People play the tanks they want or the tanks they bought. Rarely do people pick vehicles based on performance.
Not all tanks are suitable for all matches. Doesn’t matter how badly I want to play something like a Nashorn, it’s entirely possible (Likely, even) that the game will give me match where the Nashorn is not a good idea. Sweden, Advance to the Rhine, etc.
I can still play that tank if I really feel like it, but I accept that based on the map I’m probably not going to be doing well in it. It’s not a fault of the tank, it’s that the tank just isn’t suitable for the match I got put into.
This goes for a wide selection of tanks. It’s a bad idea to play an S tank in a brawling map, or a T95 on a super large one. It doesn’t mean these a bad tanks, nor that they need some form of special matchmaker to ensure they don’t get these bad maps, it’s just that they aren’t very flexible, and thus you need to pair them with more flexible tanks if you want to have a good lineup.
The same is equally true for armored tanks and uptiers. Armored tanks are inevitably linked on their matchmaker, because their advantage is solely determined by what’s being fired at them. Ideally, they be put into a spot where they aren’t completely useless in a full uptier, and not completely dominating in a full downtier. Thanks to the current BR compression, this is often impossible.
6.7-7.7 heavies have this problem more than most. Most of them are almost entirely immune to APHE from the front, but very susceptible to ADPS/HEAT. Put them at too low a tier, and in downtiers they’re going to dominate everything. Put them too high, and their armor ceases to function at all. So Gaijin compromised and put them at a tier where they are pretty to very strong in a downtier, but pretty to very weak in an uptier.
Accordingly, players need to pick them with this fact in mind. If you have a bullminded determination to use a round peg regardless of the situation, you have to accept the fact that occasionally you’re going to be presented with a square hole. The problem isn’t the peg or the hole, it’s in your refusal to use the most appropriate tool for the job.
2 Likes
Cool thing is you didn’t even quote the entire idea. You’re like a shit reporter, but let me correct it for you. If there is a split for Early Cold War and WW2 the there needs to be one for Interwar and WW2. It only makes sense as there was a doctrine/technology leap at the beginning of WW2 just like there was after WW2.
It gives the game twice the issues that it had before. Two top tiers, two bottom tiers and dozens of vehicles that become useless because of it.
The forum is for discussion and change, but this idea of era matchmaking or splitting the game for the sake of heavy tanks is rediculous. They do perfectly well in uptiers and downtiers. The 6.7 German lineup heavy tabks are a force to be reckoned with, the 7.7 US lineup heavy tanks are a force to be reckoned with, stop trying to make it seem like they are helpless. This idea has been flushed out and discussed many times already, and it isn’t going to go anywhere. The reason why it isn’t making progress is because it isn’t good for the game, at all. You guys talk about this split and don’t even talk about how it’ll work for aircraft either because you only care about heavy tanks. The people against this idea are the ones who play other vehicles than heavy tanks. People who don’t want to see the Maus, Tiger 2, IS-3, IS-4, T32, T34, T29, Jadgtiger, Ferdinand, T95, T28, and any other slow heavily armored upgunned vehicle on every corner when they are trying to play vehicles with the 76mm (US), 90mm (US), 88mm (Germany), 75 (Germany), 85mm (USSR), and 100mm (USSR).
You’re upset the heavy tanks armor isn’t infallible in an uptier, but don’t see the irony that those heavy tanks have guns that nullify the armor of every other vehicle other than heavies. Yea, in an uptier they aren’t invincible, but in downtiers these heavy tanks do the same thing that you claim HEATFS and ATGMs do. They make eveything else die without a second thought.
6 Likes
I grew up in middle Europe. We can exchange slurs, but i can guarantee that i will win. In my language one can swear for a long time without repeating a word…
Also sorry that truth hurts.
And it is nowhere close to APHE, which is the most common shell at that BR. Any tank with a well placed shell will do better than an M-51, Ikv, etc.
Are you talking about the Ikv? because that has so little armor, that it will not stop anything, yet it has enough armor to fuse APHE. It’s gunner can also be killed by literally the smallest MG fire, because his head sticks out.
If you are talking about an M-51, then whe are you bringing up HE?
Either way, it just tells a lot about your skill issue.
You happy now?
It is neither.
Stug 4:
Jagdpanzer IV:
Panzer IV/70A:
I just finished playing the Pershing a few days ago, with a gun, that has less than half of the pen, that drops off with distance, and my K/D in it is over 12.
And even with other 5.7-6.3 mediums, i have by far the worst K/D in the M-51.
I rather use a reliable shell with less pen, than HEAT, that can just do nothing because reasons. Even the Panther’s really bad APHE is orders of magnitude better.
Check your mental health dude.
Also, maybe use some actual arguments instead of insults. Arguments tend to work better :)
Are you suprized? A germany main complaining about HEAT shooting tanks, while he didn’t even play with any of them? Never seen before thing!
It would not.
USSR would completly dominate, because they would have IS-3s, IS-4s, T-44 variants, while all ofther nations would have nothing that can counter them in any meaningful way.
I played the Type 69, and even it’s awful dart was better than HEAT. The only exception is tanks with thicher, but not very angled plates, like german tanks. Against those, HEAT is better, but in general, it is worse.
And HEAT compared to something, like an L7 APDS is just laughably bad.
Chi-Nu II a jack of all trades? WHAT?! (and you didn’t even play it). it is literally a glasscannon, even more so than a Panzer 4.
And while something, like a chinese IS-2 can just HE kill an IS-4, the T34 can’t, becuase it lacks 1mm pen.
Well said.
Because it is a WWII tank. There is ZERO WWII tank, that can reliably counter it, except 30mm+ pen HE on the turret roof.
The T29 would see nothing but late WWII heavies, that can just LOLpen it, while you can’t pen them… Great. And that’s even if it will be classed as WWII. To my knowledge, it was only finished after the war ended, so it can potentially be classed as cold war.
1 Like
So basically the game can’t work without BR to save its ass. Possibly the same with CAS.
Its not a very good game is it really?
The trouble is with your argument (and I understand your argument) is that this terrible idea of facing the Uptier is one we already have and far too often.
Again it would bring no new issues to the party only underline those we already have and those that many of the forum base deny exist. The game cant always exists with a tier above it, top tier is the example. Presumably at some point in the games history 6-7 BR would have been the upper limit.
We all complain about the uptier under normal circumstances and are told it’s a skill issue etc., now suddenly its a game killer and an unmountable hurdle.
Only inexperienced players say this, or maybe a specific vehicle/nation/BR combos. The uptier complaints are just another symptom of the dumbing down, same with the aircraft complaints (outside of new mode suggestions purely in a “something different” context).
Top Tier has always existed, just the game slowly pushed forward to extend this Top Tier until we now have things like the Challenger 3! In my opinion Top Tier has always been the most wonky part of the game and only for those wanting to be ahead of an imaginery curve (get there first and you can make it work).
Top tier is a personal goal and not the “end-game”. There is no “end game” as it is essentially open-ended with play what you want. The grind system exists which makes the game open for money making but then creates a false expectation of there being some goal to the current top tier other than it just being an artificial end.
Uptiers are a player problem for the most part, not a game issue. First place/most impactful player is not automatically the top BR vehicle, in some cases can be the worst position to be top BR dependant on lineup/map. At least that is how I viewed the game.
You’re overlooking one fundamental difference between top tier and everything else. What utterly breaks top tier is that it doesn’t follow the normal rules of quantitative matchmaking.
TEC talked about it during one of the recent TEC talks, I won’t repeat the explanation in full, but suffice to say that if only 4 top tier players at one time could be in a match, their queue times would be pretty bad. So what happens at top tier is that you have matches with “nominal” higher BR (and literal higher BR if the right aircraft comes along). That is what makes it unbalanceable for those who are right below it.
Also, the lack of vehicle variety, speed of engagements, and the range at which some machines can engage, don’t exactly help the situation of top tier.
It’s certainly a very successful game: few MMOs are so long-lived, and vehicle combat is a small niche. Yet during the Christmas holidays War Thunder was in the top 20 or 30 of many Steam Charts.
Now, is it good?
I believe it is, even if it suffers from several issues. I mean, that goes without saying, I have nearly 3k hours in the damn thing, if I really thought it was a bad game I just wouldn’t play it, and would play something else, right? There’s plenty of choice. Life is short, and work is stressful enough, I’m not going to pursue a hobby I dislike. If I really were so unhappy with the game I would simply drop it.
Now, War Thunder is basically the only MMO I play. I don’t really like MMOs. The business model that makes them possible, leads to many design choices that are really not for me. War Thunder is a remarkable exception in that regard, it’s actually lured me in and made me stay, which no other MMO has achieved. And it’s been doing this to a lot of players for many many years. So in spite of the popular trope that Gaijin are all bumbling idiots, they clearly know at least some of what they’re doing, or we wouldn’t be talking here, yes?
However, MMOs follow their own logic and you can’t ignore that if you want to evaluate how good or bad a game is. For example:
I’m not sure about CAS, but yeah, basically, a game with 2000 vehicles is always going to have huge balancing issues.
No single player game about war would ever have 2000 different vehicles in, all at the same time. Stop for a moment and think about how insane that is. Look at how many tank models, or even just units in general, are in Company Of Heroes 3, or IL-2 Tank Crew. So you have a binary choice here. And obviously when it’s not PVP, things are much easier to balance because you can just tweak the AI.
And not just because of balance, by the way, but because no dev team is going to be able to output 2000 vehicles in the short period of a few years that is the development cycle of a “normal” game. War Thunder can keep producing insane amounts of content, most of it free, because of its business model. Last year we got 200 vehicles added.
If you want to understand WT, you need to do it on its terms.
Say you’re a WT dev, you have a binary choice. You can create a more cohesive experience with a smaller number of vehicles, or you can have 2000 vehicles and need to find some way to balance it over time. Only one of these options allows you to constantly add content over a period of time, which is how MMOs stay alive. Are you surprised they went with the latter? Given how well the game is doing, are you so confident to say that they made the wrong choice?
Then there is the next layer to this decision. The BR system isn’t just about balance. It’s also about managing player progress, because if some of your matches are more difficult and some easier, your progress will be slower. Because if you face a smaller array of vehicles, your matches will be more predictable, and your efficiency at research and progression would increase. Because when you get frustrated with the grind you’re more tempted to pay and get to top tier faster.
Also the fact that we’re all uptiered most of the time means that the first time you see a “new” tank, you’re seeing how well it does in a downtier, and you think, damn, I want that too, I’ll grind it out so I can finally start to have fun. Then you start playing it mostly in uptiers and the cycle of disappointment begins anew.
Do I like this system of incentives? No. Can a free to play MMO survive without using these marketing tactics? I don’t know. What I do know is that once I recognise that pattern of incentives, I can avoid it and enjoy the game on my own terms rather than Gaijin’s, and that’s good enough for me.
And to close out - simulator already has lists in place of BRs, and yet has basically identical strengths and weaknesses as the rest of the game. Because the BR system is just the “how”, not the “why” of decisions being made. So even if you replaced it with something else, you would still end up in the same spot: this is an MMO, it functions like MMOs, and players who expect a single-player-like experience from it (like I did) are always going to be disappointed.
2 Likes
That made sense but to me cutting the game in two solves issues for many while not creating any issues we dont already have. Top tier by rights should collapase yet it is the point every player is stampeding towards.Some might say it is the reason for the sucess of which ypu speak.To give on immersion is to give up on the game for me.Just my two pennies worth.
“Cutting the game in two” is not the whole story either.
If we cut the game in two but we maintain performance-based matchmaking, the M-51 will still be in the WW2 division, and so will many Swedish and French postwar vehicles. Because they’re not good enough to be anywhere else. So you have created a new area of the game where there are issues akin to top tier’s, but you still don’t have the immersion you’re asking for.
If we cut the game in two on historical lines - an arbitrary line that will bring up countless disputes about where borderline vehicles should be, and why the Puma gets to face stuff from the 1930s instead of Normandy 1944 lineups - you run into the same issues of historical matchmaking. A lot of tanks Gaijin has developed and implemented will not be played anymore because they can’t be competitive.
Want to grind Sweden, already a nation not as played as the Big Three? Tough luck, 90% of it is in division two, because it’s postwar. And they’re also terrible vehicles, so you might as well just not bother. I don’t even need to go further - we’ve already effectively killed an entire ground tree just with this proposal alone.
This also leads nicely into the next point. What about the grind? Can you grind either division independently of the other? So all the players who just like the modern stuff jump into division 2 without ever touching the world war stuff? You have just cut 50% of their grind to top tier. Do you really think Gaijin would ever consider that? That it wouldn’t impact lobbies? That it wouldn’t impact player quality since a fresh-faced rookie would be starting with an M109 or an IKV?
And if you do need to grind division 1 first, what about Sweden, France, Japan, with their minimal lineups from the WW2 era? Do you have to grind one of the WW2 main nations first before you unlock one of the cold war minnows, like Israel now? Because that’s a terrible system and one of the reasons why the Israeli tech tree should have never been added except as a subtree.
You make it sound simple, but it only sounds simple if you ignore all the side effects it would have. Hard as it is to believe, there are players out there who actually do enjoy playing Sweden, and I want them to have as much fun as I have. And that’s before you even bring the business side of it into this conversation.
It probably has something to do with that, yes. That doesn’t scale linearly though. It doesn’t mean that a “second top tier” would lead more players into the game.
The fact that top tier is good for marketing and bad for gameplay, doesn’t mean that two top tiers would be good for marketing and somehow also good for gameplay.
Immersion is completely subjective. Even with a perfectly historical matchmaking, I wouldn’t be immersed in a historical sense in War Thunder. I just can’t unsee the fact that there’s no infantry, no arty, no supplies, no logistics, the battlefield makes no sense, there are no orders, no mission command or command structure in general… The vehicles themselves feel realistic and so fleshed out you could almost touch them, and that’s where most of WT’s immersion comes from. But I just treat it like a game.
5 Likes
Splitting game in two makes zero changes to grind. At rank IV m51 would be facing what currently faces. I think you are massively overthinking it
1 Like
So… You would still fight M-51s in Tiger IIs. How does that change your immersion in any way?
2 Likes
Except for the fact that you could skip out on half the tree which is critical for new players to learn the basics of the game instead of being thrown into the more complicated higher tiers immediately, which is something that has already been mentioned…
1 Like
I just have an as much of an issue with it ,dont get me wrong ,you could remove Isreal entirely as far as I am concerned but unless the m51 went to 7 br we would be stuck with it
You are being remidial dude,hope that is not on purpose
how can I see my stats like in the picture you showed?
Look yourself up on Thunderskill
I’m simply clarifying what was previously stated.
Im going to say some things and be gone until i find a reason to reply again.This goes to all that previously talked to me.
Thunderskill sais little about my ingame activity.I have all but abandoned late war Germany.I visit the maus out of nostalgia because it is not enjoyable to play anymore.Also my stats are not good on everything because frankly i dont play all vehicles i own that much.The ones i use are on the 50% mark or somewhat higher or lower and you cant really go higher with gaijin giving you bad teammates on purpose after a few games so that your stats stay in the 50% area.Like,some games magically half the enemy team is level 100 and im with a bunch of level 15s i wonder how a big coincidence this is.In general i play low tier and top tier (11.7) regarding Germany and on other nations focus on low tier exclusively.The moment i went from 7.7 and 11.7 to 3.0-4.0 i became exponentially happier and refreshed.Maps were the correct size,i could move around and not die/get penned from insane angles and distances due to advanced shells and the CAS was barely strong.Thats war thunder.
In general i complain about the unfair advantage cold war tech has because i want to go beyond the 5.0-6.0 barrier on many nations but im unwilling to fight cold war vehicles more than half of my games.Why play French 6.0-7.7 tanks ? So that i can suffer the same way i suffered playing the maus years back ? Their armor and gun advantage means little when fighting armored cars with recoiless rifles rangefinders,stabilizers etc etc.Why start the US tech tree and go beyond the Sherman with the long 75 or the Jumbo with the small 75 ? So that i face German m48s and leo1s with heatfs,apds ? Or so that i face the t55am1 ? The kind of gameplay promoted,if i choose to go down that path,is that of static camping.Ive done it for years,i get kills with any vehicle but its boring requires little skill and its the complete opposite of my low tier experience.I want to contribute to the team,keep my tank the entire battle and get the heavy metal hero,survivor not die and respawn in 15 different vehicles.The tanks i play i play because i like them and i usually try to master them just like people master their planes on air rb.This wouldnt be a problem if my threats were expected for my vehicle type and for its era.While playing aggressively and doing stuff is possible even in those vehicles you simply cannot do it consistently with those threats being around.So again,i can play and survive and get kills but at the cost of almost sleeping on my desk and at the cost of not being mentally challenging.In general the gameplay with those vehicles is closer to a survival horror game than an actual battle.
O and by the way i have no problem locating enemies no matter their size and i have no situational awareness problems unless im really tired or not in the mood,just like everyone else i guess.Im extremely aware of flanks and utilize them myself whenever i see an opportunity even on heavy tanks (even on the freakin maus).The thing is you dont stand much of a chance from a cold war gun.HEATFS may not kill you but it will damage you or kill your crew in situations where no other gun you were supposed to face would do and you cant really calculate how to protect yourself against it.A jeep is made for off roading in mind now if you want to use it as a formula 1 thats another story but you will lose almost all the time.
Also these cold war vehicles dont fight just late second world war heavies.We have HEATFS on 6.something and even lower from what i remember and the IKV103 is one example of a vehicle carrying advanced munitions being bad its not how things generaly are so stop parroting about it.
Furthermore your arguments fail to reach me since i dont see them as valid at all.If youre unable to face a heavy,medium,light of ww2 with the tools of the said era then youre the problem.The war didnt happen with the germans using leo2a4s and the americans the pershing or the russians fighting the Jagdpanther with the t54-t55.I say the same thing to people saying that CAS somehow enriches tank RB.No it doesnt.It only annoys vehicles enthousiasts and gives credit to people that cant use their ground vehicle.If i can uptier the panzer 3 M to 5.0 and contribute to the team and someone cannot use their Sherman with the 76 or t3485 properly the game doesnt need to pamper them with multi bomb ground strickers that require almost 0 skill to use.Sherman players (and t34 ones of all variants) that know what theyre doing put to shame half of the german playerbase,do the americans really need to spawn 5 p47ds and annihilate the entire enemy team ? Cant they refine their skills ? Of course they can but Gaijin refuses to remove the easy option.People will follow the path of least resistance and as much as i argue with anyone in here it matters little since the snail is the biggest problem not the average player.
When the game started it was historically accurate and it was fine.Im not advocating for full on accuracy since we have sim battles for that but lets not dissolve all vehicles into working the same and lets stop mixing everything without the slightest discrimination.I expected these arguments but i cant take them seriously.I made this thread so that my opinion is heard and so that this issue is out there and so that i create a chance for change to happen.
1 Like
guess who will win
IS-2(1944) with BR471D,
or Jagdtiger with PzGr43?
and you also said the cold war vehicles in low BR, for example, the Type62 in BR6.7, it got a 300pen HEATFS, OP right? but it can be easy pen by even a T34(1940), and has no stabilizer, which means it may cant have the first shot when it meet the Jegdtiger
and the Type56 APBC/APCBC/HAVP can even only pen Jagftiger’s MG
i dont think its a skill issue that someone cant kill a Jagdtiger in Type62
if that CW vehicle cant even face a WW2 one a little bit easier, how it face a real CW vehicle?
4 Likes
My apologies for the misunderstanding, I did not bring up TS to judge you by your stats or anything of the sort. I just wanted to say that since you’ve used the Maus a lot, and to good effect, you probably already know that the 75mm coax with HEAT and 5sec reload makes it infinitely more capable against light vehicles than most heavies at and around the era-breaking BRs.
For the same reason why you’d play or not play anything else. Do you enjoy it?
If you don’t enjoy it, not playing it is the correct decision. I don’t really care for top tier gameplay and haven’t really ventured beyond 7.7 except for the occasional battlefield challenge. On the other hand, 6.7 is my favourite BR in the game.
We get different enjoyments out of different things in the game. That’s okay.
Leopard 1 is 8.0, so your 6.7 American lineup (which I’d argue is as strong as German 6.7 and a bit more well-rounded perhaps) will not see it. The T29 might. Then again the T29, like the Tiger II, is the sort of vehicle whose gun remains formidable even in a full uptier.
The German Patton, yes, you can see it, since it’s at 7.7. But Pattons have pretty bad armour. The KwK 43 goes through them like butter.
Usually when I play the Tiger II in a full uptier, I treat it like a medium tank and flank. It works pretty well.
My favourite vehicle in the game is the Jagdtiger, and I always get weird “looks” when I say that, because it is objectively an incredibly situational vehicle. When I started playing the Tiger II more, the number of nukes I was dropping compared to the JT increased… and not really because I’ve improved that much in a short period of time. It’s because the Tiger II is simply great.
What people underestimate is that it’s not just that the gun is good, but the gun handling is superb, the reload is very very good, and the turret rotation speed is great. So what you can do with some great success, especially with the better mobility of the Sla, is get reasonably timely and aggressively into a chokepoint or pretty good corner position, and hold it even against multiple enemies, because yes, you’re a heavy, but you have the reactivity of a medium tank.
I am yet to get a nuke with it at 7.7, I’ve only done it at lower BRs, but I’ve come close many times. And I’m hardly an exceptional player, in fact I’ve had a string of terrible matches recently alongside the nukes (been distracted by RL stuff and ended up playing with my brain turned off).
Still, how many heavies would be able to say the same? Many are literally useless in a full uptier, not so the Tiger II. That’s why I’m always so sceptical when people tell me it’s not competitive or meta anymore. Maybe you don’t enjoy using it against its current opposition, that’s fair, but it’s also subjective, whereas saying that it isn’t competitive is an objective statement… if it wasn’t competitive, I wouldn’t have net positive stats in it. Simple as.
That is why I have 3k matches in the Jagdtiger. Again a lot of people look at that sort of thing and just think “oh god, average German main” or think that I’m insane. And the latter is partly true. But I’m just a somewhat obsessive-type personality and I want to absolutely perfect my understanding of a vehicle I really like before I move on. When I can shoot planes out of the sky with the 128mm with one eye closed, then I’ll be satisfied. 😁
That doesn’t happen at any BR. 1.0 is extremely anachronistic as it is. And a lot of design compromises and functions our vehicles have, were designed with threats in mind that don’t exist in the game, mostly infantry, small arms, even mines.
Be aggressive with the Jagdtiger and your match will be very short. The true key to that vehicle is knowing when is the time to hang back and when is the time to push. It’s a difficult judgement call to make.
Not so the Tiger II.
When I first started playing the Tiger II and the Sla, I was still a noob and didn’t have a clue how to use them correctly. I had read the wiki articles, which recommended to sit back and favour engagement ranges above 900m to maximise the armour profile and the gun’s great ballistics, and since I hadn’t yet realised just how incomplete the wiki can be at times, I played the Tiger IIs very passively. Sat back and sniped. They were okay at it, but of course I ended up preferring the Jagdtiger because it was better at that particular job, and that’s how my love story with it began - and evolved considerably as I became better as a player over time, of course.
I only really came back to the Tiger IIs a few months ago. I was playing with this friend of mine who had returned to the game after a long absence. He’s someone who’s done plenty of tournaments and competitive stuff, so when I was introduced to him I was eager to learn from him. Our very first match together was on Sun City. I had an okay match in the Jagdtiger. He spawned the Tiger II H, and dropped a nuke.
Alright, I thought to myself, the friends who introduced me to him weren’t kidding. And I’ve seen over time playing with him that he’s the sort of player who’ll casually turn up one evening and drop thre nukes in three out of six matches and just make you understand in a very real way how far you still have to go to be really good at the game.
But I digress. At that point, all my nukes bar one had been with the Jagdtiger, and the other had been in a Dicker Max (yes, yes, I know). So that very same evening I opened up the replay of Sun City to see what this guy had done with his Tiger II to get the nuke.
I was astonished at how aggressive he was with it, because it went against the grain of everything I had been told about the vehicle. Oh, your armour doesn’t matter, oh, just sit back and snipe, etc etc. Then he turns up and does exactly what I described above - push aggressively, let people come to him after the first engagement so he has the advantage of reaction time, relocating a bit after each 2-3 kills, and just use the turret rotation, reload, and gun to hold a portion of the map and score multiple kills. And by the time they finally do get him, he has the nuke already.
I started trying to emulate that playstyle… and it works.
This is a long essay, I know, and very personal, which maybe nobody cares about in the slightest, but I think there is a lesson here for those who care to hear it. You can tell me the Tiger II isn’t competitive a thousand times, but I’ve seen what it can do, and when the stars align and I have more brain function than usual, I’ve approximated that achievement too.
Like I always say when clapping cold war vehicles with it… grandpa’s still got it.
I find that heavies like these make for amazing anti-flankers. Not surprising when you think about it, since you are forcing light vehicles into the frontal engagements they were trying to avoid by flanking.
With the Maus you just have to be very deliberate about which maps you decide to flank on or not. And even then, sometimes just trying ridiculous stuff in the game actually ends up working. On old Fields Of Poland I once flanked with the Maus all the way from the eastern spawn to the A point (a drive of over 2km) sticking close to the border of the map. It took me thre business days to get there, but I dropped on the enemy team unawares, got five kills and the cap. Because we had C and B was contested, that ended up swinging the match in our favour at the time. Try it five more times and it’ll end in disaster, but hey… it worked that day, and it’s one of my fondest memories of playing the Maus in RB (as opposed to SB). :D
You can delegitimise my opinion as parroting, if you so wish. It doesn’t make the underlying argument go away. The IKV is bad in every respect except the ammo. Why would you ever take all the tradeoffs it offered, if it didn’t offer at least one outstanding feature, its firepower? Same logic as the Sturer.
That’s a bit disingenuous. Look at my play history. I usually am the heavy or medium from WW2. So, don’t try to make it personal… I’ve never had the situation of trying to flank a Tiger II in a Hellcat. I play as the Tiger II clapping the Hellcat.
Just because I identify with other players and try to understand the perspective, doesn’t mean I’m arguing for the game to be made easier for me.
Literally none of the combos you have listed above are possible by normal BR matchmaking. Are you being hyperbolic?
That said…
The war also didn’t happen with the Germans having access to as many Tiger IIs as they wanted to, unlimited fuel and ammo. T-34s didn’t get a nice situational awareness without their commander cupola, and the models without turret baskets couldn’t reload unless the turret was facing straight on.
The war didn’t happen with no infantry and no tank-killing arty.
The war never saw massive tank battles in Antarctica or the American desert.
What kind of comment is that?
I won’t touch the CAS issue because this comment is long enough as it is, except to say that I do believe CAS has a balance problem, and yes, that it can be a crutch for players who would have to get better at ground otherwise.
It never, ever was.
Sim battles are RB battles with extra steps. They have less arcadey controls, but they’re not historically accurate by any stretch of the imagination, unless you think it’s historically accurate for a Maus, a Wiesel and a Conqueror to fight T-54s on Pradesh.
They don’t. Just the two vehicles I’ve based my examples on in this comment, the Jagdtiger and the Tiger II, play super differently. And they’re same BR, same lineup, same base chassis.
There is a discrimination. Performance.
No thread on this forum will change anything in this regard, because what you have working against you is all the times that Gaijin did try historical matchmaker (WW2 Chronicles, World War Mode) and it failed disastrously.
I’ll give you a piece of genuine advice. If you do want to create change, this is what you should do. There are Discord servers and player communities out there who organise historical roleplay matches, with incredibly accurate and narrow lists of vehicles allowed where, and what vehicles are allowed to do or not (they even have rules about which parts you are allowed to repair and which damage you should consider to be a mission-kill instead). It honestly looks incredibly interesting and I want to take part in it one day.
So, here’s what you do to test your hypothesis. Join one of these communities to play fully historical battles, or create one of your own. Create interest and buzz around it. If people like it, and start flocking to it, and it gains attention, Gaijin will see that there is an interest from players, they’ll swoop in, and make their own versions.
I’ll leave you with the overall rules used by one of these servers, War Thunder Ultrasim, and the preparatory document for the event they held to recreate the Battle Of Smolensk. Just reading them tickled my roleplayer fancies.
7 Likes