Make moscow a training campaign

M1 and Garand are awesome, cant compare it to G41
at least they are very Präzise
Believe me, Normandy the US got awesome Stuff. I play all 10 Campaigns everyday.
There i have
85%Winrate with US 250Games
and 65% with Axe 850 Games

all that awesome stuff that the US gets only starts to happen at lvl 20 while before that it’s all meh and i still use the m1 carbine after 400 battles of allied normandy but i say that because m1 carbine in normandy has to fight the FNAB, MP34(o), and MP40 all fire faster than it as well as being automatics. this is just stuff around it’s level btw because i could have just said that it has to fight FG42 and FG42II(sniper) and be done with it.

also i have 422 games as normandy allies and 445 as axis with the WR being 76.66%(us) and 82.1%(germany)

1 Like

Whatever you arcade players like, I don’t care.

I’m a custom mod player and I just want more vehicle and weapon toys AND a spawn score mechanic for different types of squads



1 Like

Did you not even read the title of the thread? I’ve already said i’m not against balance, if it’s realistic. The title of the thread is “Possible Moscow Balance”, it’s “Make Moscow a training campaign”

You really can’t read, can you? When have I been hypocritical? I said essentially to put the weapons as close to their IRL stats as possible. Asymmetrical balance is a thing too.

Then what should be the stats of each weapon? That’s is literally what I mean by “actual suggestions”. An actual suggestion would include what is wrong, what it should be in order to fix it, and why it should be that and not another number.

I was still going through the thread, that second post was me changing my mind. Which is why that second post was a reply to the initial one I made. I agree with most of the changes listed in your reply too. I’ve actively complained too about premium squads not having the level of customization of free squads. Most people buy premium squads for the weapon/vehicle anyways. There was also the Breda in Stalingrad being the Soviets first LMG, which makes no sense having a captured LMG be the first one. Plus the cosmetic prices have been complained about thoroughly, but they’re probably milking the people buying them in Stalingrad before they even consider reducing it. They wouldn’t keep it that high if they weren’t making money. I think there’s a lot of reasons why things don’t get fixed. Could be because the language barrier, because people are assholes, because they’re the devs of the company and probably don’t have full creative control over the game, or that it hurts their ego to be criticized.

“Making it a training campaign” is blatantly a ridicule about the campaign as OP thinks the whole campaign is broken, which it is. Gajin obviously isn’t going to remove player gear or levels in any case. Moscow doesn’t need a complete overhaul, it needs minor adjustments to work as a full fledged campaign.

The narrative here keeps flailing from side to side. The problem isn’t my reading comprehension, the issue is on the reader here. I’m only asking you to stick on the narrative you sit on.
Let me try this one more time:

A) Either Moscow is blatantly imbalanced and should continue to be so,
B) Moscow is not imbalanced and the gear are equal

The answer is A - go ahead and read the whole thread or just believe me here when I tell you - and the suggestions still stand, the last time:

Adjust the T-50 and T-34 weakspots (only weakspots are from the front, a tiny pip next to the gun)
IL-2 rocket salvo (450g of explosive material, basically two hand-grenades worth of it, HEAT) is historically very, very, very, very, very, very inaccurate against tanks, and basically worthless against infantry. They don’t act like 50kg bombs which they now do in game)
The complete, utter lack of recoil from PPSh vs Kiraly. But okay, okay, let’s forget about this, and just reroll the SA nerf. ZA-29 is good enough. Also, G41 reload should be 2x5 rounds which could be stopped after the first 5.

Are these not the fucking concrete suggestions you’ve been crying about, or is there no concretion in them?

The main fucking point here what you fail to recognize, as a whole, as a fucking community, is that when the average player with 2 hours of weekly playtime to waste on this fucking game comes to play the Moscow-campaign, which he probably has invested around eight hours of game time, starts to realize that his fellow counterpart on the other side has better stuff by stock.
The average player probably enjoys that and sticks with the campaign, right?

Then what the fuck is the point of Moscow? “Sure was awful fighting against the Allies, phew? Lets head on to Berlin, that’s a better campaign for the axis!
That’s what the fucking topic is about! That Moscow is a transitional campaign, and it should be finalized as such, because the balance sucks and it “can’t be fixed”!
Can you fucking comprehend what has been written here?


I’m not sitting on any narrative. I don’t give a shit whether or not the side i’m on is OP or not. I’d rather it be historically accurate.

Sure, those are legitimate suggestions. I didn’t see them since I grew tired of reading over 100 fucking posts of arguing and started skimming them over three-quarters in.

I understand what the title is about, I disagree with it though. There is still no motorcycle squads, no medics, no soldier customization, etc. There is no reason to actually stop developing the campaign and to cap it off. If anything, as previously suggested, they should rework on how campaigns progress and ensure that the unlockables are historically accurate (meaning they existed during the time) This would mean you guys would lose the Sniper MKB from Moscow too though, as the earliest record of it was in Leningrad.

1 Like

Hard question, if we take PPSh for example, I dont recall soviets ever releasing its stats in enlisted form back in 1941.
And tbh gameplay + balance > realism.

Lets just say the enemy should have go thru similar effort as I go thru when I kill him or when he kills me.
For example kiraly vs ppsh, its quite meh that with kiraly you have to compensate rather notable recoil while the ppsh’s recoil is technically nonexistent
( around after 20-30 shots fired you need to lightly pull the mouse down barely noticeably )

Sure u can compensate kiraly by bursting & what ever and tbh im willing to keep the current state regarding smg’s.
Atleast kiraly is somewhat capable to compete against ppsh.

Another example, tanks. Yeah it gives the game somewhat intresting flavour when tanks has different weakspots.
But when the weakspots are divided in very christianic way that other side gets the tiny ports as theyr weakspots and the other faction gets entire tank as weakspot its yet again quite shit.
Especiatly considering the fact that when ever you hit the weakspot its still not in anyway guaranteed that you get the kill or even penetrate the tank.
And again, same shit the other faction goes thru alot more effort in order to get the said kill than the other.
In current state theres no such thing as tank on tank combat when ever theres T-34 around, which rather effectively kills one entire part of the game and yet again makes it imbalanced & not exactly fun.

Historically accurated ? Maybe, highly doubt anyway.

While speaking of historically accurated we got the soviet planes with rockets.
While they IRL had accuracy between 0 -1.1% in the game is quite near to 100%.
But ofc such realistic accuracy cant be implemented because soviets have to have fun as well right ?

Ofc they wont, but funny hats and haircuts wont exactly make the campaign balanced which is the subject that conserns us.

Quite sure that historically accurated ship sailed off long ago and tbh I dont really care.

Well it hardly makes any impact on the gameplay anyway. So really, dont care.

1 Like


1 Like

I have to give you some legitimate feedback from this:
A galaxy brain move to start moaning about “not having stated any suggestions” when you even haven’t read the thread? “TL;DR: BUT WHY NO SUGGESTIONS?” A real twat move.

“Making it a training campaign”is blatantly a ridicule about the campaign as OP

And you were scolding me from not reading properly? But that’s from that, I’ll let ya off the hook. I know that this thread is a long run to read and quite exhaustive as I’ve continued to nail this thing down for five or six times already.
Sometimes it would be appreciated not to shout on tables when you’re not on carriage on what it’s even going on about.

Though I only have myself to blame. I would have saved a lot of space and time for everyone if I’d just go on calling everyone a stupid twat anyway. Try to educate people in the internet is pointless, should change my nickname to Pjotr Quijote…

When we go to historical accuracy in a game like this, the favorite thing to point out here is the amount of Soviet casualties compared to Axis casualties, and the basic capabilities of a combatant from the era.
Like, around 650,000–1,280,000 dead on the allies against somewhat 248,000–400,000 on the axis, and if the equipment and gear on the allies was so much better one could only ponder how to mitigate this in a video game.

Historical accuracy has very little to do with this game and should never be promoted before balance. Gameplay > Balance > Historical accuracy.

I’m not saying gameplay and balance is not important, but it’s literally advertised on the home page as being historically realistic.
This is the same advertisement that was there before the CBT over a year ago.

There’s only so much realism they can do before the game’s a force-lose for one side every time. The game’s set under the idea that every faction has the same production capability of the U.S.A(totally unrealistic to world war2,causes stuff like ‘rare fg42 spam’ )-which is fine because who wants to be stuck with mostly only kar98’s against m1 garand /m1 carbine - / ppsh/svt etc. Balance is way more important than finding ways to turn a game into irl

I don’t think anyone was looking for a real 1 to 1 depiction of WW2. I think a lot of people were hoping something akin to Red Orchestra/Rising Storm or Hell Let Loose. People like having a visually accurate atmosphere, and generally more realistic physics help make it feel more immersive to some. I still enjoy learning about all of the prototype weapon they introduce, so i’m not advocating for any limitation of weapons, aside for squad balance reasons.

Moscow is litterally the most iconic campaign of this game.

Remove Normie or make it pve if you need a pve campaign.

I don’t know what you guys see when you look at Enlisted in-game, but there’s very little or next to nothing in my screen which would indicate realism.
The topographic large scale map is somewhat nice, would be nicer if it would resemble an actual topographic map, but it doesn’t.

The bots don’t help either. The sound-world doesn’t match. The constant “YA HANS” doesn’t really make feel immersed in a realistic war. The sky, the ground, water, team-mates, T-50’s (kek), spending 60 20MM FF/G rounds on an IL-2 right engine and 700 rounds on the left engine and only hearing (blyat lmao nahui pidari git soviet gut) when it air-breaks in the middle of the sky unhinged, undamaged, and continues to hail down 4 times 2 rocket salvos of 450g explosives and blowing out half of the map, then it slowly turns in the air and flies to the red-hammer-sickle-sun in the sky, only to return soon to continue it’s labour, untroubled by the fact that soon it will be peppered with more 20MM rounds, for it would take more then 140 direct hits to the engine before the paper and plywood gives in.
It’s almost poetic.

Enlisted isn’t realistic.
It’s poetic.

no Need, moscow Is already pve

More on realism and immersion: Just listen and look at this. Then let’s go back to Enlisted and listen to that. I know that the studios work perhaps on somewhat different resources but…

1 Like

Or mayby its only YOURS team that have player with IQ lower then room temp.

Reason to play axis moscow? Mayby cause its most fun campaing/side in whole game…

But ofcourse some people like normandy more where axis can roflstomp allies at first cap like 90% of time

Quite sure the imbalances has been presented now more than enough times.
So at this point its quite irrelevant to argue its because of players.
Sure, people with atleast somekind of gaming experience can turn the outcome of the game even with inferior equipment but that yet agains leads to point its not balanced as the other team has to go thru more effort in order to win.

i think the developers do just fine at balancing realism other than the as-44. I haven’t played hell let loose but every video i’ve watched the graphics look like a little kid tried to draw the soldiers in comparison to enlisted’s. ofc stuff like the robotic prone can be fixed in enlisted. id compare enlisted to something like Heroes and Generals - both have bots / pve mix/heavy grind

Hey guys, you may come and try my Big Action Mod.

I have tried to make the game content and map size as historical as possible

However, because the features of the editor are still a lot imperfect, many features still impossible to implemented.