So basically you want to add a class that is jack of all trades. I have mixed feelings about this.
2 Likes
this, is something i don’t like.
this would lead to artillery spam again, and again.
no thanks.
weather as far as i can understand those artillery strikes are limited, doesn’t change the fact that literally everyone have them.
it’s a big no from me.
and lastly, one thing that i don’t get is:
so, you are implying that squad leader should be Enginners and Radio operator at the same time?
just… why?
obviously it’s not going to be balanced.
nor ideological.
i do love perhaps the class as squad leader.
but i do not like the composition that you would give them.
you just become a “super soldier”.
they do too much for what they are supposed to.
i guess this could make sense.
what?
yes.
ha ha.
no.
for no reasons what so ever, those weapons should be available for enginners or gunners.
i don’t want hell of full automatic weapons in my lobbys.
i’m sorry, but i do not share the same opinion.
the main issue that i personally have with the suggestion is,
too many autmatic weapons more than they arelady are.
and the squad leader would be just strictly better than two class all together.
1 Like
10000 YES to this. Any element of the game that is responsible for the soldiers should be thought out as much as possible, and more seriously respond to the average playstyle.
The same applies to the management of the academy, squads improvements, wearable equipment and its variety, as well as adjusting the AI and its further development.
Everything else is just as important for FPS, but insignificantly within the setting of a game that focuses on the enlisted soldier.
1 Like
my personal suggestion to make the squad leader somewhat logical and balanced,
they are basically like the assaulters class, but have no restriction on weapons outside the machinegunes and scoped rifles ( mgs or any weapons with scopes that are usually given to snipers, otherwise they would be too much powerfull ).
and they get acess to binocles, ( the only class that has acess to that along side tank commander ) and if they have a radio operator in their squad, they can call additional artillery strike for smokes, and flak artillery for air in that specific area ( like @VoyoMayPL suggested somewhere if i remember correctly ).
this way the squad leader can somewhat make sense, and be usefull at the same time without replacing anyonbe. just in real life, they are just there to be as “supporter”.
5 Likes
I suggested the officer class two months ago, it was supposed to have the ability to summon temporary respawn points. The engineer, however, must remain purely fortification functions, as well as support (ammunition).
They don’t need to tackle the problem of the unpopularity of engineers among the average player - they need to isolate the most key function to win and present it in a more attractive format.
1 Like
It’s rude self-advertisement I make here, but if you want squad leader class I would suggest to give him sth like this:
In my opinion it would sute him better than being great combat class.
I’m not exactly sure how they would be a “super soldier”, being weaker than the present radio operators, or engineers in their own squads. As-is, everyone can have radio operators in their squads, which can make multiple artillery strikes.
The reason I’m suggestion they be both basically a radio operator and engineer is how core respawn beacons are to gameplay, and how use of engineer type abilities need to be bolstered across the board.
I suggest engineers getting the ability to build all they could in an Engineer-only squad as a greater reason to consider taking them over bombers or assaulters - see the point above.
Most of these automatic weapons are already available to more classes than they are now, I’m suggesting limiting them - sure, I am suggesting the inclusion of more, but limiting the classes that can use them further.
E.g. while Engineers and squad leaders are getting access to more types of automatic weapons under my proposal, this is removing entirely the access to such by; troopers, bombers, flame troopers, mortarmen, etc. Thus, no more trooper squads full of FG-42’s and the like.
Properly good close-range SMGs also remain Assaulter only, and LMGs remain Gunner only, under my proposal. This just bridges the “assault rifle” question to multiple classes. At the very least also to Engineers - they’re already tied to such in the tech tree anyhow, and any additional game pressures to increase the use of engineers is beneficial to the game IMO - but I figured squad leaders having them as well wouldn’t hurt.
Adding the selection of such automatic weapons to Assaulters and Gunners then just increases the flexibility of such classes and creates a pressure towards choosing the secondary weapon option. (not so much now for gunners, but definitely so if gunners get reworked to where LMGs can no longer be ADS’d from the shoulder or something down the line.)
I see it like Erika.
The SL should je smiliar to the Squad Leader in BFV which is able to call artillery, smoke, supply, rockets and special vehicles for points.
In Enlisted he should be able to call strikes (explosive and smoke (maybe more like rocket artillery if we get more content)) and air supplyment and lose credits (similiar to the building credits of the engineer). He can call them with colored smoke nades (he can carry 1-4 like anyone else) or with his binocular and the radio from the radioman in his squad without being restricted to the amount of grenades.
exept, you suggested and here i quote you with your own words:
so, this squad leader is basically " stealing his job " and since everyone squad can get aceess to this squad leader, overclass the older radio operator. because not every squad could get a radio operator.
and additionally,
i quote again:
which doesn’t make sense because now he can actually do two jobs at once when he isn’t supposed to do that.
doesn’t make it any reasonable to put it under one class.
exept, it becomes almost a priority.
and this one, doesen’t exscuse the fact of making every single weapon almost available for all classes to make a shit show.
which to clarify, 4/5 weapons =/= " most " automatic weapons can be given to everyone.
but you are adding classes to those limitations…
it’s not much of a limitation if now additional 3 classes up to the already other present classes can gain ability to use automatic weapons.
tha’ts why almost everyone is complaining about giving fgs, m2s everywhere at everyone.
exept, they become more common that they should.
is this your view for the future of enlisted?
i greatly disagree.
exept it is!
they are not enginners?
doesn’t make much sense?
it’s pretty much like giving machinegunners the ability to do something else.
like, perhaps carry an anti tank weapon ( bazooka and/or anti tank rifles )
or like give the ability to mortar to use snipers.
doesn’t make sense whatsoever.
just because it’s convenient, it doesn’t make it ok/justifiable.
that’s not flexibility at all.
that’s creating unbalance and un fun gameplay.
i don’t recall enlisted being the next bfv just because they like having automatic weapons for almost every class ( which it’s start getting to ).
automatics weapons increase problems.
no one likes enginners squad made full of automatic weapons over moscow, or normandy.
considering the already present automatic weapons.
ah yes weapon carriers.
no thanks.
not a huge fan of it, and particulary not even the others.
i’m not aiming for total historical realism, but too many automatic left and right, where also class start to do other jobs or even to the slight weapon carriers because of situations it’s far from ideal.
and as far as i’m seeing from various people, they don’t like it either.
“not every squad could get a radio operator” one sec let me check the upgrades tree, cause I could have sworn it was available to every infantry squad.
Ok yes it does basically two jobs at once compared to now, but how does that not make any sense? Or unreasonable?
With the squad leader gaining the base engineer ability, then why would people take engineers over bombers or assaulters? As is there’s no reason to take more than one engineer in a squad anyway, save for extra building materials or having one of them build for you (when it works, half the time the AI forgets what it’s doing and doesn’t build what it’s told to.) Thus I was thinking of incentives to bring more engineers.
Plus, I don’t understand why engineers don’t get their full abilities outside of Engineer squads in the first place, given no other class works that way of where their abilities are limited outside of their own squad, other than radio operators right now (which we’d be effectively removing as well through my suggestion.)
I’m also not suggesting giving “almost every weapon” for all classes - SMGs are more numerous and more capable at close range for the most part, LMGs are more powerful at all ranges. And as I stated, I’m suggesting to restrict the classes further than they are now for their use.
Is my view of an ideal future enlisted one where everyone has engineers in their squads, and use them extensively, thus they build fortifications to help their team on a regular basis? Yes, absolutely. But the only way that happens is with more incentives to utilize Engineers in game by the crowd currently using nothing but assaulters when they can help it at the moment.
The reason machinegunners carrying anti-tank weapons doesn’t make sense is a question of IRL weight. The reason optics weren’t everywhere in WW2 was cost of the optics, not because it wouldn’t make sense to give them to the likes of mortarmen and everyone else, thus limiting their use to the highly skilled.
Assaulters and gunners already have automatic weapons - and should realistically have them - most of the above are either assaulter weapons or all-class weapons right now anyway. I’m not sure how adding more weapons as options for them to choose from does not increase flexibility?
Or is it that you dislike the secondary weapon option game mechanic to such a degree that you don’t want it to be there?
Unless you think that automatic weapons that were widely used in WW2 should not be present in a WW2 game? Or should they be limited even more than they were IRL?
Classes definitely need to be changed, but about weapons, this is nonsense, to be honest.
Might you be willing to cover your opinion in greater detail, in regards to weapons?
This will make the fighters even more useless junk,and there will not be a large number of automatic rifles if there is a normal balance of levels, for example, something like that.
1-2 players 20+ campaign level
2-3 players 10+ campaign level
4-7 players 0 + campaign level
In any case, in the same German army, there were much fewer semi-automatic rifles in 41 than in the Soviet army.
So, just to confirm, your complaint is that it would remove automatic weapons from the majority of classes?
This will change its current status - the standard weapon for most classes.
Howso, I’m confused?
I mean, semi-automatic rifles like the SVT-40 would become the standard weapon for most classes, yes?
All this does is stop the proliferation of the AVS-36 and FG-42 and their kin, which we will see more of as we reach the promised 40 levels per campaign. (While grouping similar weapons into a cross-weapon category for classes that are presently already associated with automatic weapons)
I look at it this way.
1 level of the standard weapon - a rifle with a sliding bolt
2 level of the standard weapon is a semi-automatic rifle
3 level of the standard weapon is an automatic rifle
Right, so your complaint is then that it removes automatic weapons from being as prolific as they are.
Personally, I think things should be less linear, and I’d prefer matchmaking be level based to some degree, so that new players aren’t facing high-level gear (and thus high campaign level players aren’t just sealclubbing) - so there needs to be some reason for high level players to use standard semi-autos and even bolt action rifles. This being before the consideration that bolt action rifles (and semi-autos for the USA) should be more common in a WW2 setting regardless.
Class restrictions are probably the most feasible way to go about such, and thus removing automatic rifles from this role where they presently are, to a different restriction group.
Well, a semi-automatic rifle looks less interesting for a sniper than a rifle with a bolt.
I still have a desire to see a tiger when I have level 1,and with your level restrictions, I will see it in a hundred years.
Therefore, my method of selection is the most logical, because there are few players with a maximum level, with an average - average, with a low-a lot.
because he is not an enginner in the first place?
nor a radio operator?
originally, squad leaders are usually train to lead, make decisions, and stuff like that. what you typically already somewhat do.
in a game like enlisted, if i have to be quite honest, we are already somewhat squad leader our selves.
so it doesn’t make much sense to add one in the first place since everyone can do that already.
but for the sake of content and somewhat " realism ". everyone is cool with having one.
what is not, it’s the ability for a random class to perform someone else job.
i still don’t understand how you don’t get it.
i guess you lack of common sense ( no offence ) and you are not being reasonable.
because again, squad leder is not a radio operator, nor an enginner.
he is not qualified to carry such job unless we are speaking of logistical squad leaders. which would only make sense in the enginner squad.
which again, he shouldn’t.
enginners should remain as they are. and for that said reason, why someone would pick assaulter over enginner it’s because of the weapon, same for bombers. being faster at their job. assalter, assalt. bomber, destroy tank.
it’s quite simple.
otherwise you are making useless the class of smgs when you can just bring assault rifles as enginners, and have all the ammo you want.
you are not thinking about balance.
that’s the main issue i’m watching at this whole conversation.
you are just putting fuel on the growing fire of the automati weapon issue that it’s rising.
this has been made to be somewhat balance things out.
back in the CBT as you should remember, everyone had acess to mg nest, and anti tank cannons.
quite literally everywhere.
devs decided than to limit those function to the original enginner squad.
this doesn’t make much sense, but i do get it for sense of balance.
because abilities of other classes are mainly tied to weapons, they are not that huge. and as such, occour to be limited. not simple free acess to something that does really change the game ( example, AT, AA and mg nest ).
i thought it was quite clear from now.
and i don’t see why should be removed, they work quite well as intended.
sounds like.
especially considering that assault rifles, automatic carbines can be better than 70% of the smgs.
you don’t need high rate of fire when you have damage.
and for sure it’s taking the spot of the assaulters. just take example as the enginner squad. you can fully max out, and have every single member full with automatic weapons that becomes quite better than the assaulters.
that my friend, is killing a class and making quite unecessary powerfull others.
this, is one of the worst thing i ever heard in a long time.
you see, you don’t need to incentivize things. especially when people are the one that decide for their selves.
what i find " horrible ", is such suggestion that complealty disregard the concept of balance, for a futile reason.
->which happpens already. so i don’t understand what you are arguing about.
BECAUSE THAT’S THEIR JOB?
at least we’re on the same " boat " on something.
n-no. that’s not the point.
what i meant as example, is not to give things just because it’s " convenient ". that’s not the right " sight " to look at.
and they should be the only one getting those.
because assaulters are not everywhere.
yes, squads can at least have 1, but that’s basically it. the maximum ammount that you can reach for automatic weapons, it’s up to 5 and there should be ended.
that’s why you don’t see many automatic weapons sprayed over all squads. only a few numbers. and should remain as such.
because flexibity in a ww2 game stands no where near the trash.
quite frankly. unless you want to play cod or battlefield, where it’s full of automatic weapons, be our guest.
weather i like it or not, not many people use it. and it’s not really logical outside flametroopers and anti tank troopers.
generally, less automatic weapons are good for the health of the game.
1 Like