You are too heavy for me 
2 Likes
I understand that they have increased XP points for attacking, defending, and using rallies, but they haven’t given an increase to assists for fortifications built in defense of objectives.
Meanwhile the official Enlisted YouTube video about BRs still available to this day on their channel states:
“The higher the BR the more modern the equipment in the context of WW2”
"Your BR symbolises the time period when the weapons in the hands of your soldiers were actually used "
“And of course your opponents will be historically accurate”
They just f’d it up and the playerbase were complacent
4 Likes
Refusing to accept is not the same as being unable to understand, he is not the only one who thinks that BRs should at least somewhat be representing war periods.
And before people cry “but Volkssturm weapons or puma at BR2”
Puma as a BR5 “riders” vehicle, or Volkssturm weapons moved exclusively to Volkssturm squads that have bad weapons but 10 - 12 man squads in return for high BR - thats how to do balancing PLUS historical authenticity. Its possible to have both worlds. But I did make peace with the fact that this ship has sailed off long ago.
7 Likes
It’s a shocker that, generally, more modern weapons perform better than older ones, who would’ve thought.
So that later weapons happen to be in later br just comes naturally is normal,
Yet,
Br is still not dictated by period of time, nor should it. Only hard stats and performance.
Same goes in WT, which is why ww2 axis vehicles face cold war allies ones…
Ppl should have realized it before voting for the merge if they were against it.
4 Likes
I wasn’t around during that.
Well I was against it since I was sure what’s gonna happen the BR system is the worst thing that happened and the removal of gold order shop.
1 Like
I still miss gold order shop…
But yes, I liked campaigns personally and only wanted to free TT a bit (how many mp40 did we had to unlock?)
Yet it is what it is, battle rating must be impartial and only take stats and performance into consideration… that’s what battle rating is, really.
Well thats not my problem I came here for the pacific xD
2 Likes
Well, I liked Pacific campaign as well.
I’m not very fond of the russian Japanese front. Personal preference.
I don’t mind it but prefer the Chinese front that will be far more interesting and the pacific that’s why I loved the campaigns so you can pick what front you wanna play was far better then now and easier to balance.
1 Like
I don’t know much about chinese front other than it could realistically hardly go over br2…
1 Like
Well in a BR system yes but in a campaign there is easy to balance the equipment there a lot of aircrafts few tanks amazing maps. Now Japan is forced to play BR IV or BR V and even there is not fun.
1 Like
5 mp 40s, 5 mg 34s, 5 granatwerfer 36s, 5 flammenwerfer 41s and 35s and 5 kar 98k grenade launchers
6 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I mean back then all i want was a tech tree so i dont have to farm the same thing again and again but keep the campaign for semi-immersion. Sure prototype was there too but i didnt have much problem with it (well not hugely anyway except the Ho-Ri back then)
1 Like
Not only I was always against it, we also now have 19th century stuff like Cei-Rigotti becoming proto-M16 apparently and WW1 assault rifles like Fedorov magically being actually AK.
Not to mention there was exactly 0 reason to allow stuff like T-26 in Berlin and jets in Stalingrad.
The “balance” argument is not genuine at all here.
And as @GeneralBrus pointed out above, there are/were obviously other ways to balance stuff.
And yes the BRs video is still on their official YT page where they say BR ≈ period of time.
3 Likes
As I said, in their videos, sure in high br you’re supposed to find later stuff as they perform better.
That’s a cause of battle rating. But that’s not what battle rating is (era), and you know it.
It’s not “era rating”.
For the record I miss the old campaigns.
But I don’t want a false battle rating that would account for time period instead of pure performance values either.
That would be a mess (which the merge was supposed to clean)
1 Like
Here I come to play fence sitter:
BR is, primarily, a system of dividing gear in terms of performance… because there is basically no way you can justifiably get weapons like the KP-31 and the MP-40 to be equal in performance… despite the fact that the MP-40 is, supposedly, more ‘modern’.
But, at the same time - historical prominence and developmental history I feel is deeply important for how a weapon should get represented.
That is why I have the wish for the Patchett to be the ‘best’ of the mainline 32-round Commonwealth SMGs, because it really was the most advanced and the final iteration of their wartime development. The weapon that goes on to be the mainstay British (and the Commonwealth generally,) SMG of the Cold War does deserve that prominence in game…
The logic works in reverse, too. Its logical that the Sten Mk II comes before the Lanchester in the tech tree, because qualitatively - not industrially - it is a inferior weapon, even if designed a year later IRL.
Tech tree is a compromise for the sake of balance within a game trying to represent WW2. Enlisted is a WW2 game, WW2 should be taken into consideration - but neither can the game a slave to history, because everything is better in moderation.
Both gameplay and real world considerations are needed to make a game enjoyable for the most amount of people as possible. Taking wisdom from a single source only makes said wisdom stale, as a wise man once roughly said.
7 Likes
6 Likes