From a long-term perspective, the merger is beneficial to the development of the game. For this reason, I may be more inclined to support
The problem of non-merger is obvious. It divides the originally small player group into multiple smaller groups, making each battle lack real players. Even if there are more than 4 players on both sides, it is very rare.
And the game will continue to develop, which will mean more battles, the player group will continue to be divided and eventually each battle will be in a permanent PVE state, and the strength of the campaign camp is likely to be determined by a small group of people. Not a game developer, which means losing control
Let’s look at the Tunisia Campaign, the Pacific Campaign, and the Battle of Stalingrad. A small group of people determines the strength of the camp, and one side is often filled by BOT because there are no players.
Moreover, the merger will have direct benefits for the development of the game. When updating more weapons, there is no need to update the campaigns one by one. It is more suitable for extending the technology tree of later generations. Cold War weapons may also appear in the future, and there is no need to spend time redesigning the campaign.
This means less re-leveling, playing duplicate weapons or even spending resources to upgrade them.
But I also have my worries
What will happen to the map after the merger? Will they be divided strictly according to historical years? I think it’s a little difficult, because taking the German technology tree as an example, after the merger, weapons like the MP3008 from 1945 are likely to appear on earlier maps. It’s weird no matter how you think about the German army using MP3008 and VG15 in the Moscow Battle.
If all the maps are stuffed into one pool regardless of year, it means that it has begun to become Battlefield or COD.
Like Battlefield 5. The American army using STG44, the German army using Thompson, and Japanese soldiers are fighting on the European battlefield. Do you want to see such a situation?
Or was it the King Tiger H vs. IS-2 in the Battle of Moscow?
I hope it won’t become a reality, but that’s just my hope, the reality is very cruel
Moreover, the map design of this game was originally designed to serve the unmerged campaign mode. Will some map designs be reasonable after the merger? For example, if Army aircraft were added to the Pacific campaign, how would they take off from aircraft carriers?
In addition, the merger will cause short-term foreseeable chaos, the division of the technology tree is somewhat unreasonable, and the embarrassing situation of the unpopular camp.
For example, the Japanese camp will probably not get more players, but the number of US military players will rise sharply. This will make the Japanese camp very difficult because it has not been incorporated into the German technology tree.
In addition, I don’t know whether the weapons and vehicles from the Normandy Battle will appear in the Pacific. If that is the case, it would be terrible.
