It was killed long before that. Panzer 3b, g41, panzer 4f2, mkb 42h in moscow, pps 42 in stalingrad, fedorov, as 44 and rd 44 in berlin, jumbo in normandy, paratroopers landing with heavy 100 round drums, entire japanese campaign, offenrohr in tunisia, british running with johnson rifles, nearly all premium squads, nearly all bp guns etc. Pretending that pre merge was historically accurate paradise is quite ignorant.
Well, it actually was nearly perfect on release. That was the reason why I dropped BFV and switched to Enlisted.
We had 3 campaigns – Moscow, Berlin, Normandy, with 99% proper gear:
No Pz IVF2 or MKB 42 in Moscow, no Fedorov or AS in Berlin – none of that was needed. It was not part of the original market offering.
The only things that were asking to be fixed at that point were Pz III B (change the letter) in Moscow, Jumbo Sherman and M2 Carbine in Normandy (too early), that’s it.
Let alone T-28 in Berlin.
Now we are simply heading towards poor man’s BFV (which I left back in the day because Enlisted seemed to be better).
There was lot more than this. Americans using massive amounts of springfields in normandy, gewehr 41 in moscow, mp 28 and mp 35 being used by non SS/police units, ww1 beretta smgs in normandy and fnab 43 that was only used in northern italy. Madsen being used by non partisan units, zb 26 and mg 13 being more common than mg 34, Tz B hunting shotgun being used by red army, luftwaffe drilling being used by ground troops, avs 36 in berlin, germans spamming fg 42 in non paratrooper units, panzerfaust being rarer than sturmpistole, germans using old mannlichers in normandy, germans having massive amounts of artillery, tanks and aircraft in berlin, americans with post war M1D garand sniper, germans having heavy tanks like panthers and tigers on D day, thompson being extremely rare and late unlock in normandy while americans have to use british lee enfields, brens, stens, piats and lanchesters, americans using diesel engine m4a2s instead of m4a3s etc. Not to mention all gold order and premium squads. The game was always unhistorical. Even in moscow beta
1 Like
Not even. That game has red dots and all sorts of futuristic crap mixed in. I don’t see enlisted ever doing that crap. In case you’ve forgotten, 99% of the equipment is still authentic to ww2. “Prototypes” are still part of ww2 history. You knew this game was in arcade genre from the start, and even if you didn’t know the direction it was heading, you’ve had many many years now to figure it out. It will never be what you want now, so you’re left with three options: get over it and enjoy it, keep wasting your time complaining about the game and not enjoy it, or move on to something that fits with what you want. There’s a few that should be right up your alley. It’s pretty simple.
Then we need to establish the term “historical”.
For me personally, I couldn’t care less if I see ten guys with FG-42 in Berlin or MP-35 in the hands of someone other than SS, or if the Sherman is diesel or gasoline engine powered, or if the boots have the correct number of nails or if the beards are trimmed to the army regulations.
I liked the Enlisted of 2019-21 for its suspension of diebelief, decent immersion and decent authenticity – faction locked weapons, no insane time travelling, no imaginary guns.
That’s the game I invested tiome and money into.
Some things could be improved upon (like Sherman Jumbo on D Day) but nothing stood out like a insanity sore thumb – Panther tank wasn’t driving around Stalingrad disguised as American M10, fighting off troops with AS and RPD, supported by Su-9 1946 / T-28 rolling through Berlin as biplanes fly over.
If you look at the polls @iso_seppo123 made with my suggestions above, nearly all my ideas/suggestions have a 50-100% support rating.
1 Like
Pay no heed to all the people pointlessly spamming the topic with HA nonesense.
Im just here to appreciate all of the new features the devs are working on.
Italian uniforms, more decals and camo changing with the campaigns were something I wanted to see for a long time now, so Im really happy.
But I feel like you forgot something 
3 Likes
In that case i would not call it historical accuracy. More like historical authenticity which i do agree with. Pre merge was more authentic and immersive but the cost was too high. Every match was 70% bots and one side was always steamrolling the other. I dont like seeing ppsh 41 obrez in tunisia but it is much better than seeing 5 folgore paratrooper squads landing on the cap point defended by bots and noobs while greyzone panzer 4f2s destroy your teams a13s and daimlers.
Best way to still keep some immersion without sacrificing balance would be custom matches. Promised equipment selector, custom content support and better mod servers would help a lot.
Being allowed to not be sent to low BR Berlin or high BR Stalingrad/Rzhev would already be a good start.
Being allowed to have separate presets like “BR2 for Tunisia” or “BR2 for Normandy” depending on which map loads would be another great step towards keeping Enlisted at least somewhat WW2.
2 Likes
Being able to choose what maps you play would benefit everyone and should be a option. Unfortunately the current map selector is terrible and doesnt even work 95% of the time and the devs dont seem to be interested in improving it.
4 Likes
One thing I do really HATE with a passion is that players are able to field all SMG squads.
While players should be able to customize the gear of their soldiers (it is a game after all and people love being able to customize things), I think loadout customisation should only be possible within the context of historically used loadouts.
So for example in a standard “rifle squad” the player should be able to equip most of the soldiers with some type of bolt action (BR1-2) or semi-automatic rifle (BR2-5), he should be able to give some type of semi-automatic carbine or SMG to the squad leader (BR2-5), equip one soldier with one type of light machine gun, as well as equip anti-tank weapons where appropriate.
So the soldiers of any rifle squad would be primarily equipped with bolt actions and/or semi-automatic rifles and not all carry SMGs.
That way we would see more appropriate loadouts while still giving players the option to choose the guns their guys carry (BUT within reason!).
1 Like
At this point, I don’t even understand how this “balance” differs from the old campaigns. In Moscow, it’s still PZ2s versus T-34s, and in Normandy, Stuarts versus Tigers. The player levels up from scratch, gets good equipment, and starts playing on equal terms.
However, I believe the potential “historical” merger of the campaigns ruined the decision to make automatic rifles available to the most common soldier classes, which created monstrous balance problems and forced the developers to add tons of prototypes.
And even without the historical context, automatic rifles turned the game into a brainless Call of Duty clone with bots. In my opinion, they should have been made available only to machine gunners or assaulters. And if they were made available to riflemen and specialists, then only as a Battle Pass or event exclusive.
To solve the problem of faction weapons being too strong, you can add equally strong weapons of a different class to the opposing faction, if available.
Do the Soviets have too strong submachine guns? Give Germany a good machine gun.
Do the Soviets have too strong tanks early in the war? Give Germany good self-propelled guns and good aircraft.
Do Germany have too strong tanks late in the war? Give the Allies good self-propelled guns and aircraft.
Are Japan’s tanks crap and no match for American medium tanks? Give Japan good self-propelled guns and aircraft.
And so on. Just make sure that the factions have their own strengths.
1 Like
The USSR BR V fighter is going to BR IV and La-7 is better then Ki-100…and Japan tanks at BR IV are BR III USSR tanks and BR III Japanese tanks are BR II Soviet tanks and lets not start with ground attackers.
Recently I read the latest SITREP, the success of the first one would’ve warranted and benefitted by having had the second SITREP follow sooner, not strung out 7~ months later. Especially during the times where there was quite the lack of content and despite players asking for some sign of life they were stonewalled, not even a soon:tm: with some players leaving and some enlisted communities disbanding.
Your love of reading our experiences might be great, however some of the feedback that the player gives should be more valued and weighed with better responses given other than “I’ve passed this onto the devs” I understand that sometimes that is the appropriate response, however other times i feel there could’ve been more back and forth and hashing out why that was the feedback given, more expanding on the ideas and what not.
Strap in - this post will be longer than a copy paste war thunder premium cash grab run.
Disclaimer:
I’ve played for years, done metas, done disliked metas, played with and against players from all stages in the game, I’ve gained perspective from seeing the game from multiple player angles, from players starting off to players with completed tech tree with millions of silver and min maxed squads. I also gave this post some time to resonate with me instead of an instant kneejerk reaction.
To state the “devs are fully committed to the last roadmap very seriously” after it still being uncompleted nearly 18months later is a joke, do they not understand deadlines and timeframes? On its initial release, one side was “almost completed” with the other side stating “in development” for it to still be taking 18 months on things that sound to be implied of nearly done is terrible and conveys a very slow and bleak future for the game.
The game went from a new campaign every year to-heres a new map and a handful of items with copy pasta events. The ability to invite friends to ongoing battles wasnt just released internally as it was available to all and showed lack of testing and poor implementation, to then strip it away and cancel it is poor management descisions with dev time wasted, things such as this could’ve benefitted from either codetweaks else where in the game ie matchmaking and/or players perspectives and then been reimplemented better at a later date.
Also lacking keyboard and mouse support for consoles who arguably make up a decent percentage of your playerbase after all this time is poor, especially after 18 months of it being “in development”.
Furthermore publishing a roadmap for 2026 (as good as that would be) would yield in overwhelmingly negative feedback, especially since the playerbase would base the negative feedback on the current roadmaps time of completiom, showing the lack of trust that the playerbase has in your team, which should serve as a wake up call.
I’d love to critque the new frontline however that would be made up from assumptions, so i’ll wait until it drops for that.
I look forward to explore the “contracts” that players can complete to earn roundels and icons for historical decals. I feel the poll wasn’t needed since its documented of captured tanks still displaying decals especially since theres no friendly fire and that the game likes to try stay roughly historically accurate in some areas.
“You’ve told us that some actions feel undervalued” - we’ve told you more than just that with some of it going back years…
Increasing the users score for playing point may have been long needed but due to poor match making with sbmm really missing, sometimes you as the player have to be out and away from the point thawting the enemies effort in getting reinforcements to the point, your efforts are now undervalued and you may aswell change your game play so that the bottom feeders on your team that hide in a point and get a handful of kills (if that) get equal points to you putting in the effort and actually taking the battle to the enemy. in your attempts to say, get snipers to abandoned there 10 kill game spots and get on point, you’ve taking away from active players, maybe ask why players are sitting out the back playing classes such as sniper, you could change in engineer instead of sniper as a starting class and buff engineer built structure points to entice players being more active and co-opertive in random made teams - ya know, things that are clearly undervalued and asked for continously after all these years. You’ve also implied that score will be increased for both point kills and point assists, this now buffs tanks that are greyzoning and gives more incentive to just greyzone a tank, if not a tank, a plane dropping bombs or even soldiers on an AT gun etc etc.
The rush to continously get players to max their tech trees and have everything researched and min maxed is diabolical with how little the game receives in content and growth, if your worried about tech trees growing and being overwhelming, its ok, they already are - whats a little more.
Good work on adding score for setting/defusing bombs, it was needed, however lets hope no one exploits this since the ticket payout of wining those points on those games tend to give more tickets, the train mode would’ve benefitted from this change too but lets not bring that back.
More profile stats have been long asked for, especially since it was known to collect a lot more than what was shown and will be a welcome addition to add to the argument/bragging of w/l ratios with desertions now being able to be factored in.
Rating indicators sound like a prequel and a stepping stone to SBMM, however i dont understand the scale of it being 0 - 1000 when either of those numbers cannot be achieved since specified min max numbers were 190/900.
My thoughts and feelings are still annoyed with the battlepass overhaul, of which most weapons and skins are now unobtainable after the fact. Where before GO’s were a great reward and something that was actually rewarding. Current login bonuses/battlepass daily completion are lackluster for anyone thats played the game for some time with boosters and silver no longer needed. current battlepass rewards might be obtainable from the gamba box but the chances of getting those and not name change order etc are a complete joke, whereas having the option to select the reward i would like with a GO prior was nicer overall.
Weapon balancing needs to stop, overall the most updates this game has gotten in the last year has been consistant tweaks to weapons and br changes, id prefer the time and effort put into this be spent elsewhere, yes some balancing is needed, but not every other week/month.
Meteors… while i put this in the category of things the game didnt need (jets) the nerf was needed, but not to that extent, it should’ve (in mine and others feedback) just had one bomb removed and maneuverability nerfed, Jets need counteractive measures, like refill points being further away and soldiers having greater AA, the current turn time and damage output of a AA is no match for a jet, the current road map introduced better engineer built AT structures for high BR, the playerbase would definitely benefit from this stretching to high BR engineer built AA aswell, which had this been added with jets would’ve alleviated some of the complaints, since players would then have been able to shoot them down more easily.
Proper customization years back has been a missed monetization strategy that im still surprised that the game has side stepped to this day.
Excited to see what the new drops will be aslong as both platforms do not get exclusive rewards to each other.
I’m more than happy to expand where needed.
Cheers
1 Like
What do you mean? He has revealed a little bit about the next BP.
Good to know that the previous promise of transparency was pointless then if it was only done because of high demand and not to follow through with your promises made in part one.
I know this might sound a bit petty but it still is telling how much you value those promises when the only thing keeping the series from beeing canned was the demand for more and not a genuine desire to do better…
1 Like
This is a “tank” lol
It just needed a turn speed reduction with no changes to bombs. Me262 gets 4 mark 108s with their bomb. How is this so hard for people to grasp?!
That is a tank destroyer. But still a tank