Introduction
Greetings and salutations, friends!
We must meet more often, under better circumstances…
With the announcement of the upcoming Saboteur class in the “Hidden Threat” update, we see a major gameplay shift that raises several serious concerns. While the concept may seem exciting, in practice it threatens to undermine the WW2 squad-based, combined-arms shooter identity of Enlisted. Before this update launches, we want to voice our collective opinion and suggest urgent reconsideration.
- No, please don’t add it.
- Yes, I support adding it
- I do not particularly mind either way
Reasons to Reconsider the Saboteur Class
Hidden for legibility, expand for more:
1. Historical representation and Warcrime Concerns
- Saboteurs wear enemy uniforms to blend in - a form of perfidy that is a literal warcrime in real life, even at the time.
The proposed mechanic allowing Saboteurs to wear enemy uniforms raises significant historical and thematic concerns. Disguising oneself as the enemy in order to conduct attacks is considered perfidy under the laws of war.
Let’s just not add literal war crimes to the game…
- Such mechanics are extremely rare historically, with only isolated examples during WWII.
Including this risks breaking immersion and misrepresents historical reality. This is the exact reasoning (amongst other concerns) why a suppressed weapon wasn’t ultimately added in a tech tree last summer’s major update.
While Enlisted is not a strict simulation, the game has generally attempted to maintain a recognisable historical atmosphere (after all, this is still a “WW2 squad shooter”, not a “generic squad shooter”). Introducing a mechanic centred on impersonating enemy soldiers risks undermining that atmosphere and introducing a behaviour that was neither common nor representative of the conflict the game depicts.
This is not merely a question of realism, but of tone and identity. The game has built its reputation around combined-arms battles of the period. Mechanics that feel closer to espionage fiction than historical warfare risk weakening that identity.
2. Redundant Lone-Wolf Mechanics
- The game already features the Guerrilla class for behind-enemy-lines operations.
The game already contains the Guerrilla class, which was specifically introduced to represent irregular or behind-the-lines fighters. This class already fulfils the gameplay role of harassment, infiltration, and disruption of enemy positions. This new class would tread on their toes, for no added gameplay benefit.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
- Introducing a similar but - more situational - class, duplicate mechanics, undermining existing class diversity.
Introducing an additional Saboteur class risks duplicating that role while making it more specialised. When two classes attempt to fulfil the same gameplay niche, the result is often going to be confusion in balance, redundancy in design, and pressure to continuously adjust both systems.
Rather than adding another overlapping class, it may be more beneficial to improve and expand the capabilities of existing systems that already serve this purpose.
3. Potential for Spam, Balance Issues, and the breaking of gameplay
- Respawning Saboteurs at low reinforcement cost, faster cooldowns between uses, and earning double experience encourages repeated usage of this low combat value class over playing the objective.
- A single player could repeatedly bypass frontline combat, rendering squad-based coordination less meaningful.
One of Enlisted’s defining features is its squad-based structure. Players are encouraged to coordinate with other units, support objectives, and participate in combined-arms engagements.
The Saboteur concept instead encourages a “lone-wolf” playstyle, operating behind enemy lines independently from the main battle. While occasional flanking or infiltration can add variety, designing an entire class around avoiding the frontline risks undermining the core gameplay loop.
If players are incentivised to operate independently rather than with their own squads, the overall structure of the game begins to shift away from coordinated battlefield engagements and towards individual disruption tactics.
In a 10 vs 10 game, this would represent a serious blow to player engagement. We already have issues with players playing to passively in their rear: The upcoming update seeks to rectify this, let’s not introduce a new way to set and idle in the rear… Even if it is in the enemy’s rear this time…
4. Exploit-Prone Scoring System
- Earning points for marking targets, even before destruction, can encourage passive or “meta” play rather than true team cooperation.
- The system risks rewarding manipulation of mechanics instead of strategic skill.
Increasing team cooperation should not require a whole new class, especially not one that could carry with them serious concerns of exploitation.
For example, awarding score for placing markers on enemy vehicles and fortifications creates an opportunity for players to repeatedly mark targets for easy points. This could encourage behaviour where players prioritise farming score rather than meaningfully contributing to the battle.
5. Captured weaponry
- Saboteurs using captured weapons further undermines faction identity.
Players have, repeatedly, displayed their displeasure with the increased proliferation of captured weaponry. Further such example should be avoided, not have an entirely new class built around them.
- Stealth kills conflict with the game’s core of combined-arms combat, making battles feel unfair and/or confusing.
This class does not align with the style of gameplay Enlisted aims to represent.
6. Identification Mechanics Are Inconsistent and Player-Dependent
- Relying on players to spot minor flaws or inconsistencies in uniforms is inherently flawed.
Most casual players will fail to notice subtle differences, leading to frequent frustration and unfair deaths.
The Saboteur mechanic appears to rely heavily on players being able to visually distinguish between genuine teammates and disguised enemy soldiers. In practice, this places a significant burden on the average player to identify subtle inconsistencies in uniforms, equipment, or behaviour during the middle of active combat.
Fast-paced multiplayer battles involve constant movement, gunfire, explosions, smoke, and rapidly changing situations. Under these conditions, expecting players to carefully analyse whether a soldier’s uniform is slightly incorrect or whether a weapon does not match the faction is unrealistic for the vast majority of the player base.
As a result, many players will likely fail to recognise disguised Saboteurs until after they have already been attacked. This risks creating gameplay situations where deaths feel unavoidable or unfair, not because of tactical mistakes, or the enemy playing smart, but because the identifying information required to react appropriately was too subtle to reasonably notice.
Game mechanics that depend on fine visual inspection during chaotic combat tend to favour only the most experienced players while creating frustration for casual or newer players. Designing core combat interactions around such subtle detection may therefore reduce accessibility and overall enjoyment of the game.
- This system adds unnecessary cognitive load and punishes average players rather than encouraging strategic play.
- It also conflicts with existing UI and feedback systems, which automatically highlight the enemy that killed you.
Passive ambush playstyles have historically been a source of frustration for many players (described as “corner camping”, you know the ones, people lying prone or hiding in a corner to ambush transiting AI, or players). Designing a class around this behaviour risks amplifying that issue.
7. Disguise Mechanics Undermine Battlefield Readability
Clear visual identification is essential in large-scale multiplayer shooters. Players must be able to quickly distinguish between allies and enemies during chaotic combat situations.
The Saboteur disguise mechanic deliberately breaks this clarity by allowing enemy soldiers to appear as friendly troops. Instead of immediately recognising threats, players would be forced to second-guess every nearby soldier.
This is not a theoretical concern. In the past, certain Soviet winter coats were removed from circulation because they visually resembled German uniforms too closely, due to concerns of creating confusion on the battlefield. If simple uniform similarities were enough to cause problems, a full disguise mechanic risks creating far greater issues.
Multiplayer games typically work hard to maintain strong visual clarity through distinct silhouettes, uniforms, and faction equipment. Introducing a mechanic designed to obscure those distinctions risks making combat more confusing rather than more tactical.
For a fast-paced, large-scale game like Enlisted, maintaining clear battlefield readability should remain a priority.
8. Intelligence Gathering Should Not Be Locked Behind a Class
Marking enemy vehicles, fortifications, and positions is a core teamwork mechanic that benefits the entire team. It should therefore be encouraged across all classes and all playstyles, rather than restricted to a specialised role.
By giving Saboteurs unique scoring incentives for marking targets, the system risks creating several unintended consequences:
- Players may begin to treat reconnaissance as the Saboteur’s responsibility rather than something everyone should contribute to.
- Battlefield awareness may decrease among the general player base.
- The system creates an artificial incentive structure around an activity that should already be part of normal gameplay.
A healthier approach would be to encourage all players to actively participate in spotting and information sharing.
9. Improving Existing Systems Would Achieve the Same Goal
If the developers wish to increase reconnaissance, coordination, and battlefield awareness, this can be achieved by improving existing mechanics, and increasing incentives, rather than introducing an entirely new class.
For example, the game could reward players more strongly when marked targets are destroyed, provide clearer feedback when teammates benefit from their spotting, make it so that stationary tanks never lose their marks, or improve communication tools for sharing battlefield information.
These types of improvements would strengthen teamwork across the entire player base, rather than concentrating those mechanics into a single specialised role.
Conclusion
The concept of infiltration and intelligence gathering could certainly add interesting tactical possibilities to Enlisted. However, we already possess such a class - the Guerrilla - and the Saboteur as currently described raises serious concerns regarding historical tone, gameplay balance, player accessibility, and the overall identity of the game, all without adding anything meaningful to the game.
Rather than introducing a new class built around disguise mechanics and lone-wolf gameplay, it would be more beneficial to strengthen existing systems such as reconnaissance, spotting, and guerrilla warfare mechanics. Other class ideas have also been raised by the community, such as tech tree Paratroopers, or Rider II squads using slightly bigger vehicles like Jeeps, Kubelwagens, or Universal Carriers. We are not want for more and better ideas.
We hope the developers will carefully consider community feedback on this issue before the update launches.
Signed,
Lt. Ogge King, 3rd Experimental Tea Infusion and Small Arms Appreciation Company, Home Guard (Reserve),
God save the King, and may God help us all…
