I just hope they add the new mechanics and features to all the campaigns, it is very strange to have things like different recoil and damage in one campaign and not the others.
I have to agree. I have no F-ing clue what has been happening here.
But still, WR argument is a shit argument unless we are talking about ballance (but even then it’s only an indicator, not an argument itself).
2 Likes
I’m going to take the chance and try Stalingrad.
I have my own view on what $30 means to me.
Stuff is expensive these days. I can’t even go to the theaters for $30 with my wife anymore. And that’s for what? 1 to 2 hours of entertainment?
I could buy another title, and at times I get good value out of that, but my fun also equates to playing with friends and making new ones. Many titles I play its a bugger to find people to play together with.
$30 that will potentially get me hundreds of hours of enjoyment with friends is how I look at it. Playing with friends and enjoying supporting a title that I have 23days worth of play into. That makes the cost palatable for me.
If it turns out to be a wash with population issues and balance issues , then I will reconsider future investment.
My thoughts at least.
6 Likes
right on point.
3 Likes
Ghost town worse than tunisia after first weeks.
To people complaining about people complaining about price, remember that many players still support with premium and elite battlepass, which already surpass any AAA title’s price. And 30$ is like 213769420 rubles
1 Like
But…I actually like Tunisia 
On a more serious note, as much as I’d like to have infinite many new compaigns, this trend will just result in ghosttown campaigns as said many times previously. Even now with “only” 4 campaigns, they take turns based on multiple factors (time of day, new content, day of the week, campaign are especially scarcecly populated in the middle of the week for understandable reasons) on being a ghost town and being close to unplayable at least on one side. Stalingrad will just increase the number of these problems, especially with the p2p model inside a f2p game. The CBT passes were already a huge scam (50$ to play the campaign like a month before release and you get like one premium squad?) but this is something else. Don’t get me wrong, I like this game and will probably play it since I literally just bought my 1 year premium a day before Stalingrad’s announcement, but I’m still worried a bit.
2 Likes
The year is 2024, Enlisted’s 7th campaign has recently been released and the games player base is roughly 100 people per campaign. All is fine. Perfectly fine.
1 Like
plot twist:
with this post you made Shiivex realize what is going to happen if he would not save Enlisted, so he started paying people to play Enlisted!
2 Likes
Not for nothing. For donating hundreds of hours of your life. Online games can’t function without players. Players are content, arguably the most important part of it. At the same “entertainment” you get for those hours of your life likely does not come in a 1:1 ratio. This kind of rhetoric is extremely misguided.
Nein kamerad!
at that point i m probably playing diferent game
1 Like
I personally like Tunisia… and yes, maybe it is just as you said, rinse and repeat, that’s what happens with every VG.
I was waiting for something different too, like another country. It sounds like the same map all over again…
I wish the medic isn’t pay to play
This is why they need to randomize the factions and change the progression system. There are enough players to fill out campaigns but the vast majority of people will not willingly play as the Axis if given the choice, take the choice away like in most shooters and the population problem goes away.
Why should they? They just made it so that people can grind now 4-8 times the speed for more money and people are pre-ordering it like no tomorrow.
Also everyone who bought gold and premium before and is not supporting “full-access” is know a poor sob.
I meant more along the lines of how things unlock, if you remove the ability to choose a faction, you will need to tweak the progression system so both factions level up evenly, so if you unlock the M1 Garand for Allies, you need to be able to unlcok the Geweher 43 for the Axis to keep everyone on an even level.
as others said already, if the MKB, PPSH , Panzer IV F2 and the T34 76 all be behind a paywall there would be zero reason to play that campaign… because that would be indeed playing a demo. High lvl gear being behind a paywall is not a good idea.
Now if this “paywall” would only give max lvl player more diversity, like giving comparable gear, like different bolt actions, SMGs that play a bit different but arent better than max lvl stuff, or in the case of tanks, giving different gameplay vehicles like unique tank hunters and support vehicles … if that happens no problem.
but if all you could play is BT 7, Panzer III, MP 40, AVT and DP28… well then playing as a free to play would be pointless.
in my honest opinion will be exacly like current premium squads.
imagine premium squads locked on stalingrad only for paying users. imo will be that way.
2 Likes
IMHO stalingrad is needed. And here is why:
- New features. Adding new features to old campaigns will require adding new levels which will contain questionable armament (like kar98 on lvl 33 in normandy). Plus not all features will be useful in all campaigns (how you are gonna use the motorcycles in normandy or moscow? Normandy in majority has the tunnel maps and only a couple of them will have use for motorcycles). We all want to have those features, that is basically what we love in the game.
- Different balancing. Basically stalingrad has the potential to become balanced version of moscow. Hopefully they wont ignite the arms race as they do in other campaigns so at the end we won’t have everyone playing with FG42/AVS which were unique types of weapons (one of the reasons to play in tunisia is the absence of the arms race). Also they said there will be different balance of SMG and bolt rifles.
- Paywall. If the campaign will look like BoB, you probably won’t research it without a need. But the good about it is that those who think that the reasons to research new campaign outweight the expenses will have the ability to do it fast so they won’t suffer from same weapon grind. Well thats what F2P games sell you - the ability to get the prize faster. Plus the paywall is single time payment that will cover everything - research, new troops, exclusive weapons and squads (basicaly permium squads without premium status). People who say that F2P players will suffer cuz they will have to grind against top tier paying players who got there faster - well when you will reach top tier you will make donators who didn’t research that before you suffer too. Plus as the TS stated - this campaign has no new guns - so if you don’t want to suffer you can play similar BoM.
that didn’t age well, did it?
What are you thoughts now, after the last Dev blog?
If I look on reddit it looks like they just killed 60-70% of their player base 
. Also I do know people like me that have only spend money on premium and gold so far (between 50-100€) that are having big time buyer remorse and say that they won’t spend money on the game again … .
On reddit there is actually also quite some players that have premium that are unpleased … .
The same i care about only the danuvia but i can live withaut