Not a single SS symbol is in the game. That is what I was referring to
1 Like
Yes, because uniform means symbol.
Thank you for clarifying however.
If you reread that perticular argument, you’ll realise that it’s not a moral argument, but a historical one.
The fact of the matter is that no regular military company at the time went into combat with the intention of commiting perfidy in order to ambush the enemy.
The devs propose to add a class with this specific purpose in mind. Pre-meditated perfidy is something that, universally, didn’t happen. The few people that did so were doing so on their own initiative (or, were decentralised Soviet partisans), building a class entierly around historical accidents is illogical.
There’s also a point to be made that this sort of infiltration just wouldn’t be done in a active warzone. Enlisted is not the game for espionage.
I get that you’re opposed to the topic, but you don’t have to missrepresent my argument because of it.
Though, yes, there is a single moral-ish argument being made in the original post, but that’s not what you responded to.
3 Likes
Yes i still think that’s disingenuous as we have prototypes that were never used historically… germans thought that shotguns (albeit not under geneva convention) were a war crime… does that mean we shouldn’t include the winchester?
I don’t think i was mis representing your argument either i’m just off put by the idea of the referencing laws pertaining to real life in this case the geneva convention as a reason to not include things in the game
I’m making these comments on my 15 at work so i’ll admit they don’t have the most thought… take with grain of salt and i perhaps might return
Rider Squads with Cars would a type of Squad much more beneficial to the game and type of gameplay of Enlisted
1 Like
Yes cuz riders 1 were so useful… Only way to make riders good is to make the game worse as a whole with annoyance. riders 2 is just apc.
But firearms were. That’s the distinction.
I’m sure that you are about as interested in policing what line-ups people bring as I am (not at all, that is).
People used guns, the shape of a WW2 gun is less interesting than the game trying to add a function to the game that just didn’t happen IRL…
Perfidy should not be a thing in game for the same reason as chemical warfare wasn’t a thing in WW2.
You can dig up a obscure Japanese attempt or whatever, but it shouldn’t be a thing in game anyway. Neither should this current Saboteur class.
-
“The Germans thought”, well they weren’t, even on a objective level.
-
It’s still not an argument I want to have… You don’t care, great, I’ll likely not convince you otherwise, so what’s the point?
If you get to call me disingenuous, then you were DEFINITELY missrepresenting my argument. No pulling of punches from you, so I’ll call it how it is.
1 Like
Why does this matter? Simply say it never happened to a large enough capacity to justify their inclusion… to label something as a war crime is purely a moral thing anyway.
This is why i think it’s really not necessary to mention this… you have valid points but needing to reinforce that it was a war crime is not something i understand.
OK they were a warcrime and not used perhaps because of that… maybe this is just a bulletin for reasons why they are unreasonable which is totally fair… maybe this is what you were going for however you started your statement off by saying it was recognized as a war crime
Seems to match up with saboteurs having the outfit mechanic and guerillas not.
Was wrong? So… if we’re not referencing morality… what gives? Why mention this? Why does the fact it was a war crime matter? Killing your fellow battle mates with a flamethrower would also be a war crime… but we can do that albeit teamkilling is restricted… so based on this that should be removed as it’s representing a war crime in reality and no one did it.
Neither does this game as a whole.
Once again… this is a game portraying ww2 with unique aspects such as weapons you might not see elsewhere… squad mechanics etc… many things in game were not done… however the majority of ones that i can think of are things you choose to do and not incentivized by the devs directly like this.
These aren’t regular military companies… they are singular soldiers operating seemingly under their own volition.
What does his trial have anything to do with this… is it to say it was ok and historical because they didn’t engage in combat while in uniform?
Coincidentally… while behind lines destroying strategic positions which is what his brigade did such as rallies and marking for your team you are disguised however when attacking it’s dropped! Seems like it’s accurately representing the fact they used them for infiltration and not for combat.
1 Like
It’s the explenation for why it wasn’t done, I thought that aught to be mentioned.
No.
This was a few people acting on their own accord, without sanction…
There’s also a great deal of debate how common this was, or if it was actually just post-war mythologization combined with US soldiers opening fire on suspensious men, who then opened fire in self-defense. We just don’t have a clean picture to tell accurately.
The Saboteur class would represent the deliberate attempt to perform perfidy, that you intentionally bring such personelle to perform this action. You’d put them in the line-up, with the intention to do this…
This does not bear out with the historical record.
See above.
Relying on hyperboly does not suit you.
You can point to certain prototypes that never saw combat trials.
That’s not “many” examples, that’s a list of weapons and vehicles.
What’s next, British nurses as medics…?
See above…
You do not seem to understand what the prupose of the class is… It has two functions…
Unless you are arguing for the removal of the ability to shoot whilst disguised…? I would be fine with that… That’d represent historical reality.
Anyway… With them as is… If they were not used for combat, which is historical fact, why add such units, with a disguise mechanic for ambushes, to this combat game…?
I think adding the Saboteur class is pointless. There are so many more interesting things they could add instead, like more Italian tanks or a new class capable of carrying four mines. They could also introduce Radio Operator III with the ability to call in a creeping artillery barrage, or even finally add the Battle of France with its own dedicated research tree
4 Likes
That’s nonsense. Soviet soldiers frequently relied on camouflage and stealth tactics. Specifically, the NKVD motorized infantry units, which carried out reconnaissance and officer assassination missions in urban environments.
Camouflage is not perfidy.
I am objecting to the disguise mechanic.
In other words, it’s nonsense because you did not understand the meaning of the text.
Maybe I used the wrong term. I’m talking about using German uniforms to infiltrate behind enemy lines. NKVD units did this, partisans did this, and so did scouts during the Siege of Leningrad. Moreover, you can google Ilya Starinov , the so-called ‘grandfather of Spetsnaz’ — he actively promoted the use of German uniforms for sabotage operations. And sabotage isn’t just about blowing up bridges or scouting; it also includes ambushing convoys , columns, officers, and supply depots.
1 Like
As previously discussed, these tactics were not used for combat, everyone agreed that using enemy uniforms for infiltration was okay as long as combat was conducted once the disguise was taken off. These kinds of operations wouldn’t be used either in the middle of a active engagement, entierly outside the realm of what this game portrays.
This is what the historical record bears out. Enlisted is a combat game, espionage is not within the scope of it, as such this kind of infiltration does not belong in a active warzone.
And, Soviet partisans sometimes doing it anyway is not a reason for every other nation suddenly doing so.
So you think NKVD units destroyed a convoy, disguised themselves as Germans, infiltrated German officers/warehouses/the next column, and then changed into leather coats and blue breeches?
I don’t mind if only the Soviets get this class, but I have a feeling the whining will be even worse than it was with the breastplates.
Spoiler
By the way, the Soviets had another funny tactic: they would dress up as German punitive squads to lure out local collaborationist units (and I also doubt the saboteurs changed back into Soviet uniforms before gunning them down).
1 Like
The answer is uninteresting, because ultimately this style or warfare is not within the scope of the game, at all.
I don’t go to bed crying that I don’t get to have SOE infiltration and joint-partisan engamements behind enemy lines in Enlisted.
I got Sniper Elite for that.
1 Like
Again, I beg to differ. Personally, I started out playing the Lone Fighters mode, and I’d still be playing it now if the implementation wasn’t such a hassle. I’m positive that in that mode, this class will absolutely wreck havoc.
As for squad battles… will this change your playstyle of rushing the point? I don’t think so. Will it change my playstyle of ignoring the point? I don’t think so. So what’s the problem then?
1 Like
You are free to read the original topic.
“Disguised enemy soldiers destroying and/or mining rallies will have no impact on gameplay” is one hell of a position to arrive at, though.
Oh. Well, let’s take it one by one, since the point of my answer isn’t clear.
- I’ve already discussed this and, at the very least, partially debunked it.
- Saboteurs and partisans, as far as I could tell from the description, don’t overlap at all except for the solo playstyle. At the same time, nobody complains about the soldiers who duplicate the assault troops. Just like with the machine gunners, where everyone keeps trying to push for light machine guns that don’t require a bipod.
- If a player already has partisans in their setup, they’ll likely add saboteurs as well. If they don’t, why would they need an even more niche squad? This class won’t cause any shift in team balance—just as the simultaneous presence of riflemen, assaulters, and machine gunners doesn’t.
- This is all purely hypothetical for now. We are discussing a problem before it actually exists.
- Captured gear is bad, but only if it’s in the main progression tree. If it’s restricted to just one or two specific classes, it’s fine.
There is no such thing as a combined arms combat concept in an arcade game, and there never can be. - Again, this is purely speculative. I’m certain that even if there are differences in the uniforms, the developers didn’t intend for them to be easily spotted. The focus is on the fact that one soldier opening fire first from the rear is equivalent to a 6-man squad being ‘ambushed.’ That’s it.
- And what about historicity and combined arms? In real combat, there were no markers over allies. It wasn’t always clear who was up ahead—friend or foe. Identifying your own by a mud-caked uniform in the bushes is no easy task. As the saying goes, ‘you can’t have it both ways.’ Either saboteurs are bad because they aren’t ‘historical’ and don’t fit, or you should remove the markers and turn on friendly fire.
8-9. It doesn’t matter. Nobody has ever bothered with reconnaissance , and nobody will start now. It’s obvious the class is purely for chilling and trolling.
P.S. Ended up being a lot of text, was too lazy to translate it myself. If anything’s off—blame the A(non)I.
1 Like