Since Kahif Village could enter BR III-IV, let's make other maps more flexible too, instead of low/high/all BR?

Suggestions Maps
1

Introduction.

My concept of map/BR links is based on maximum visual fidelity, atmosphere, vibe and autnehticity where possible, i.e. the original Enlisted concept, not on “how the gameplay plays on BR X”.

Since the weapons are spread across BRs without any regard to campaigns/maps, it’s almost impossible to use them as reference points (e.g. 1945 Volkssturm weapons in 1941 Moscow and WW1 weapons like Fedorov Avtomat in Berlin 1945).
On the other hand, small arms are not as visible and not as big of an eyesore as vehicles.

Meanwhile, vehicles are the obvious immersion breakers, as there’s barely anything more disturbing than jets over Stalingrad or interwar T-26 in Berlin.

There was no surprise in the original Enlisted when we didn’t have Puma in Moscow, Pz 38t in Tunisia, Tiger 2 in Stalingrad or T-28 in Berlin, because that defeated the purpose of making a game focused on real WW2 battles.

As such, I’ll base my suggestions around vehicles presense on certain maps.

Suggestions

Suggestion 1 – Stalingrad & Rzhev BR 1-3

Tiger 2, IS-2, Panther, jets never appeared in Stalingrad or Rzhev 1942-43.

    • Stalingrad BR 1-3
    • Rzhev BR 1-3
    • BR 1-5 like now
0 voters

Suggestion 2 – Berlin BR 3/4-5

Interwar/early war T-28, T-26 or biplanes never appeared in Berlin 1945.
Even T-34/76 and KV-1 were very, very rare there by that time, if any at all.

    • Berlin BR 3-5
    • Berlin BR 4-5
    • BR 1-5 like now
0 voters

Suggestion 3 – Normandy and Ardennes BR 3-5

Interwar/early war Crusader, Grant/Lee, Italian tanks, biplanes have nothing to do with 1944-45 Normandy or Ardennes.
Besides, there were no jets/Super Pershings on Normandy landings either, so a BR 3-4 bracket might be considered too.

    • Normandy & Ardennes BR 3-5
    • Normandy BR 3-4
    • BR 1-5 like now
0 voters

Suggestion 4 – Moscow BR 1-2/3/4.

The Moscow campaign maps are an interesting case, since they are not 1:1 recreations of cities like Berlin, Stalingrad or Rzhev.

A case can be made for “Moscow” to be renamed to “Western Russia”, representing the areas around Smolensk, Vyazma and Bryansk where fighting happened both in 1941 and in the winter of 1943-44, potentially allowing for Panthers, Tigers, IS-1 and T-34-85 (but not IS-2/Tiger 2 from BR5).

Another option can be removing late-war stuff like Pz J/H with skirts from “Moscow” and keeping it actually as early-war, 1941 Battle of Moscow with BR 1-2.

    • Rename Moscow to Western Russia and BR 1-4
    • Moscow BR 1-2
    • BR 1-3 like now
0 voters

Suggestion 5 – Tunisia/Kahif BR 1-2/3/4.

Lastly, let’s discuss the potential of Kahif being BR 1-4 and Tunisia’s BR brackets in general.

I believe all of Tunisia should be BR 1-2/3, as Panthers and 76mm long barrel Shermans never appeared there, and there’s no point shoving them there.

Moreover, a case can be made to remove late-war Pz J/H with skirts from Tunisia and have it purely early-war.

    • Kahif BR 1-4
    • All Tunisia BR 1-2
    • All Tunisia BR 1-3 like now
0 voters

All constructive feedback/other ideas are welcome.

Cheers.

7 Likes
2

So br 5 players only get to play bulge maps? That would become repetitive very quickly

3

Plus Berlin, Pacific and Manchuria, theoretically speaking.

1 Like
4

I wish they’d created something like Wald for the US. Ruhr maybe. Then, perhaps, if this proposal were implemented, BR5 would remain sufficiently diverse.

3 Likes
5

That’s not entirely true. The author of this thread found many locations from the game, but made some mistakes, which were corrected by people in the comments who found even more locations.

6

Screw the Brits and Canadians, I suppose. Historical Normandy loadout, as long as you don’t bring a sniper in the line-up, is BR II…

Shermans and Churchill Mk IIIs tanks saw service in North Africa, as did the M1 Garands, No. 1 Mk IIIs with discharger cup, Thompsons, BARs, Lewis guns, and probably more that I am not thinking of or 100% confident in saying were there (like No. 4 Ts and Lanchester 50s, some probably were but I can’t say for sure)…

2 Likes
7

I know, but my point is maybe sacrificing some of what saw service to remove stuff that didn’t see service there like Pz IV J/H, for example.

8

Seems like complete overkill to me… I don’t see how you could argue you’re even fighting for ‘a appropriate Tunisia campaign’ with 80% of historical US gear locked out, just because of a couple of tanks…

The casual playerbase is just never going to accept such radical changes, and even I - who is mildly sympathetic - just won’t support most of these changes. Wouldn’t your energy be better spent arguing for this instead?
image

2 Likes
9

But Usa vs Germany front would only have like 3 maps. I doubt people would appreciate that

10

Most of Volkssturm stuff is on BR1.

Totally anti HA suggestion.

11

To preface, I am not unsympathetic to your position. I too, don’t like bringing in a Puma just to see it riding around in Moscow, for example, but this an outright bad suggestion.

You just assert this but… idk, maybe its more of a personal preference thing but I don’t even think this is right. While yes, vehicles are important, Enlisted is an Infantry focused game first and foremost and as such, if you’re going with the authenticity/ immersion angle, then infantry should take precedence over vehicles.

While seeing Soviets running around with Madsens and Winchesters in Berlin is a bit of a stretch, are you really gonna sit here and tell me that every Volkssturm jobber and their mother running around with FG42s and Soviets running around with a bunch of prototypes is… better? Really?

Even running with this example… Yeah, T-28 in Berlin is silly but having Germany, in the final days of the war, being able to field a bajillion King Tigers and Jets is… less silly? I’d argue both scenarios are equally ridiculous.

The proper solution is that all maps can be played on all brs (yes, even Tunisia) but not only have the map picking system actually work but be expanded to allow you to outright ban maps that you don’t want to play on.

Exactly how much you could restrict your map pool is up for debate but if you don’t wanna play high br Tunisia or low br Berlin, then you shouldn’t have to but if I DO then that should be MY prerogative. All your suggestion’ll do is add yet another layer of frustration to this game by forcing people to play on brs they don’t want to to play on maps that they do and vice versa.

3 Likes
12

I’m not even pushing for Tunisia to be BR 1-2 too much.
But 80% really?

Let’s imagine Tunisia becomes BR 1-2, we still get Crusader and Spitfire, all Italian tanks and planes, all Lee Enfields and Carcanos, etc.
We’d lose Shermans, BARs and Garands, indeed.
But we’d also limit Pz IV J/H, G-41, VG 1-5, MKB 42 (15) (10), etc. from Tunisia.

Once again, personally I think all Tunisia should be BR 1-3, but BR 1-2 definitely wouldn’t be a catastrophe from immersion point of view.

I too wish promises given by staff 3 years ago would lead to something.

13

As I pointed out in the introduction, weapons in the current BR system are all over the place.

If one would want to have a more or less proper battle of Berlin, for example, we’d have to allow German low BR VS weapons but not Soviet low BR Madsens and Winchesters, we’d have to allow almost all German BR5 weapons but not the Soviet prototype land of BR5, etc.

Weapon/vehicle quantity limitations are another issue.
Limiting the numbers of FG-42 or AVS or Dicker Max (2 irl), or German late war/Soviet early war fuel/logistics issues is not a rabbit hole I’d like to go down now.

After all, I do believe that if you disable kill log, you don’t get triggered seeing all the BS small arms being used in the battle.

However, Soviet prewar T-26 and T-28 which were all lost in the first months/weeks of 1941 and biplanes over Reichstag are just impossible to not notice.

My take is simple: Tiger 2/Me 262 around Berlin is plausible, T-28/T-26 in Berlin is straight up madness.

Suggested 1 year ago, hasn’t received any recognition from helpersso far:

14

What kind of US Army line-up can you make for Tunisia that doesn’t include the Garand…? I’m not exaggerating. M1 Carbines only supported by a M3 Lee, no SMGs and no MGs.

Yeah, soldier by soldier, you are missing about 80% of the equipment on your guys.

“Hey Fred, give me a authentic US Tunisia line-up.”
“One authentic US Tunisia line-up…”
“And hold the Garands.”
“Hold the Garands…?”
“And hold the BAR.”
“Hold the BAR…?”
“And hold the Thompson.”
“Hold the Thompson…?”
“And hold the Sherman.”
“Hold the Sherman? Hey Jimmy! Give me M1 Carbines with nothing!”
“Nothing…?”
bc2

2 Likes
15

Bri’ish :uk::coffee::alarm_clock:

Btw BR2 has Thompsons.

Once again, I don’t think Tunisia MUST be BR1-2 but it very much COULD.

It would basically remind the Tunisia Campaign content:

Screenshot_20260831_112510_Chrome
Screenshot_20260831_112510_Chrome658×1313 230 KB

16

Your solution to not being able to make a American line-up, is to admit defeat and not make one…?

Interesting tactic…

Not that it would help much, where can I get my Lewis guns (early-war item, but BR III) and lend-lease Thompsons…? Where Lanchester Mk I* with 50-round magazines…? Technically speaking, using the Mk III Churchill in any current Campaign but Tunisia would be historically inaccurate, but you’d be barred from even trying to do that…

And then we’d be back to the topic of banishing the Commonwealth from Western Europe again…

It could not… not seriously, not even within your own framework would BR I-II Tunisia be defensible.

I am… very aware…

17

I get it thar you don’t like the idea of Tunisia BR 1-2. Fine.

But not defensible?

You know we have BR 1-2 matches in Tunisia as we speak too, right?

And they… work.

18

“Work”, as per your definition…?

I am sure you are very happy with the;

Pumas
M24s
Sentinel tanks
LVT-4s
Patchetts
M1A1 Thompsons
Thompson 7.63s
Liu Rifles
Sten Mk II (S)
Ross Mk IIIs
Owen guns
Vickers-Berthiers (since we don’t have any Indian units in-game)
Greese guns (both of them)
Mk IX Spitfires (with invasion stripes)
FNAB-43s
Beretta M1
PPSh Obrez
MP 3008
Captured PPS-43s
Armaguerra Mod. 39s
VG. 2s
Kar98K Kreigsmodell
IAR 81C
Potez 633s

Need I go on…? I could go on…

19

As I pointed out in the introduction, I wish we had Campaign based weapons selection:

But we can’t have that.

As such, my idea of “working” is eliminating the biggest eye sores, within the restrictions of the current BRs system.

And as far as Tunisia goes, I believe late war Pz 4 variants with skirts are the worst offenders (since we can’t remove BR2 with Puma and Chaffee).

Or would you prefer Tunisia to be BR1 exclusively if the goal was to make Tunisia as authentic feeling as possible within the current BR brackets?

20

What on earth gave you the idea that I am in favour of reducing the BRs of Tunisia…?

Are you even reading what I am writing…?

I am pointing out that your obsession doesn’t make any sense. It’s just an arbitrary line in the sand that you have drawn, on top of a system that doesn’t do what you think it does.

1 Like