Create a gap between ww2 and cold war vehicles and tech

[ShermyDragon]

@Panter2005

Calling a Tiger 1 vs M-51 encounter realistic is delusional. Also the irony that M-51 is a Jewish tank fighting the third reich…

What about PZ IV vs M1 Abrams? Given this happened in the middle east sometimes (with other outdated tanks, too), it’s now historically accurate :)

Be very happy actual historical accuracy isn’t a thing :>

[DiamondLag]

@ShermyDragon

What about PZ IV vs M1 Abrams?

Always remember the Renoult FT-17 vs T-55/T-62/T-72(?) and Renoult FT-17 vs M1A2 SEP in Afghanistan.

[BoveyBadBoy69]

@ZendikarHaven

Please go over to the wehraboo/tankie corner and cope while I use my Strv 103 :)

Can you make your posts in English please as the rules dictate?

[ShermyDragon]

Very historically accurate, French tier -1 that can see Abrams when Gaijin?

Anyways, the people here whining about (mostly German) heavy tanks not being frontally invulnerable should be thankful they were far too trash IRL for anyone else to remotely want to use them postwar. Otherwise, they’d probably end up the same as Sturmgewehrs and relic tanks used in the middle east- Historically fighting the modern US army, losing, and being kept as souvenirs :>

[VonMarder]

So crap they still use them instead of the so much better shermans and m1 grands xD Not mention they stillmanage to get kills with that gear against the US xDDDDD

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@Panter2005

You’re legit trolling.

No???

@Panter2005

Don’t mix planes into this, they are much more sensitive to changes and need much more attention when balancing.

Fine, then. Imagine the Pbv 301 fighting KPz-70s, M48s, M60s, etc., or T-62s fighting M1A1 HCs, or this gem:

@DiamondLag

Always remember the Renoult FT-17 vs T-55/T-62/T-72(?) and Renoult FT-17 vs M1A2 SEP in Afghanistan.

@ShermyDragon

Very historically accurate, French tier -1 that can see Abrams when Gaijin?

Anyways,

@Panter2005

Move them up. Most of them would be completely fine. Some of them would become useless

The only ones that wouldn’t be useless are the tanks 0.3 BR below whatever cutoff you make.

[Panter2005]

@markimash

Personally, this sounds rather selfish.

Ruining historical accuracy, so that historically irrelevant tanks can be meta is selfish.

@markimash

To me it sounds like “i dont care if other vehicles become horrible, i want my tanks to be strong”

I already answered this:

@Panter2005

I would rather fight T-34-85s in a Puma, than T-50s you know. Puma is kind of insanely OP right now, same for M24 which is a 1944 light tank with a firepower of a 1942 medium tank. I know, because I have both of them and playing them is very fun and easy, but quickly gets boring.

Quite often I play historical lineups even though it means I will put myself at a disadvantage. For example when I play a Maus, I almost never take post-war tanks into my lineup, unless I’m fed up with the bs and want a safety net. Another example, sometimes I take T-34-85 for the Russian 6.7 lineup, instead of the T-44. However, whenever I do this, I’m the only one who does this, meaning that I’m at a bigger disadvantage than I would if that was just how BRs are set up.

@Ion_Protogen

They would not be.

They would be.

@ZendikarHaven

AHM

Please go over to the wehraboo/tankie corner and cope while I use my Strv 103 :)

@ShermyDragon

What about PZ IV vs M1 Abrams? Given this happened in the middle east sometimes (with other outdated tanks, too), it’s now historically accurate :)

Be very happy actual historical accuracy isn’t a thing :>

@DiamondLag

Always remember the Renoult FT-17 vs T-55/T-62/T-72(?) and Renoult FT-17 vs M1A2 SEP in Afghanistan.

@ShermyDragon

Anyways, the people here whining about (mostly German) heavy tanks not being frontally invulnerable should be thankful they were far too trash IRL for anyone else to remotely want to use them postwar. Otherwise, they’d probably end up the same as Sturmgewehrs and relic tanks used in the middle east- Historically fighting the modern US army, losing, and being kept as souvenirs :>

@SpeclistMain

Fine, then. Imagine the Pbv 301 fighting KPz-70s, M48s, M60s, etc., or T-62s fighting M1A1 HCs, or this gem:

Seems like I predicted it:

@Panter2005

Every time historical mm is mentioned everyone absolutely loses their shit:
-says it’s been proven countless times to never be balanced (no one has proven shit)
-describes the person who proposed it as a bad, blind, stupid german main that watched history channels too much
-proceeds to stat shame
-uses straw man arguments like “you want a historical mm, how about panzer 2 vs kv1”
-mentions post pen damage
-mentions minor nations having gaps (as if that was players’ problem, that they can skip some grind)
-mentions a cold war apc with a 50 cal or a 20mm on top not being able to kill mbts (as if that was it’s job)
and more endless lame excuses to keep some niche cold war tanks meta, which the majority have never heard of, and ruin the experience on some actually famous and relevant tanks like t34s, shermans, tigers and panthers.

Might have to add something about U.S. main, this is also quite often brought up, more when it comes to aviation though:

@ZendikarHaven

Freedomboo then.

@ZendikarHaven

Like my god, you havent even touched them and you decide they shouldnt be relevant?

There is no council that decides what’s relevant or what’s not, history does that. If the Swedish made shit tanks that were WW2 level, while the Russians made T-55s and were developing T-64s and T-72s, then it’s safe to say their tanks were irrelevant during cold war. They were irrelevant, because they were simply not up to standards of their time.

[CoffeeBean100]

Are vehicles suffering due to mix of “eras”? No.

Is balance in a game better than going by history? Yes.

Are those wanting “historical” a massive minority, within a minority (RB) of a minority (GF)? Yes

Will Gaijin listen to the non-arguments provided (and removal of many vehicles, not hidden, removed!), and for a tiny part of their playerbase? No

Yes, big 3 get to play solo (no longer mixed nations due to certain combos never facing one another) against? Not many, since games can only be US v Germany, and RU v Germany, until Cold War where East German tech cannot be used with West German tech etc due to history. All minor will have even worse job in this historical nightmare.

Then aircraft must also be historical, so good luck with that and the much lower placements for most of them.

Again, this is a game for all not just history fappers. There is probably a good reason they chsnged Historic Battles to RB (and please no dumb takes on what they mean by Realistic since they are pretty clear on it).

Best of luck on this topic and it never happening. Pop the new “trees” and how they work then throw it to Gaijin. Or is this another minority group thinking they are special?

[VonMarder]

@CoffeeBean100

Are vehicles suffering due to mix of “eras”? No.

Yes all heavys

@CoffeeBean100

Is balance in a game better than going by history? Yes.

No

[CoffeeBean100]

@VonMarder

Yes all heavys

Nope, total fantasy. None do.

@VonMarder

No

So balance is bad and imbalance (unfair) is good. Well we must agree to disagree and your take is terrible for a game.

Take it to Gaijin if you have the stones.

Edit: As you have next to no experience in game I will put your “ideas” in that context: “clueless”.

[VonMarder]

I do have no expirance in the game? Take a look again.

[CoffeeBean100]

You play Sim.

Experience in “Heavys” in RB: almost none, only Germany and one US Premium

However:

Great exchange rate on the 10-20 battles you have played (per vehicle). So they are not suffering at all.

Just because you don’t like seeing “out of era” machines doesn’t mean “suffering”.

So yes, you have very little experience in this game (RB discussion) in context of vehicles suffering.

[Panter2005]

@CoffeeBean100

Great exchange rate on the 10-20 battles you have played (per vehicle). So they are not suffering at all.

If he had bad stats you would say he is a bad player, stop manipulating.

@CoffeeBean100

All minor will have even worse job in this historical nightmare.

“Historical nightmare”, you speak like a politician.

[VonMarder]

This is not a RB discuison its a general discusion about speration of eras.
Open for every one. The only one not having any expirance here to talk about this subject is you with your arcade “expirance” or rather non at all. All you do is play funky craossair on screen not matter the vehicel. You could play WoT or bumber cars ro supamario and it would be the same for you. Just diffrent skin.

So keep your defarmation for your self as you are the last one to say anythin abou WT. I am sure copit view and reading gages is to hard for you. If we need advice on how to make the game more arcade we know where to find you.

[Panter2005]

@VonMarder

You could play WoT or bumber cars ro supamario and it would be the same for you. Just diffrent skin.

Indeed, as long as it’s balanced it doesn’t matter for them.

[CoffeeBean100]

@VonMarder

This is not a RB discuison its a general discusion about speration of eras.

W r o n g.

Look up. It’s about Realistic Battles.

And I see no evidence of your use of any nation but Germany znd 20 plays as a Cobra King.

Again, none suffer and your stats help show they don’t suffer.

Check the tags. Yes, RB players do forget the world does not revolve around them:

Realistic Battles, Air, Ground - posted in General Section.

Oh look, OP plays only RB.

[markimash]

@VonMarder

Yes all heavys

Most heavies are very much not suffering.

@VonMarder

@CoffeeBean100

Is balance in a game better than going by history? Yes.

No

If you want more historical mm, there are already games that do that. Please play them so that they can actually have more players. I want to play them on a server with more then like 10 people.

@Panter2005

@markimash

To me it sounds like “i dont care if other vehicles become horrible, i want my tanks to be strong”

I already answered this:

Why is it only ever stated as a retort? Why do I never see threads created asking for it?

@Panter2005

Ruining historical accuracy, so that historically irrelevant tanks can be meta is selfish.

Trying to get a game that doesnt do historical mm to do historical mm instead of playing games that actually have it is selfish.

[CoffeeBean100]

You have little to no experience in this topic about RB. No need to throw your toys out of the pram because you were unable to back up your statement.

You were the one who answered, don’t act all hurt.

Tags: RB Air Ground, nothing to do with AB or Sim. Facts.

[CoffeeBean100]

I commend the actual “this is what trees would look like” parts, and this could be gathered together to form an actual unified suggestion (so clear on exactly what is on the table, year cut offs and placements etc).

Now all “they” need to do is collate, revise, ask. But I get the feeling this is another niche group expecting action without them doing anything (the other got better but took 6 years).

Apparently Sim, AB, and RB, all work out exactly the same… oh well…

[ZendikarHaven]

@Panter2005

There is no council that decides what’s relevant or what’s not, history does that. If the Swedish made shit tanks that were WW2 level, while the Russians made T-55s and were developing T-64s and T-72s, then it’s safe to say their tanks were irrelevant during cold war. They were irrelevant, because they were simply not up to standards of their time.

The Strv 103 would beg to disagree :)
also yes there quite literally is a council its called gaijn because its their game