sign me in 
5 Likes
I guess the historical authenticity will be the death of the game. RIP.
When I think of WW2, I am proudly going to remember troops running around in the open spinning around doing 360 noscopes. Troopers holding flamethrowers while doing a dab. Bodies flying into the stratosphere after a bomb goes off.
Ah, the good times.
Don’t you dare!!!
1 Like
Some restrictions on certain vehicles / weapons, there are multiple ways they could go around this.
War Thunder has the BR system to balance things out. Enlisted has to think of a way around it as well.
Of course King Tigers fighting against T-28s is silly, it’s not what I’m suggesting. It’s the general concept.
On a serious note, your idea MIGHT not be scraped completely. I’m guessing (hard guess) that in the future Devs will realize that campaigns must be renamed by the area they take place in (Moscow–> East front, Normandy–> West front) because it will justify some anachronistic equipment and also allows for more maps and larger war theater, such as Stalingrad for Moscow and the Ardennes for Normandy. They will need to balance things when they do so, but the enlarged equipment availability might benefit more from transfer options.
3 Likes
This game wont die because it’s historical authenticity
if historical authenticity were a vase, Enlisted will have the cracked one with many patches to fill in the gaps…removing the campaign make it allies v axis is basically like throwing the vase to the trash can…
in actuality, it’s kinda like already exist in custom match.
i’m agree with @Conscript_Joe, i would rather have an expansion to the current campaign or the merging of campaign with similar timeline on similar front.
1 Like
BR system is garbage. There are many people who play simulation because of BR and ability to experience asymmetric balance. If you enjoy that “BR balance” stuff feel free to do so. There are people who don’t and don’t want to see the repetition of the same mistakes here.
Devs might not releases new campaigns but add content into existing. Rising Storm 2 Vietnam has just 3k tops player base and is doing fine for years. A user base of “just” 50-60k would set this game at the top tier of the multiplayer shooters.
If you don’t like what this game has to offer, don’t play it. There will be other for whom it’s not what they want and other for whom this is exactly different in a proper direction. Instead of being copy of what other “popular” games do.
Do you want single unlocks across all maps and sides of conflict be just cosmetics? Go ahead and play Battlefield, if that’s not WW2 enough for you, try Heroes and Generals.
Especially since one side is overrepresented and grinding the MP40 for the fourth time is not really interesting or making you “addicted”.
2 Likes
People making jokes of balance, of course I’m not here to write a 400 page book on how I would balance out the details.
The general concept has to change than the current one, combining the matchmaking into fronts rather than campaigns is definitely one way they could go about it.
If things stay they same however, the outcome would be unfortunate.
What if we actually do?
2 Likes
in tunisia the Beretta M1 is enough, the other SMGs have the same statistics of her
I will have fun playing with my historical accuracy and my bots.
and if the progression of each campaign bothers you so much, go play another game and problem solved, don’t come and impose your whims
2 Likes
Nobody is stopping you, there’s already custom matches against bots.
Why must the game suffer in return for your love of historical accuracy.
A game is never going to be historically accurate. There needs to be a healthy balance between history, fun, and what’s good in terms of lifespan of the game.
At the end of the day this is a game, not a history lesson. War Thunder also has Historical Mode yet still the primary form of matchmaking is arcade.
Arcade mode or combining campaigns into fronts, are both some ideas in which they could take to stop separating playerbases with every new campaign and effectively killing off the game.
He’s not totally wrong, when it comes to unlock the same equipment multiple times in different campaigns.
But having an unified progression line per faction across all campaigns is hardly feasible.
2 Likes
I didn’t want to go into historical accuracy, just pointing out that some of us have fun shooting bots as well.
It’s a matter of content, if more content is added it won’t matter that you have to unlock mp-38 multiple times.
And that is what Enlisted delivers for majority us. It’s not fully accurate, the opposite, it has manny flaws when it comes to accuracy.
But is is authentic enough to bring the players who wanted exactly that to the game.
What you are proposing has nothing to do with “balance between history and fun”. It is a complete denial of history to create F2P copy of other “WW2” titles.
2 Likes
War Thunder couples (somewhat) historical performances, with totally unhistorical and anachronistic matchmaking.
2 Likes
Agreed, that is my take. It’s one way to go about it. You can still use history to balance out the game.
It would be a F2P copy of other WW2 titles, exactly, with a unique take of controlling your bot squad and other features that are in the game.
I would prefer them to take this route than see this game die. Nothing is stopping them from maintaining campaigns for those who love history.
Combining campaigns into fronts could also be a great way, yet still would impact historical accuracy, but perhaps not as much.
There are major benefits in sacrificing historical accuracy in such a way;
- Progression carryover across campaigns.
- Matchmaking stay united with release of new campaigns.
Because in the arcade view of the game, campaigns are simply new maps. Since several factions can participate in it.