italy was in a far better scenario germany was still paying off german debts from WW1 and was cut into pieces italy got off very light cause they swapped sides mid war germanys economy was in the gutter for the following years
![[TMP] "French tanks in German service at Normandy" Topic](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6d/74/41/6d7441af0614215d6b0d164ce284fbf9.jpg)
hundreds of french S35s where used by germany
https://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=112&art_id=244
heres the list of italian tanks in german service
3 Likes
that would untrue that would go to america or russia since they have so many of them copy pasted
germany has 4 toptier tanks 2a5 2a6 2a7 2a5 PSO
america has M1A1 M1A1 HC M1A2 M1A2 SEP V2 V3 SEP V2 TROPHY
Captured. And they shouldn’t come in their base state we modified them alot
I said there’s options. Not that we have them in game
America also have 4 12.7s so idk why you listed 11.7s and 12.0s
cause there 12.7s have roughly same armor as the base model M1A1 and perform just as well at toptier
And yet it’s not a top tier tank it’s a 12.0.
same armor better mobility only thing that makes the orginal SEP V2 12.7 is the upgraded optics but that matters very little before the V3 and TROPHY the best the M1A1 HC was consider one of the TOP 5 best M1 abrams
correct me if im wrong, but i think the late war variant used a completely different build, so i think it wouldve been harder to do then the hummel, which is literally a nashorn with a different gun.
however i agree that it would be a cool tech tree addition since it would give people who dont wanna pay for the brummbär or missed out on the sturmtiger event a similar experience that they could otherwise not have.
(also kinda waiting for gaijin to add a regular rangefinder modifikation to all artillery vehicles above 3.0 so actual new players who arent very good at estimating ranges get to enjoy them and the really precise shots you have to do most of the time)
You can read about all the differences here. (Sd. Kfz. 166) Sturmpanzer IV - Serie IV (June 1944)
You misunderstand me. I didn’t say they should have added it instead of the Hummel. I said that if they were really concerned with a gap such that they felt the need to add M44/55, then the Brummbär would have been just fine. Instead the reason they added those to Germany too is imho simply the understandable desire to avoid controversy (people feeling left out etc).
3 Likes
I just don’t like seeing some things locked away forever. Especially stuff unique to a nation.
A good example is the Ro.57 Quadriarma. This plane is really cool, great as an interceptor in Air RB and a great CAS plane in Ground RB.
It is uniquely Italian (although not many were built) and no variant of the Ro.47 exists in the TT.
This vehicle was gained in the 2020/21 WINTER event. Which is cool that I have it, but would suck if I joined the game after then. It is something that there is no real way to acquire anymore. Other similar vehicles include: Lorraine 155 Mle.50, Breda 90/53, Zrinyi I, TOG II, Late 298D.
These types of vehicles are unique to their nations, other models of the same vehicle don’t exist, and they have real capabilities.
This is my problem with the whole system. There needs to be a realistic way to acquire these old event/BP vehicles. For a reward for those of us that got them back in the day they usually have a unique camo. I’m not so elitest I need more than the unique camouflage.
6 Likes
That is the reality of modern military procurement.
4 Likes
Yeah, so? Then why add all these sub-trees to further water things down? They could have instead made a new tree with coalitions, sure there’d still be copy-paste but it’d maintain the uniqueness of existing nations.
Ehh, who cares about reality. Fun comes first. There are arguments for and against copy paste in terms of the actual game but realism ain’t one of those.
Sadly, Gaijin advertises their game as “realistic,” so realism is one of them.
1 Like
Nah. They know quite well where to draw the line.
None of us suffer reliability problems in combat even though it’d be totally realistic. We fight surreal battles in nonsensical maps with no infantry or threat of mass indirect fire. We ship tanks to places like the Arctic. Nazi Germany and Israel can be on the same team. Got no turret basket? Doesn’t matter, you can reload with the turret in any position. Got no cupola? That’s fine, have the same situational awareness as everyone else. Jumping off a cliff? No problem, the loader is reloading the gun even mid air.
Come on. I could go on for hours. The realistic advertisement only necessitates the illusion of realism. In many cases they already (correctly) prioritise fun over realism.
What they see in C&P is: more content, more lineup parity/access to mechanics for all trees, more grind. All of these are pure game logic and require no realism to talk about.
Because existing minor nations would like to play the game too?
2 Likes
Someone didn’t read the word coalitions. Instead of diluting existing trees with copy-paste make new trees made up of minor nations.
In many cases I’d agree with you, there’s a lot of nations that don’t reasonably fit anywhere and would be best as their own new nations in coalition style techtrees. But at the same time this is exactly what subtrees are, or at least what they should be, so I don’t think it’s right to say they are all bad.
At its core there is two things subtrees try to do:
- Bring in new nations that can’t form a techtree on their own
- Bring the existing nations to a roughly similar level of viability to avoid having significantly better or worse options as much as possible
A coalition techtree is exactly the same. Take for example Poland and Czechoslovakia for example, both would make decent techtrees on their own, about in line with Sweden (- subtrees) but are often anticipated as a combined techtree because that’s more in line with what other in-game factions provide.
The current drawbacks of subtrees, like having multiple nations compete for space in a techtree and potentially forcing players who only care about one nation to also play something they don’t want to, still exist with coalition techtrees because a coalition tree is functionally the same thing.
1 Like
Exactly, every problem with sub-trees, coalition trees would also have. The only difference is that one has a “host”.
Both have to fight for space, have their version of a vehicle to be the one represented, etc. Dumping more and more nations into the same tree leads to the same problems of “C&P” and underrepresentation; it doesn’t matter how, as both ways end up the same by the end of it.
1 Like