The Suffering Endured By German Tech Tree Players " SİMULATİON WARS "

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
,
132

I don’t think there’s any point in trying to explain anything to “daneyars.”

As for the person who quoted my comments—it seems to me that you’ve based your perspective on Realistic and Arcade battles.

I suppose I need to put “SIMULATION BATTLES” in big, bold letters at the very top of this thread.

You’re so out of touch with the game that you’re just parroting things—much like the others in the comments above.

I’m trying to remain optimistic, but there are people who don’t even realize that a Char 25t wouldn’t encounter a Tiger II. I suspect you’re one of them. And regarding those planes you were mocking…

I’m talking about Simulation Battles. Those Japanese planes you call “slow” actually perform wonders in Simulation mode; they can catch an E-3—which relies on “boom-and-zoom” tactics—and take it down.

Planes like the F-10 and the Yak-1B have distinct flight characteristics. American aircraft generally leverage high speed to their advantage, and the F-10s from that era have quite decent weaponry—as do the Yak-1Bs. The E-3’s cannons, however, are absolutely maddening; I don’t recall ever struggling this much—hitting an agile enemy is incredibly, incredibly difficult.

I’m tired of repeating the same things; I can’t afford to waste any more time. Go back up, read the previous posts—and to think you actually took the time to quote me

133

They get APHE but it isn’t as abused as it is with Germany.

The higher penetration absolutely does matter as does the armour that outclasses that of rival nations almost across the board, not to mention that German tanks reload fairly quickly to go with it, they’re not that slow neither. Even the Ferdinand is faster than its rival tanks such as the Tortoise and the T-95 etc.

A Tiger II is outright superior to its Russian equivalent the IS-2.

The Panther is superior to any T-34 it faces, only the T-44 has parity to it. It’s also more agile than some Shermans such as the Firefly whilst having vastly more armour and the Firefly can’t abuse OPHE. The American Shermans can except no they can’t because they have to aim for the Panther’s troll’ish turret whilst the Panther just goes centre mass. The Pershing is a fair fight except that then bumps into the Panther II which once again pretty much outclasses it. I won’t even mention the Centurions etc…

The PzIV you mention being weak is already one of the best tanks on the battlefield once it gets the long gun. The PzIV(H) is borderline overpowered, its armour with the added tracks approaches that of a Tiger I and when angled bounces almost everything it faces whilst it can one-shot pretty much everything with no real need to aim. It’s not even like its mobility holds it back.

Don’t forget the time travelling Puma that ruins reserve tier battles as well.

I thought the Russian and American tanks must’ve been good until I played them. They’re mediocre. People hated the IS-2 because it could actually fight back somewhat but despite having a larger gun than the Tiger II it’s still a much worse tank. The explosive filler is meaningless in this game and it just means you have a much longer reload and still have worse penetration to go with it.

134

I’m going to jump into the conversation here, if you don’t mind.

The IS-2 can at least destroy Panther-series tanks with a hit to the hull.

The Tiger II, on the other hand, can’t destroy a T-44.

Also, the IS-2 feels a bit more agile.

It seems this “Puma” has become quite a headache for some folks—I’ve seen it mentioned in so many comments.

Well, I suppose people have just gotten used to the idea that they should always have the best vehicles.

For that matter, an M8 can destroy one of these “Pumas” just by hitting it in the side with its machine gun. There’s also the SARC Mk VI—a light vehicle—and various French vehicles that even feature the same gun as the Puma.

So, let’s not blow this whole “Puma” issue out of proportion; armor doesn’t really matter much at lower tiers anyway. Besides, the game doesn’t typically involve long-range engagements spanning kilometers.

Honestly, look at this—you end up having to defend yourself even when you’re actually in the right.

If you want to talk about historical context, the M18s that reached the front in the spring of 1944 were meant to face Tiger Is—the M10 was actually sufficient for that. The M18, logically, should be facing the Tiger II. On the German side, we counter that with the Sd.Kfz. 234/4, but not everyone even has access to that—it’s mostly limited to the Italians or Japanese “lend-lease” style tanks. Yet, we aren’t making a fuss about any of this.

As I said, what’s needed is proper balancing in simulation battles (across naval, coastal, ground, and air).

By “balancing,” I mean maintaining the unique characteristics of each vehicle—ensuring they have both strengths and weaknesses (e.g., the T-34 has good armor but a poor gun; the Panzer IV has a good gun but poor armor—and there are plenty more examples). Furthermore, production dates should absolutely be taken seriously. Don’t come at me with some nonsense about “performance this” or “performance that.” Vehicles produced at a later date are invariably better than those produced at an earlier date.

To put it in terms that those with lower intelligence might grasp: battleships built during World War I naturally feature older technology than those built during World War II, and they were designed to meet the requirements of a different era.

Much like the Tiger II and the Char 25t.

135

Lets just not mention what chances of penetrating Tiger 2 front armor has T-44 compared to Panther vs IS-2 and reload speed of Tiger 2 and IS-2.

Oh man this guy going to ruin whole German tree for one br. like what chances Pz.4E/F1 has against KV-1/T-34(1939).

1 Like
136

Why do you stubbornly keep pointing to specific years? I’m talking about when these vehicles actually entered service and encountered each other on the battlefield.

I’m not talking about production dates. There are some exceptional models, yet you keep bringing those up as if they’re the standard.

Why do you insist on distorting the topic? Are you even reading what’s being discussed? Why can’t you look at the full picture?

Why do you keep basing your conclusions on these exceptional, outlier models?

You should be looking at battlefield encounters or the specific models designed to counter one another. For instance, the Yak-1B could be placed somewhere between the Bf 109 F-4 and G-2—but having it at a Battle Rating (BR) of 3.3 is just a joke.

It’s like pitting a T-34-85 against a Panther, or an IS-1 (or IS-2) against a Tiger I.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, like a parrot: “The KV-1 entered service in 1939, so let’s put a Panzer 38(t) against it.”

Furthermore, the long-barreled variants of the Panzer IV were developed precisely because the earlier models were no longer sufficient to deal with the KV-1s and T-34s.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, every vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Should we just give everyone a Tiger II and call it a day?

I’m laying everything out in detail—like building with bricks—but all you seem to grasp is, “Well, the KV-1 entered service in 1939, so let’s just put a Panzer 38(t) against it.”

I’m fed up with people like you.

137

All planes have the same FM in sim as realistic, just with instructor off, so they were this “fast” in realistic too. It’s just easier to get jumped

They use it just as much so they “abuse” it just as much

Armor does not matter more than other stats.

So do USA tanks

Yeah they are

it also has a third of the armor of the T95 and the Tortoise is just bad

Not to some huge degree where you can’t play the IS-2 and have a competitive match.

No.

No it isnt lol

Yeah thats because the shermans are 3x as mobile with better gun depression and soft stats in every department

A tank ppl dont play

Worse than every T34 and Sherman

No it’s not. Literally the weakest of the 3

lmao, no it doesnt

when angled you show a 30mm side plate you can do nothing about, not to mention the panzer 4’s turret face is always 50mm thick no matter the model

That’s the thing, the gun handling is garbage so it actually needs to aim much longer than other tanks usually

It’s mobility is a lot worse than the other mediums

I’ve played every nation we’ve talked about. Germany is not some overpowered nation.

138

How can’t it?

Why? This makes no sense. Sim doesn’t work on time dates. The Yak-1 isn’t an equal to these.

139

Youre the one pointing out specific dates…

But when it doesnt fit your wehraboo narrative it’s others being stubborn not yourself being biased

2 Likes
140

Spams production dates without end.

Because what you really asking is set production dates br. where you wan’t but in reality it will be another monkey paw like with additional modules.

1 Like
141

You make provocative statements that contribute nothing to the discussion.

You launch attacks without presenting any arguments.

We have filed a complaint.

You aren’t even worth arguing with

142

???
que-11161064486

Meanwhile, the Panzer IV destroyed the T-44 from the front. Alright! Let’s change the Panzer IV into a BR 7.0 light tank!
Panzer vor!

143

I’m referring to the turret and the frontal armor—that is, the hull armor.

Can’t you look at this logically and consider that this might actually be what was meant?

Are AIs coming here to post comments, or what?

144

Okay lets see here.

Who ? Me or you ?

Good luck with that.

1 Like
145

Meow…meow…

HUH?

146

BuT…bUt… I wAs ReferRIng to the uFp

1 Like
147

Now try shooting at the upper part—let’s see if it pierces through or not.

Continuing with the kindergarten-level training.

148

“I cant penetrate every single spot so its OP”

3 Likes
149

It’s no use trying to give strategy tips to people who can’t use strategy. This is in ARB so it doesn’t really matter here, but I’ve accidentally queued into 5.0 matches with the Yak-1B and I get kills there. Why? Because an F-82 tried to turn with me when it could’ve just BnZ’d me straight into kingdom come without a problem. Don’t try to give people incapable of using logic logical suggestions or tips

1 Like
150

Wait u mean you have to AIM? For WEAKSPOTS? I can’t believe it, I thought the entire T-44 was a bunker with 1000mm of Dorchester composites!

2 Likes