This would not be the solution, each vehicle meets different needs and cannot be compared with other vehicles of the same era.
For example : in this case the Swedish tree will become unplayable because the development of the majority of their tanks started after the second world war. And personally I would not like to face T’54 or M-60 in IKV-72
Similarly, most modern IFVs and light tank in the game (Puma, Namer, …) would find themselves facing vehicles of higher Br while some MBT would go down → The Leclerc was first introduce in service in the 1993 while the Sprut-D was introduce in 2006
Imagine you are level 100, you have finished your tree and then an idea comes to you “What if I started a new tree” except that in this case, unfortunately you have a matchmaking based on the level and you find yourself having to wait 40 years to be able to join a game because very few high level players play at the bottom Br
As I write this, there are around 10k battles in progress. If we created matchmaking according to level by dividing it into 10 level increments (from 1 to 10, from 11 to 20, etc.) this would mean that each player could join a battle among the 1000 present at their level. Assuming that a minority of players participate in naval battle, this gives us (approximately) 450 games in air battles, 450 games in tank battles and around 100 in naval battles. However, there remain the ranks, the Brs and the game modes, the differences in servers which further reduce the number of reachable games.
Not to mention that it doesn’t even actually say what is wrong with the Fw 190 Antons. Is it that the Fw 190 is underperforming… or is the Spitfire overperforming? There is no raw data here, so it can go both ways.
You might consider looking up the definition of a primary source. A pilot report is like a memoir always a primary source.
On top of that it doesn’t matter:
“Primary” and “secondary” should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.
Although i highly appreciate your overall input in this forum - in this case i agree to disagree.
That doesn’t matter too - the result within the game is decisive. I used this example to show the disparity of gaijin’s claims (=accuracy) and in-game implementation, that’s all.
What you posted makes for interesting storytelling, but is utterly devoid of any usable technical info whatsoever; it’s essentially irrelevant to WT. To say nothing of actual unironic “Russian bias” claims. You’re not in a position to be telling others to “stop posting nonsense”.
A) real world definitions of words and their meanings
B) gaijin’s interpretation of them
So it doesn’t matter what a game provider defines as “primary source” for his artificial world - the real world defines the meaning.
So if a fellow player cites gaijin as a reply to the generic definition of “primary source” he is objectively wrong in an irl context, that’s why it is nonsense trying to argue with me - and i ask them to stop this.
Every player can express his view on things, but if some guys try to create something similar to a “smart-ass” contest i will always respond in an appropriate manner if they quote me, otherwise idc.
I have zero issues with guys like you posting their opinions - even if they are flat wrong like in this post - i simply reply like here, end of the story, next.
Ok, and that would leave people who are at average skill level never improving because they only play with Average-skill-level players. See the problem here?
Veterans are a result of our experience in ground, naval, or air. We can help teach less experienced players how to perform and join our ranks. Sometimes it’s down to just observing, sometimes talking to us, sometimes finding a way to get coached by one. There are several different ways Discord and or another similar app is involved in that case.
No. Cause goodbye to your Dicker Max, your Sturer Emil and so many other vehicles from all trees. You would have a lot of fun driving a T-26 cause that is all you’d have for a duration of time.
