The current event mode has too many critical issues!

Suggestions Other
1
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

  1. Soldier weapons and abilities are subpar.
    The weapons provided are unupgraded stock versions, and the stamina pool is ridiculously low. Furthermore, the bolt-cycling speed is painfully slow. In a WWI-themed mode where rally points do not exist, having insufficient stamina creates a very frustrating experience when navigating the map.

  2. Tank climbing and off-road mobility are abysmal.
    This is a point I have suggested before: environmental obstacles hinder tank movement excessively. Destructible objects do not break easily under the weight of a tank, and once you fall into a shell crater, it is nearly impossible to get out. Crossing trenches is also unnecessarily difficult. While I understand the slow historical speed, poor off-road performance only adds to the player’s frustration.

  3. The TTK (Time to Kill) feels awkwardly dragged out.
    Due to the map layout (long distances between spawn points and objectives) and the issues mentioned in point #1, the pacing of combat becomes excessively slow. To make matters worse, the spawn cooldown is too long for this type of mode! Most players expected frantic, close-quarters trench warfare, but the current event feels like a repetitive cycle of long-range sniping and slow deaths. Please shorten the distance between spawns and objectives or reduce the spawn cooldown.

  4. Event missions do not align with the mode’s theme.
    The number of capture points is too small, and they are excessively difficult to take. Despite this, there are event missions that require a high number of captures. When the mode itself isn’t fun and the missions are overly demanding, it creates a negative synergy that discourages play.

This is such a wasted opportunity for what could have been an amazing WWI experience.

6 Likes
2

yes indeed.

we all know its kind of historical, but this guys really think can cap points under unlimited artilery, bombers, gases?

if we have rally, bots and limited arty call? just like normal games, yes. it prob easy task.
but jeez. oneman squad, unlimited campers, and ez die? hell no.

2 Likes
3

Points are also an issue, to get rewards requeres playing the game all day, its insane

(I do like the event, just some issues)

4 Likes
4

This is absolutely terrible. It seems like most players in the game are just masochists for DF.
What game would have players climbing out of the trench 10 times, dying 9 times, and still be happy?
In the end, they don’t blame the devs — they blame others, telling themselves this is just like Battlefield 1. That went on for years, and now you’re gonna drag this slow-paced crap out for years too.
Oh, I’m so enjoying this. I don’t even want rewards; the event itself is the reward or whatever.
I look down on them so much.

I’d rather play War Thunder and Battlefield 1 — at least they have fast pacing.
Solo mode can go to hell. I want squad mode back.

1 Like
5

It seems War Thunder players are complaining again. I’ll just say this: this campaign isn’t some Western fast-food trash game; it’s a genuine WWI historical experience. The pace is slow because WWI was the dawn of modern warfare. Without this dawning war, there wouldn’t have been the rampage of mechanized forces in World War II. If you think Enlisted isn’t fun, go back to War Thunder and play your nuclear bombing campaign mode. I really don’t understand why you Cold War enthusiasts keep coming to Enlisted to cause trouble. We were supposed to be minding our own business, but you insist on calling Enlisted, a WWII military history game, completely worthless.

7

Haha, buddy, that’s some pretty ridiculous logic. Just because someone criticizes an event, they’re suddenly a War Thunder player?

I deleted War Thunder over five years ago. And I’ve been playing Enlisted since the closed beta.

Enlisted isn’t a historically accurate game—it’s just a combined arms game with squad infantry and vehicles using the War Thunder damage model. People even call it a “rare weapons collection game” on Reddit for a reason.

If you want a war simulator, go play something in the simulation genre. Enlisted isn’t a war simulator or a war documentary game.

8

Ah… Originally, DF envisioned Enlisted as a “war documentary game.” At least that was the case back in the CBT days.
DF always emphasized “historical accuracy,” and they were even willing to make weapons deliberately unbalanced for the sake of that realism. That’s something that’s pretty much been forgotten these days.This current event really brings back the atmosphere of the old Enlisted.
The days when you’d be crawling on your belly through Moscow with an M1907 rifle in your hands, terrified of the Pz2s…

1 Like
9

At least during its closed beta phase, Enlisted was a true historical simulation game of World War II. The current version is simply correcting its mistakes. If Enlisted were to completely deviate from World War II history in the future, its fate would be the same as the fictional World War II storylines in Call of Duty 18. I don’t deny that Enlisted involves collecting weapons and equipment, but all of this is based on historically existing weapons and squads, not fictional ones. Finally, War Thunder players have a very low opinion of Enlisted. So if you love Enlisted, you should learn to maintain and improve it, not slander and attack it.

10

Your logic is so disastrous that I had to think long and hard about where even to begin.

First, let’s go back to the World War I event. You called it a “genuine WWI historical experience.” Haha, just imagine the players spamming the ‘F’ key in front of radio equipment just to call in artillery. In fact, to hog the artillery strikes, they sprint backward toward the edge of the map the moment the match starts, staying out of the fight just to sit by the radio and wait through a 180-second cooldown after firing. (Keep in mind, right after launch—before the patch—that cooldown was only 60 seconds.) A genuine WWI historical experience? In a real battle, those soldiers would have been summarily executed on the spot.

Second, you brought up the Enlisted Closed Beta. Closed Beta Enlisted was even less historically accurate in terms of combat. Back then, there were no spawn requirements for planes, so players would buy extra slots, equip multiple aircraft, suicide-bomb objectives, and immediately spawn in another plane. It made the game incredibly “unrealistic.” Furthermore, since there was no interference between players calling in artillery, capture points were under a constant, unlimited barrage. No one wanted to play as infantry; it was just a cycle of artillery, mortars, and vehicle spam from the rear. Real combat doesn’t work like that! If an objective was too hard to hit, troops would flank and seize other points.

You claim those days were “historical,” but in reality, they had nothing to do with history—it was just a broken, unfinished game system. The current Enlisted is much more stable and is finally taking proper shape. That is exactly why players aren’t leaving and continue to play. The key to maintaining a game is knowing how to effectively use “gameplay abstractions.”

If you make a game excessively inconvenient for the sake of “accuracy” (which, as I pointed out, isn’t even accurate here), players will abandon it, ruining the game’s long-term prospects. Games like Hell Let Loose or Verdun were more “historically accurate” than Enlisted, yet they couldn’t sustain their momentum—and even they had gameplay abstractions. I don’t even need to mention the fate of games that tried to be literal war documentaries or pure simulators.

If you truly cared about Enlisted, your number one priority should be removing elements that create a frustrating user experience, rather than obsessing over historical pedantry. I am always thinking about how to sustain and evolve this game, and I know for a fact that “historical accuracy” is not the magic fix.

What I’ve provided is criticism, not slander. If you perceived it as an attack on Enlisted, it simply means you aren’t ready to handle an objective critique.

1 Like
11

Your criticism must be based on Enlisted’s monetization strategy, followed by suggestions for game design that align with WWII history, and finally, on overall game balance. If you prioritize a purely enjoyable experience while ignoring the game’s historical accuracy and future development, I can only say you’re turning Enlisted into a garbage game and using War Thunder’s perspective to rob Enlisted of its future. If not, why can’t you provide constructive suggestions that everyone appreciates while still indulging in monetization, instead of constantly complaining and criticizing without offering any effective improvements? Of course, if you want the developers to add non-WWII historical content, forget it, because I don’t want to see Germans and Japanese speaking English.

12

Haha, you clearly didn’t even read what I wrote. I already provided solutions in my previous points.

You aren’t even reading what I’ve written; you’re just dismissing my criticism as an attack.

Is there even a point in continuing this conversation with someone like you? I think we can only have a real dialogue once you’ve actually bothered to read and understand my points. Until then, I don’t see any value in responding to you.

1 Like
13

Therefore, I don’t need to reply to you any further. If you’re unwilling to provide more funding for Enlisted and instead just complain about how bad the game is, then I think you’re simply venting your emotions. The game’s development requires funding, and you’re unwilling to contribute. Anyone can talk, but you’re unwilling to offer money or advice.