Yes, I absolutely would. I wish there was more creative and exciting events like this. Not just AI nonsense. But actually events we would need to try in. Also sim.
1 Like
I recall something from “Red Storm Rising”…on WW3 you could have the SAME base scenario … but adapt to different years. Same “hypothetical” scenario can have replay value by changing the vehicles for different years.
Just recall that Gaijin would “require” you to have the vehicles for the scenario…
Pretty sure we had a Normandy event exactly like this and the German queue was absolutely stacked. I vaguely remember the WW2 chronicles events which were similar and the “better” side (better perceived by the community anyway) had much more ppl in queue than the side with a disadvantage.
Road to the West World War season, which covers the Fulda wet dream I see ppl posting above, was absolutely stacked again, but to the Russian side iirc as Gaijin chose the opposing side to be Germany which did not have the full selection period vehicles in the game yet (and still don’t).
So yeah, it’s a novel idea and I’m all for it but generally the queues will float towards the stronger side.
1 Like
I’ve been playing this for a long time: useless machine guns against indestructible planes, I constantly see light tanks dancing around one KV and he just laughs at them…
nothing new.
Nothing wrong with having these as those recurring event modes and such, but personally I would not (and do not). I’ve never been a fan of asymmetric objective modes in games, and asymmetric team balance (player count and equipment) is an instant nope from me.
T-62’s vs base M60’s… I can imagine the threads now.
and then you realise you are just outnumbered
Then you realized Nato Air support has arrived and suddenly friendly T-80’s started to pop-up.
And then you see that most of NATO air gets shot down by anti air systems
May i ask why?
What would you get out of it?
Do you want to beat hordes of weaker enemies or are you interested in beating the odds as the Underdog?
Sure, maybe if the creation of such modes has been outsourced and then changed troughout according to the player’s feedback. At this point I don’t trust Gaijin one bit in this department.
They’ve tried this before, and the obvious problem with it always kills it.
In a competitive game, those who want to fight from a disadvantage are few and far between.
Say you did an Operation Barbarossa event. You give the Soviet team a KV-1 and a couple early T-34s, everyone else gets T-26s and T-28s. The Germans only get short barrel Panzer IVs without late war HEAT, Panzer III Js without the long 50mm, short barrel StuGs, as well as 38ts and Panzer IIs.
If you allow players to pick the tanks they want, you’ll end up with everyone queing with KV-1s and T-34s, looking for a nice easy stomp, and much fewer willing to sign up to be the stompees.
If you distribute those vehicles randomly, you’re most likely to find players fleeing the game when they find themselves stuck in T-26s and T-28s.
You could give CAS to the German side too, but again that just concentrates players on the “powerful” units, both ensuring a horde of CAS to make the Soviet’s lives miserable, while also causing German players who don’t get the “CAS” role to leave the game en mass.
5 Likes
Considering anti radiation missiles are quite effective against russian Sam system you can only dream kind that thing.
Face it, You cannot outnumber Nato Ground and Air units, Usa itself has the first and second largest Air Force in the world.
Fulda will be graveyard for Russia in that kind of scenario.
Fully agree - the OP requires realism wt can’t provide.
I mean you would have to deactivate the mini-map in order to simulate the missing radios in USSR tanks, artificially nerf their optics and eliminate 3rd person view, a lot of T-34s would have just ammo for MGs and not for their cannons and you would have to reduce the crew skill to level 1 for USSR tankers - everything else makes no sense.
I think I would play it, but only if you can’t chose your side (full RNG). Otherwise, no matter the incentives, people will play the “meta”.
Imho this is trying to square a circle.
I like your idea in general - but wt is light years away from being realistic at all - and trying to limit realism just to numbers and historical equipment is simply the main flaw of this idea.
-
As long as wt is not able or willing to provide realistic circumstances - realistic battles makes no sense.
-
I mean try to do some research about the total number of actual fights between US Shermans and Tigers and you get that point. The UK and Canadians fought them - and paid the price.
-
Same with the idea of US air support - as long as planes inflict totally unrealistic damages to heavy armor it makes no sense to even consider this. And you need actual artillery support for both sides…
-
If you imagine the Battle of France or Op Barbarossa we had an adverse effect - so technically seen way inferior Germans were able to defeat superior forces (numbers and hardware) with tactics (or just by having a 2 way radio) and superior doctrine.
-
The 3rd person view kills the advantage of the better optics for the Germans whilst the game is also unable to reflect the very low experience level USSR crews - u can read about 10 hours a year driving experience.
It might take a few years until wt could have the necessary resources to create settings somehow comparable to irl events.
And then - who wants to play this? The point & click players? The few enthusiasts?
WT has neither the maps nor the necessary tools to (at least today) to offer the necessary team work of a real combat scenario - and imho also not the necessary players with skill, passion and patience to participate in larger numbers - in order to create a positive business case for gaijin to implement the necessary tools.
A very good book, i agree…
I think this idea has some great merits as a limited time game mode and would be very interesting to see in game.
More significantly though, I think that a similar approach could be used to reduce the CAS imbalance at GRB where people mainly want to either play CAS or solely tanks while very little people want to play SPAAs that are often necessary to protect ground targets. Sectioning these different “classes” of vehicles could provide guarantees that you have a certain vehicle at all times. Might be a stupid idea in practice but I would definitely like to see it tested.
Not what i mean actually, pretty sure i dont want a fullly realistic war simulator…just realistic-enough scenarios where i feel i am playing a “could have happened” battle in WW2 or cold war vehicles.
I am guessing this would be enough for many players…
I am hoping it is more than a few…like i said…if we wanted point-and-click there are things like Fortnite and Battlefront…even Call of Duty…i am guessing LOTS of tank and plane “enthusiasts” are around, there is nowhere else for them to be. IF they would like a more “realistic” mode is the question…
I was mentioning the game…it allowed you to play WW3 on 4 different eras with 4 different tech levels…from torpedo only subs to tomahawk missiles…and it played differently…
I did read the book…Tom Clancy is great describing warfare…politics not so much…
This is what happened in the past…and the “risk” of any realistic scenario…
Both actually…it could be fun to play as it would be DIFFERENT.
BUT in order to work players HAVE TO “stay and fight” on all roles…so i understand the issue…and the reason why it never worked.
Still…one well planed event could eventually work and see how many “enthusiasts” are around. A better scenario could be El Alamein…PzIVF2 (3.3), PzIVF (2.3) and PZIIIJ (2.3) vs Sherman II (3.7), Crusader II/III (2.3/3.0)…and some more also possible. Idea would be some pseudo historical scenario with limited number of good tanks on each side.
One idea could be you HAD TO FINISH on a lesser tank to get points to a better tank (think it was tested in the past, actually).
What do you mean realistic scenario? don’t you mean historical or authentic scenarios. How can a scenario be realistic. Realism is about physical attributes and not context.
don’t get authenticity/accuracy confused with realism they are very different things.
Realism comes from Art, and it is defined as representing Objects physically correct, as opposed to impressionist paintings. This doesn’t mean that the depicted scenario needs to have ever happened or for it to even make sense… it doesn’t need to for it to be realistic.
You are getting things mixed up.
For realism there is sim, there are even more realistic games out there for enthusiasts, like DCS. And since the realism of tanks is miserable, i don’t think realism is what you are really going for. Rather your subjective wrong impression what realism is.
What you want however isn’t realism, you want historical accuracy or historical authenticity… this has nothing to do with realism.