the middle of a field. There also was CONSIDERABLY fewer of them in comparison to other soldiers. Look at D-Day for example. They pushed up with normal troops first against HEAVILY fortified positions, and when they got enough of a foothold, then they started taking flamethrowers to the trenches and bunkers. They didn’t spray across open ground with them. Their PURPOSE was to eliminate entrenched units.
That type of immersion is not being felt at all when there are 4-6 squads of flamethrowers cycling through consistently. When you see flamethrowers more often than AT soldiers, Snipers, and radio operators combined.
That is why restrictions need to be made.
Once Again we are not having the same experience, I am not seeing this happen across every campaign on every map on different factions. In fact I see the common thing for quitting as one team being weak, whether attacking or defending has absolutely zero relevance, and a snowball of quitters ensues, and that is what causes the imbalance in this game, the quit culture. Hell, some the best matches I have been involved in, was when 2-3 maybe even 4 of us remaining players were able to defeat a stacked team of players on the other team whilst 6-8 people quit on our team, and that can happen on offense or defense from my experience
so this idea that it’s only on defensive situations is unfounded, you must have a very different experience to me if you only see that, I see equally many matches where the defenders make the offensive team rage quit and the the match is a competition between the defenders team to farm spawns and it’s just a spawn camping fest
I agree with your assessment of how flametroopers should be implemented compared to how they are, but look at paratroopers, it’s the same nonsense, this game has just gone too arcade, it’s a joke
the developers vision is about fast pace action non stop, because that is their market, and that’s fun to an extent, but I agree with you, it needs a middle ground for more interesting battle scenarios that have some historical immersion
and right now this game is squeezing all of that out, and what is left is becoming more and more like every other game out there, and enlisted is losing what made it unique
Take a look at my posts! lol. I definitely am NOT a fan of Paratroopers currently. They are just as broken as flametroopers, and in fact hold a unique relationship with flamethrowers that just make them even more broken together!
- Paratroopers come down, grab a construction hammer, build a rally point, and what squad is usually first or second out of spawn? Flamethrowers, and now they have positional advantage that they would very rarely have been able to achieve on their own or even through the use of any other squad than paratroopers.
Either I am having a different experience, or perhaps you just haven’t noticed it because you weren’t looking for it.
For me, the defenders lose players right away, sometimes it snowballs after that, sometimes not.
Depending on how quickly the attackers start pushing through objectives is what usually determines how many more leave. If its only a matter of a minute or two between objectives, more defenders leave pretty quick.
HOWEVER, in the instances that I AM able to set up defenses, I usually see a chunk of the attackers quit out upon hitting decent defenses. At least one but an average of 2-3 players quit from the offensive side when this occurs. If they are held up for more than 4 minutes on average, they quit. Not because they “can’t win” but because they “can’t win QUICKLY”.
I know this, because I’ve reached out and talked to them pretty often when it does happen. The response is just as I said. They don’t want to try fighting through a game where they are actually met with resistance. They are only interested in games that they are able to steamroll, and they quit out of any defense games they get into as well.
So they are ONLY focused on playing attack, and only if they can win without much of a fight.
don’t get me wrong, I do understand that being aggressive is what favors a team, and in general I believe that does result in offensive minded teams winning more games
all I am saying is that defending teams can and do also apply that aggressive mindset and then they run the offensive team away with that same focus
so in a way, the defensive team becomes the offensive team, because they are actively pushing back the attackers
and this is why I say that is the real decider of matches
I also see what you are saying, where defenders will quickly lose one or two points and then quit and make it very difficult for any players that remain to hold up the advance
but I also see this happen for the attackers, where if the players see that they are not being helped in pushing, they will just leave, and then the remaining players have no chance of pushing outnumbered and outclassed
which leads to my point, it’s all about the quit culture in this game