Current System
Pros:
- Battlefields include historically authentic weapons, squadrons, and customizations (in most cases)
- Players can choose their preferred battlefield
- Minor nations can be introduced into existing progressions without political complications
Cons:
- Playerbase divided into 6+ groups
- Repetitive unlocks
- Difficult to introduce new weapons with established historical restrictions
- Adding a new campaign would further split the playerbase
Dev-Proposed System
Pros:
- Whole playerbase focused into one group (reduced wait-times and less-frequent landslides)
- Easy to introduce new weapons*
- Lots of unique unlocks*
- Adding new campaigns will not affect the playerbase
Cons:
- Inauthentic weapons, squadrons, and customizations may be found in battles
- Players cannot precisely choose their battlefield
- *Minor nation tech trees may be very bare, and adding minor nations to existing progressions could come with political complications
Proposed Middle Ground (Theatres)
Pros:
- Relatively authentic weapons, squadrons, and customizations found in respective battlefields
- Players can choose their preferred battlefield to an extent
- Allows for minor nations to be introduced into existing progressions without political complications
- Fairly unique unlocks in each theatre
- Easy to introduce new weapons
- Adding new campaigns will not affect the playerbase
Cons:
- Playerbase still somewhat divided
1 Like
Won’t solve the current issue that is causing the campaign merge.
Let’s assume that the game has a peak concurrent playerbase of 10k (which is stretching it) split across 36 queues (12 factions X 3 servers)
That’s roughly 280 people per faction.
Your proposed system is definitely better but still not great.
Still only 420 people per faction, which is not that great. The game needs some sort of balance so new players aren’t getting stomped by people with late-campaign equipment and/or good players.
Devs have already offered a compromise, so there is literally no point to discuss this topic further. Either accept it and move on, or don’t accept it…and…move on
Thanks for the feedback.
Current queue times are acceptable.
Developers are planning to introduce a rank-based matchmaker which would work in my proposed system too.
I think that the player-count will grow based on the rather promising roadmap.
They actively listen to feedback, and making more suggestions never hurts. There is a reason they announced it instead of adding it right away.
No, they really aren’t.
Not really, it would just further increase wait times, and end up with unbalanced battles in the end.
I think so too
Well, they’d be a little better with two less player pools. 
Queue times could be unaltered if the matchmaker only enabled when enough players are online, but yeah, that would end up with unbalanced battles again. Though I would be willing to make such change if the game grew some more. Guess it comes down to how much we value HA.
Basically.
I don’t value it that much, I just want a fun game.
Doesn’t bother me if anyone else values it though, but if it gets to the point where someone values HA over gameplay, that’s just stupid (this isn’t talking about you btw)
Understandable, thanks for the feedback. 
How is this better than the devs system for historical accuracy? Your proposed system can still have Tigers in Moscow, so what exactly is being solved?
2 Likes
Situations like Tigers in Moscow would depend on how the rank-based matchmaking would work, my suggestion would prevent things like Crusader in Normandy or tropical variants of the Bf 109 in Stalingrad.
But NO different as what you feel currently in the battle.
The spam of AVT, AVS, MKB, FG, ZH, Fedorov, M2… are not authentic at all.
I’m not meaning totally ban these stuffs. I want these uncommon weapons can appear in small numbers with condition in the battle, but not spam
2 Likes
Don’t need new progression or removal of the campaign system. What is needed is a team balancer, so one side isn’t just terminally stacked to one side constantly. That’s really all the game needs currently.
Team autobalancer that will let you know you’re being switched to the other team, and give you equivalent gear, squads, and vehicles to what you have on the side you initially chose. All XP earned will be granted to the side you chose.
If rank-based matchmaking doesn’t solve this, perhaps a we could limit such weapons to individual squads. Such as making the FG 42 accessible to a fallschirmjäger squadron and the Johnson LMG to the 1st Special Service Force or some Marine Corps squad. Even the StG-44 saw isolated use in specific divisions.
1 Like
I mean I guess that is a solution, but that would make the game really annoying. Instead of forcing the player to the other team, it would be fairer to incentivize the player to switch by increasing the XP gain for the side with less active players.
So I don’t think you should try to find historical accuracy in arcade combat, because it’s lost a long time ago. So I’m not against merging all campaigns into one match making. He’s just basically solving the problem of player fragmentation, he won’t change anything about spamming.
If you want to address historical accuracy, then match making is not the cause, and spammers don’t care that much.
For me, I don’t have any expectations for match making in arcade combat deal to the reason I described. Instead, I’m more concerned with finding historical accuracy and playability in the new custom combat in the future.
Yes, we do need new progression and removal of the campaign system.
All it does is needlessly spread the playerbase thin and makes for an annoyingly long, boring grind.
2 Likes
It’s only annoyingly long for certain factions that are constantly losing because most of the playerbase is on the other team. I was able to get to Lv. 33 in Berlin as the Soviets in just under 3 days, and that’s with the Soviet side becoming almost unplayable after 11PM my time. A team balancer will solve this without needing to gut the campaign system.
No, it’s not.
An average player will spend roughly 200 hours maxing 1 faction.
That’s 400 per campaign and 2400 in total.
That’s an insane amount of time to put into a game
2 Likes
No its not okay for NEW player to research MP 40 5 times!
I hope whe get free experience for every equipment unlocked multiple time at least the time wasted unlocking 5 time the mp40 is worth something
And not only him
Thompson,garand,winchester,mosin,svt,avs,mg,dp,bar,bren ecc…