There is simply no AC 4. There is AC E1 with 17-Pdr. The AC E1 being the very first pre-production vehicle used for many tested beds and could be put into the game in several iterations.
This is AC IV, this is the closest the actual vehicle got to production.
This is the AC E1, testing the 17-Pdr.
No, it was a terrible anachronistic call. They could have easily made an earlier iteration of TOG with the sponsons as a separate vehicle. Do you know how buggy those sponsons are thanks to it being a modification as well? Such a joke.
I think making TWO in-game versions of a vehicle where there was only ever ONE prototype would be a little much personally (the Ho-Ri problem all over again). Again, this way lies madness. But then again, the Panther F was never completed in anything like its in-game form either. It’s turtles all the way down if you start dinging Gaijin on how they’ve modelled single-prototype vehicles. I still very much doubt any of them are going to be binned for it though. Me I just want to know well in advance if there’s something else I should have as a research goal before it goes away, but again, can’t think of any unless there’s a change of company policy.
I see no issue with it. TOG for example had like two dozen different turret or gun iterations. Not all of them need to be in the game of course, but you can easily have the 2-Pdr, 3" Howitzer, Besa MG turret with hull 3" Howitzer and Besa sponsons at like 3.0 or 3.3.
Given that they’ve said they’ll never do the same named naval vehicle twice in two different configurations, despite however many refits it might have had in its lifetime, I think it’s fair to say Gaijin disagrees with you there, too… o7
They don’t really tho? Maybe they will, some day, sure, but the “has to have been at least one working prototype, of some kind” rule has lasted for years now… removal of the Ho-Ri now gets rid of basically the final exception to that. The “only one version of a ship” rule and “has to have had its keel laid down, since ships don’t have prototypes” have also lasted for years. The “it doesn’t matter if a country never used it or bought it, they just have to have wanted to trial it” rule has been there from very early on, too.
I know you think their rules for this are either bad or inconsistently applied, but those rules have been cited many times over the years in forum posts and elsewhere, at least since the Maus removals, without major changes of note. So no, I’m quite confident we’ll never see two versions in game again of the same single vehicle if it only ever had one prototype. YMMV.
There never was a rule of “No working prototypes”.Otherwise, every nation would be missing a majority of prototypes. Which is pretty much the majority.
Not exactly; we think we know what turret was intended for the thing thanks to the research of Hillary Doyle. That would be the Schmale Blendenausführung as seen here:
Also, if one really wanted, the American Panther II mit G Turm could be added.
The turret, I do believe, was intended for the Coelian project; it just never got built. Still, ironically, there’s more evidence for the Coelian than there is for the Ostwind II.
And honestly, I think Gaijin is limiting itself way too much if they’re just aiming to add in fully built stuff; I don’t particularly see what the issue with incomplete vehicles even would be. Assuming you’ve got blueprints or, heck, if a turret was built but never mounted to an also built hull, I frankly think both should be valid additions.
Well, I mean, technically there is the aforementioned complete American version they could add.
This. More player parity. Make them very difficult to obtain but still obtainable, just like the Maus is still obtainable (add extra steps if you want difficulty).
Correction: they never planned to shove it in either. They made sketches and rejected the proposal altogether because the low RoF was a deal breaker to them.
