Please update the vehicles to allow selecting different paint schemes in different battle zones.
3 Likes
you see, the main problem stems from a huge, main misconception from the developer team and the company in general.
the players want to have a game that gives as much satisfaction for them as possible. which is correct, and completely understandable.
the company wants to make as much money out of the game for them as possible. which is correct, and completely understandable.
both sides have totally correct and understandable objectives out of the game.
the problem, and the main misunderstanding that brings aaaaaaaall the issues there ever been, starts when the company sees both objectives as directly opposed and contradictory.
they use the system of “give as little satisfaction as possible, to extract as much money as possible”.
when the real working system goes the opposite: give as much satisfaction as possible to the customer, and it will inherently bring as much money as it can get.
naturally, the real working system implies more effort and work than giving a minimaly viable product, which could be the real problem, if you dig into it.
1 Like
I went into depth about this on another post, but the TLDR is, a mix of the official testing document for the M3 Lee by the soviets and then first and second hand accounts of it in action.
17 men is the answer btw, normally all armed with SMG’s historically. Though the issue varies from there, since there was a lot of non standard modification and possible confusion due to other soviet doctrine (ie the vehicle crew being counted as a part of the squad so personally, I count a 6/7 man crew plus a 10/11 man squad mounted inside.). This gets more confusing as there are varying accounts on the modifications made to the tank to allow it, from removing the 75mm casemate to kangeroo’ing the 37mm turret. Though there is a constant of it being mentioned that it was the earlier model M3’s which still had side doors and hatches.
The logic was more along the ideas of modern APC use of dropping men directly next to the enemy, something the lightly armoured Halftracks and etc struggled with, where as a tank could in ideal condition park next to an enemy bunker with no real opposition and drop a 10 man SMG team directly to the door of said bunker complex.
Its also worth mentioning, that obsolete vehicles and weapons were commonly retained even when improved gear was readily available for a multitude of reasons.
Honestly I was completely against this but I think Ogge in particular convinced me to be open to this idea more, since most german gear fits to a degree, and a decent amount of soviet gear fits (minus planes and tanks), such as the PPS and moisins. As for the prototypes, they never fit no matter the battle so nothing to be done about that.
3 Likes
If we had a more intricate system where we could have separate presets for different maps on the same BR, it could even somewhat work (e.g. mp 3008, k98 kriegs, Puma for Berlin maps and MP 38, k98 prewar, pz 38t for Moscow)
But I can’t be open to any extent to the idea of Soviet soldiers with PPD-34, Madsen, Fedorov 1912 and Uragan alongside T-26, BT-7 and T-28 storming Berlin, that’s just insane.
1 Like
I mean the Uragan actually somehow fits despite being a partisan weapon due to how the soviets absorbed partisan formations and their weapons.
The PPD 34 isnt inexcusable either, still would be absurdly odd to see one, but not impossible. I mean a german using a Madsen would make sense, just not a soviet. And then see point about proto weapons above not fitting anywhere.
As for the Tanks, the BT-7 is also in theory able to be seen in Berlin, since it was kept in frontline use till the end of the war, though in a armoured recon role. T-26’s are rare to see in game anyway, the main issue is the T-28 imo, that will be annoying to see. This wont be fixed until the soviet BR2 tank lineup is expanded though, the T-50 isnt popular enough atm. (That or nerf the T-28 a little, like no magic MG turrets for example or etc.)
I don’t think it does. Not to mention it was allegedly manufactured in a single (1) piece.
I even went to the museum where it is supposedly stored and didn’t find it on display among other partisan weapons.
PPD-40 with a drum - maybe. But stick mag PPD-34? Basically impossible.
They were superseded by the millions of PPSh 41s and then by the millions of PPS 43s.
Sorry, but never in a million years.
First of all most if not all of them were destroyed in 41-43, as their armor protected the crew only against rifle bullets.
Secondly, moving this 1930s model to Western Europe in 44-45 would be hell logistics wise and useless combat wise when you have thousands of T-34 85s.
In general, the Red Army standardized and optimized their inventory like crazy by late war, halting production and support of all outdated and obsolete weapons.
3 Likes
Glad to see I’m having somewhat of a impact on the way people think. 
1 Like
I think in reality no, however I can at least see a world where it did end up there, but again see the point on proto/one off weapons. It had no right being a TT weapon and really shouldnt have been added tbh, but too late for that now.
Again unlikely, but not impossible, there could be a rare situation where someoen kept a hold of their own on for sentimental reasons or etc.
Oh no 100%, the BT-7 was retained in the west, post 42/43 they were completely gone from dedicated tank battalions/etc, but it was retained in the armoured recon role, I mean people do tend to forget quite how diverse soviet equipment was at times, it certainly wasnt all T-34’s, even later in the war.
Production for sure, but equipment in actual use varied massively, not to mention the insane amounts of gear maintained in the field alone by the soviets, I mean look at the countless field mods to random armoured cars alone, many designs of which were obsolete in 1941 let alone in 1945. So no the BT-7 100% served in the berlin sector, though very likely not in the street fighting itself.
1 Like
I wouldn’t want to drive that thing up a cramped street.
Come to think of it, I wouldn’t want to be in one at all during a war. 
I mean frankly being in any soviet tank no matter the period seems to be wildly dangerous at the safest of times.
Crew survivability never was a priority, or frankly even an afterthought for them.
I always laugh where you see the soviets call the M3 Lee a coffin for 6 brothers, considering even the M3 Lee was safer than most soviet designs. I mean the T-34 has always terrified me, especially when you read account of tankers burning alive mid way through their hatches, unable to escape due to a variety of reasons. (I mean not limited to the T-34 there but certainly more prevalent with it.).
The other one that stuck with me is the account from a panther crewmember who almost had the same because of their camo netting which was set on fire by a sherman, for some reason they thought it was a good idea to cover the hatches with the tightly fitted camo net.
2 Likes
That’s a bold statement. I believe it 100% didn’t, and no commander would put his men into a BT-7 against the Germans in 1945.
And I don’t think that’s how dictatorship armies work.
Your sentiments don’t matter, the rifle is not yours, they take old rifle, they give new rifle.
You need to be a functional fighter, not a romantic with his beloved Berdan II or PPD from the winter war.
Still arguing for historical accuracy when that was executed and put in a box to float down the river.
If that is your biggest gripe, you may as well quit now because it will only get worse.
I mean I think you are misunderstanding its use as armoured recon, I mean the stuart and the daimler and etc were still used in the role into 1945 too. And while its not ideal for it to enter direct combat, its not impossible at all. Same for the likes of the Ba-10/other armoured cars. If nothing else its a great platform to act as an artillery spotter, just thinking by pure logic alone there. (Not to mention by that logic the Puma shouldnt be there either?)
I mean every account Ive ever read of the war would dispute that, soldiers, even soviet soldiers were given a surprisingly amount of autonomy at the front, as long as they were fighting well, its rare a political officer would intervene in their own practices unless he thought it was cowardice or etc.
I mean there is good reason there was such widespread looting by frontline soviet units.
Though its not like they could request another weapon, but if they looted one at some point, there is very little chance they would be asked to abandon it unless it was actively impeding you, (ie, carrying too much and slowing you down).
Of course I understand it.
And to the best of my knowledge the Red Army in 1944-45 used BA-64, Lend Lease M3A1 half-tracks and even T-70 in this recon/noncombat role but not 1930s designs like BA-11/BT-7 as those were all either destroyed or hopelessly defenceless and obsolete, without repair base.
Looting - sure.
But I doubt a Soviet private could say "comrade commissar, I like my 20-round PPD-34 without spares from the previous war, I would like to keep it and not return to sepo, I refuse to use the PPS-43 for which our division has a workshop set up
I mean they commonly used whatever they got, from captured german vehicles to lend lease Stuarts. A lot of their maintenance was done in the field and duty rigged. It was quite common to see frankenstein esk vehicles appear. And certainly the likes of BT-7’s and BA-11/10/etc’s wouldnt be completely out of place there. The soviets were good at common parts before, I mean the BT-7’s engine shared common parts with the KV-1, while the later BT-7M had commonality with the T-34 and even IS engines. And other components were more easy to substitute or just forgo.
Id agree 100% here, however looting or issuement of a PPD 34 from earlier on in the war are both legitimate options. Certainly not standard, but not completely impossible either. As for maintaining it? I mean weirder and more unique weapons were maintained through the war, I must admit my gunsmithing knowledge of the PPD 34 isnt great, however I imagine its parts werent impossible to replace or at least repair. I mean it did share a lot of common parts with the PPD 40.
I think what you are asking for is totally reasonable, I kinda agree some direction has been lost, whether it be since Keofox left, or pressure from Gaijin management we will probably never know. But overall, things have changed, I don’t think we could have survived without BR presets and post merge, but at least give us a choice to wait in a queue if we don’t want to play a map, not just ask us to dislike it.
@MajorMcDonalds said Devs will learn what we like on regards to preferred maps, but that is not entirely true, I like Berlin but only if BR5, I like Tunisia if BR3, but my like and dislikes will be different for different BRs, I hope they don’t make rash decisions thinking people chose not to play Stalingrad, but if I was BR3/4 I don’t mind Stalingrad, just not BR5
5 Likes
Most definitely.
back then even with the merge the conversations were “we try to balance history and gameplay”, “BRs of weapons are mostly tied to the year of their deployment”, “there will be no ‘Tigers in Moscow’”.
But lately the attitude has changed to: “whatever 
we’re going full Call of Duty and screw WW2”.
4 Likes
This game is still based on historical themes.
5 Likes
then please for the love of god find another game to play if enlisted is a doomed failure in your eyes instead of bothering everybody with your HA ramblings
3 Likes
I would like if the game at least tries to keep some HA with maps and BR while keeping the game fun for everyone because it really brings in the immersions
2 Likes