Depends on the perspective.
If you are interested only in playing one small nation or even just a few specific lineups, then it might seem like there is too few vehicles, but then again, it can be solved in other ways (ability to include “allied” nations vehicle in a lineup, being able to spawn more times with one vehicle).
From my point of view, I already unlocked hundreds of ground vehicles and I won’t be able to play them all anyway, plus I have many more to unlock, not to mention other modes.
So to me it seems kinda like there is already “too many” vehicles:) Sure, it would be cool to try out some concepts, but it would be enough as some kind of temporary event to me. I don’t think it would enrich gameplay further as permanent tech tree vehicles.
…there is no need to add something as there are usually valid reasons why those vehicles did not saw service.
The overall question for paper vehicles is imho still the same:
I mean gaijin can add whatever they want if they think that the ROI is justifying this - but player demands In general share often the same weakness:
They assume with filling a “gap” they would increase the usefulness of certain nations from a game play perspective. Imho they simply assume that their understanding of a “fair” BR setting for a “gap-filler” would be the same as gaijin’s assessment.
Gaijin proves that they are interested to fill gaps if they can earm money, but also that they are interested in keeping gaps for balancing reasons.
In addition to that:
This was often mentioned in the past:
Just allow those likely allied nations to create multi-nation line-ups for:
Axis vs Allies in WW2
Nato vs WP 1950 - 1991
US/Nato vs the World 1991 - today
since they have done it with other tanks they could also add these two monsters to 7.7
I don’t care if they put it in a branch or 40k point event every two days
Those aren’t paper vehicles, those are fakes. Inventions thought up long after the fact. Hell, the Maus and E-100 were barely projects on their own, they certainly weren’t looking into developing variants of vehicles that weren’t even proven designs. Pretty sure the Maus’s complete strategic uselessness would have sunk it long before someone decided there needed to be a tank destroyer variant (To counter what, exactly?).
Honestly? As long as they don’t add completely fake vehicles, I think there’s a place for “paper” tanks. Some countries could definitely do with the help in any case. At the very least, for vehicles where at least the mockup was built, I don’t see an issue. Heck, you could add a sort of feasibility test to that, if it was actually realistic for the vehicle in question to have been produced, so we don’t have these paper vehicles with exaggerated stats clubbing ones that were actually built, which is what a lot of people rightfully fear.
IMO, for those that have an issue with paper vehicles, for many of those people, it’s not so much about authenticity, but balance. For example, people rightfully complained about the Kronshtadt, but not because it’s paper - although it is, at least in the form it was implemented. The real reason was because it was busted. If it wasn’t broken, people wouldn’t complain as much, since the Etna from my understanding was at a similar stage, but it isn’t unbalanced, so nobody cares. Then again, that’s probably also a naval thing, few people play that mode in the first place and even less people play the Italian navy.
i like paper designs and would like to see a realistic take on them, the “world of” games are too arcady for my liking and i feel gaijin could do them a better justice than wargaming can, i also just have a soft spot for the never were designs haha
Honestly? As long as they don’t add completely fake vehicles , I think there’s a place for “paper” tanks. Some countries could definitely do with the help in any case. At the very least, for vehicles where at least the mockup was built, I don’t see an issue. Heck, you could add a sort of feasibility test to that, if it was actually realistic for the vehicle in question to have been produced, so we don’t have these paper vehicles with exaggerated stats clubbing ones that were actually built, which is what a lot of people rightfully fear.
Exactly this imo.
I will always be heavily in favor of the more realistic and feasable paper viecles, like coelian, Strv 2000, etc.
As long as they are balanced, fit a good role/niche, and are semi-accurate to how they would be if they were made, I want them.
they should never be added. This imo makes it to far in the unrealistic spectrum, as opposed to what the game was and is still advertised as. Realistic battles, and having an E50 face a Cromwell or Sherman, is highly unrealistic.
it is my hill to stand on, and I also really don’t like for that exact reason why such bs is happening in game.
A panzer 4 was never expected to even face an R3 etc.
Therefore I am for a semi-historical mm, with more than a 1 dimensional number balancing the matches, but also team size, objectives. Asymetrical matches, not the symetrical tdm every match ends in.
Also as warner7 wrote, there are no WW1 tanks. Just interwar-tanks I think.
Therefore I am for a semi-historical mm, with more than a 1 dimensional number balancing the matches, but also team size, objectives. Asymetrical matches, not the symetrical tdm every match ends in.
Sigh.
That will simply not work. The only one it might be acceptable in is sim, but for RB uhhh…
Looks at sweden.
Yeah no. Balancing by era/historical acccuracy is something you cant do, since it makes several nations either useless or absurdly overtiered.
you can still balance with asymetrical missions, uneven playerammounts per team etc.
So an equal team has like the attaker need to capture 5 out of 6 capture points, for an inequal team, maybe 4, or all 6.
Using production or service time as one thing, doesn’t mean you can’t balance with all other options, especially those, which Gaijin doesn’t explore atm.
