It still comes down to the actual players, this year I haven't had a single loss as a soviet, and war isn't fair.

At the end of the day, match losses come from the quality of player making up each team. I've seen american teams field every 'advantage' they have through almost the whole game (LAV-25 at range, huey rapid insertion, and targeting ai logi with their more accurate/controllable rocket hueys) but they still lost due to poor teamwork.

The biggest problem is not the assymetrical equipment balance - though they really ought to add a reloadable rocket launcher for US, and a vehicle with a cannon for SOV - it's the fact that player quality has plummeted due to consoles and 'casual' players, and there are not enough in game tools to alleviate the knowledge discrepancy or they are simply bypassed because they are not mandatory. Field manual, tutorial. It should be that players can gain necessary knowledge just by playing normally but conflict doesn't teach that well as a gamemode. I imagine everyone has the experience by now of a new player spawning a car at a frontline base, driving off as the only occupant, only to die 400m down the road to repeat the process until they burn all the supplies.

I have recently concluded that the most effective way to improve teamplay is through a significantly overhauled and role-gated system of rank point progression in the HQ Commander game mode.

A dynamic ranking structure could incentivize specialized play by allocating variable points based on performance relative to assigned roles. For example:

• Recon Squads: Points should be delayed or modified based on specific actions, such as successfully dropping map markers at enemy positions identified from their designated recon task zone. Furthermore, the role of a spotter could earn more points for marking locations than for combat kills, while snipers might receive greater rewards when operating in a recon squad context that is otherwise underserved by other reconnaissance units.

• Combat Engineers: Increased points should be awarded specifically for successful repairs and maintenance efforts, recognizing their critical support role.

• Assault Squads: Rank point gain could be tied to the successful capture of assigned targets (particularly objectives like 'Secure this Base'). This ensures that players fulfill objectives beyond merely fighting, thereby preventing command redundancy or negligence.

The fundamental principle is that if players are incentivized through the reward system to progress and improve their gameplay, they will naturally learn and adopt the necessary roles. Even if the mechanics become complex, the underlying rules remain incredibly simple:

1. Identify a need within your team, and perform actions that fulfill it to earn rewards.

2. Execute the core responsibilities of your assigned role.

3. Complete objectives as mandated by your command assignments.

I don't think bohemia wants this and I don't want it either. Part of the charm is the freedom to do whatever whenever inside the conflict gamemode. It wouldn't go down well with experienced nor new players.

To be honest, I would be open to having a player tag system with tags like 'Instructor' and 'experienced' and 'completed tutorial'.

Potentially if new players can seek out more experienced players more easily, it might set them up properly for quickly getting into the swing of things under the guidance of a experienced player or a player who is good at/wants to teach.

the freedom to do whatever whenever inside the conflict

That freedom does not get lost.
i just means if you want to have more effectivly rank points you will have to play along.

because right now. nobody listens to the commander. a lot of people want to be sniper.
and nobody is working together to attack targets together.
all parts where rewards do not influence the game. (except for squadleader coheesion)
i mean if people dont want it they can always play legacy conflict. HQ Commander is currently in a in-between world where it does not reach the goal it should.