Make setups with Chinese squads immune to any maps except Burma and Manchuria

Suggestions Other
1

Let’s start with the fact that the Chinese in Stalingrad, Tunisia, and the Ardennes are not norm. I believe this is disrespectful to history, to the soldiers who defended Stalingrad and fought in Africa and the Ardennes, and to the Chinese soldiers who defended their country from the Japanese invaders. And of course it ruins the atmosphere. So, I want to propose a simple way to solve this problem - make setups with Chinese squads immune to getting into all maps except Burma and Manchuria. I think it’s really cool to play Chinese units on maps that actually had Chinese soldiers. Maps that never had Chinese will get rid of the inappropriate troops that ruin the atmosphere, and maps that did have Chinese will have Chinese troops. And the Chinese will get the respectful representation they deserve.

So, how will this work?

If a players uses squads with the Liu rifle or Thompson 7.63 in their setup, they’ll only be able to play in Burma (AND THAT’S ABSOLUTELY WONDERFULL).

If a player puts squads with PPSh(S) or [REDACTED] arsenal SMG from the future event in his setup, he will only be able to play in Manchuria.

How will this affect online play?

Allied players without Chinese units in their setup will simply hit Japan less often.

Burma maps will appear more frequently in US-Japan battles. (Come on! I don’t know anyone who likes Pacific maps! I’d be very happy to never see the Pacific Ocean and always play Burma.)

USSR players without Chinese units in their setup will simply have fewer encounters with Japan. (And that’s great. I’d be happy to never have to deal with Manchuria. I find that map absolutely disgusting. Perhaps this is due to the fact that more than half of all battles now take place on that map, and I’m deadly annoyed of it.)

Regarding how to implement this.

The game already has a so-called soft historicity rule, which assigns players with certain weapons to historically relevant maps. However, this rule is secondary to the battle rating matchmaking and simply doesn’t work due to the lack of players in the game. You can test this on the test server, where by the second day there’s absolutely no one. So, for Chinese squads, you could simply create a hard rule that locks them into the Burma and Manchuria maps. If it’s too hard to implement the second rule (I wouldn’t be surprised at all), you can just reconfigure the soft rule, because it doesn’t work anyway.

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
3 Likes
2

While personally I fully agree with the stance that Chineae soldiers in Berlin is complete insanity, and that even EA Battlefield hasn’t come up with something that idiotic,

Not to mention the absolutely crazy PPSh [FAKE] shamelessly put in the game without any reaction from Devs/CMs regarding its existence,

And even thouI voted “yes” because I support raising awareness to this massive glaring issue,

In the Enlisted world locking squads to maps is still a slippery slope.

Let’s imagine 99% of USA players equip either Liu or Thompson Chinese squads – where will the matchmaker get players for Pacific, Normandy, Ardennes and Tunisia maps?

If I build a full US lineup without any Chinese, I’ll have to wait for hours in queue for any of those above-mentioned maps?

I suggested a different approach a while ago without any map locks

However, it’s obvious that neither of our suggestions will go anywhere because Gaijin cares about those delicious RMB and sales for CNY, not about WW2.

9 Likes
3

I don’t think this will ever happen. Perhaps only as a targeted mass action. However, there’s nothing stopping something similar from happening with TT squads. For example, if a lot of players play for Japan at the same time, Germany will have to play against bots.

4

I like this proposal. However, I’m not sure many would agree to such a radical change of nationality as turning Moroccans into Senegalese, or Chinese into Indians or French.

Furthermore, people have long been asking for the ability to choose the theater of operations. My proposal partially provides that opportunity.

2 Likes
5

I voted yes, but I still want to point out that the war thunderification of the game is inevitable.
IMO the best shot we have at regaining some historical accuracy is by embracing a new game mode dedicated to players interested in more HA gameplay. Since the current “squads gamemode” aka normal game mode is clearly only designed to be a near 1:1 balance, WW2 sandbox.

Get behind Veekay, show interest in historically accurate events and always write positive feedback if it got HA right.

3 Likes
6

Stop trying to reimplement the campaign system. There’s a reason it was removed

7

Are the bad guys who are offering campaign reimplementation in the same room with us now?

3 Likes
8

That would be absolutely wonderful. They even promised to add it once. However, there’s no reason to trust our developers anymore. As always, they lied to appease an angry crowd and have no intention of doing anything about it.

Even in the context of such a sandbox, the Chinese in the Ardennes is absolute nonsense.

9

Queueing for specific campaigns based off equipment selected = campaign system.

What this will do is

Make Germany vs America more one sided (more bots)

Make equipment including paid equipment unusable in more than half of its advertised locations.

And also slippery slope.

2 Likes
10

Only if more than 50% of US players in the queue have such squads in their setup. I don’t think it will happen that often. If it ever does.

Paying for the ability to always play on one of the game’s best maps (if not the very best) sounds like a worthwhile investment.

11

No arguing with forum mouthbreathers I guess.

12

You are an angry person. That was hurtful.

2 Likes
13

You could say this with so many things… so no reason to do it randomly out of the blue.

14

There is a reason why its soft rule and not a hard one.
Ofc some people won’t mind never seeing Normandy/Moscow ever again but that will hurt the matchmaking system.
Also we don’t know the exact number of players even playing this game, ofc we may see something on steam charts but that represent the ones who own it on steam (and japan queues somehow are still the longest despite having lets say ~5k ppl online as something median) and you kinda in a way want to make the wait longer which is a no go in the eyes of the community and i think in the eyes of a devs too.

Personal feelings in a suggestions also not a wonderful thing, in a way you wanna sway people’s opinion by throwing such things here and there, so more will agree with you, yet another classic phycological play (i mean i am happy that i recognize this things).

Overall suggestion seems although interesting, not that wonderful - mainly because your main counter-argument will be queues, which i remind you all, for japan around ~2 mins, but suggesting the things you wanna see/implement

will definitely make it even longer. So are you really willing to trade waiting queues for a HA?

1 Like
15

I’m not smart enough to do such things. At least not consciously.

Me? Of course!

However, this proposal won’t add HA. It will simply remove this monstrous nonsense of Chinese troops in Tunisia and the Ardennes. It’s simply an eyesore and an affront to sense of beauty.

I also don’t understand how my proposal will slow down the matchmaking process. It will have exactly the same number of players for the same nations, but the enemy team and map selection won’t be random, but will be determined by the Chinese squads.

16

Yes, a player with Chinese squads will probably have to wait a little longer for the Japanese team to be released. The only way I understand it is that matchmaking will slow down.

17

Although it would take a bit longer to assemble a full American team. Aghhhh, everything is so complicated in this shitty game! Overall, I’m willing to wait 30-60 seconds longer for a battle to rid the game of this quirk.

18

And for the sake of such a crutch-like possibility of choice, maybe not a map, but at least a front.

19

Then remove the suggestions all together. Only through personal experience with the game do people want to make suggestions based on how they feel the game could be better. If “personal feelings” are too evil to be included the suggestion, which can not exist without them, should be removed as well.

20

kinda said it yourself.

Squads is a lost cause regarding anything even remotely historical and since fixing 1 simple line of code takes years from devs to fix I highly doubt another gamemode would come during our lifetime.

Id rather have them grant proper modding tools.