Ya all homies know that giving the allies the mutant(M3 Lee) and the Axis the 75/32 M41 tin can isnt fair. And its even worse if you consider that it has a good cannon but no he(lets not talk about the unexisted machine gun) At least give it an He. But you can also add an machine model that will look a built one and call it a day. Your game must not be 100% historically accurate otherwise it will be unfair.
5 Likes
With the upcoming progression rework there´s no point. Just don´t play Tunisia until then.
You mean “historically authentic”, if it was “historically accurate” the Axis would be loosing most of their matches.
3 Likes
Just have to wait and hope for new content to fill out the BRS when they add it. The potential is there as there are alot of variants with different guns. This ones quite the beast. ( 75/46 M43)
the mentioned should probably have HE though and HEAT though. Warthunder variants do
4 Likes
The did, irl, have Efecto Pronto Shells that were basically HEAT rounds, though more HESH than HEAT, but they were Sherman killers when they used them, You can kill Grants with them, I have often in the past though frontally it can be Trickey hitting the “Grenn” spot.
2 Likes
well after a certain point anyway 
2 Likes
Actually the 75/18 M41 would be a better one to have + historically accurate. It has a MG in WT and it has HEAT
1 Like
I was more talking about winning tactical engagement since they litteraly lost all of the campaigns depicted in the game.
Battle for Moscow-failure to capture Moscow
Battle for Normandy-failure to contain Allied landings in Normandy
Battle for Berlin-failure to defend Berlin
Battle for Tunisia-failure to stop the Allied advance in North Africa
Battle for Stalingrad-failure capture Stalingrad
Battle for Pacific-Japs got handed L´s on the regular
3 Likes
While axis did fail on the operational level, they had some local successes.
Long story short: axis can still win mathces and remain HA as long as we pretend those are mentioned “local successes” and the overall outcome (that is presented indirectly within the game) is a loss.
4 Likes
Don’t even need the Lee, just pull up in a smol Daimler and put these poor guys out of their misery.
well yeah…since there is no end to the campaigns in Enlisted. Can smash each other as much as you like.
1 Like
Then why did the US and CW need around five years to defeat Japan in Pacific which were “handed L’s” on the regular.
Also, excluding Stalingrad, Berlin and partly Pacific, nearly all of those maps are generic/ “inspired” battle maps where any side could win and it wouldnt matter.
Stalingrad is also weird because it plays mostly in 1942 where the Germans were able to capture the city/ at the beginning the Germans and Soviets kept recapturing locations from the other side.
That´s what I meant with
1 Like
give her at least shrapnel, but better high-explosive shells
“They weren´t winning fast enough” isn´t a very good counter. Slow and steady wins the race.
Yes but the strategic outcome is obvious. I´m not saying Axis can´t win anything nor did I say it previously.
If ya´ll actually read what I said ya´ll wouldn´t have this misunderstanding.
Since DF no longer cares about any realism or authenticity with launch of as-44 for every assaulter i think we should get P40 - War Thunder Wiki that should replace crappy 75/32 M41. I guess Darkflow designed this campaign in hope that Axis will have way more players like they did with Normandy which was a deadly mistake and now it’s unplayable as the Axis since almost nobody plays that side because why would they? They have underpowered junk that is barely usable. I also hate how Pz.III N is a paid tank in that campaign while it was grindable for everyone in WT, it’s again like DF knew how miserable it will be for the Axis and wanted to force us to pay real $$$ to get some real firepower with usuable turret/mg and just enough armor to survive shells (which can’t be said about Italian TD).
1 Like
I can only work with what I get.
And since most matches in Pacific happen on Guada/ Solomon Isles, I would guess that invading clay that was previously clay of your side, means that you somehow lost it.
And Im pretty sure this game doesnt have any tactical resemblance, let alone anything on a strategic level.
Unless strategy means win match x on map y for the 10239th time again with tactic of building rally in the right house on the street and drop enough bodies until objective turns blue/ doesnt turn red.
You mean
“TeChNiCaLlY you meant authentic because otherwise you meant that Axis always lose battles because they lost it on a strategic level (even though this game doesnt reflect strategy) even though you are just talking about a stupid tank”?
Those initial battles wich obviously aren´t represented because there´s still US landing craft and LVTs on the Beach when the Japanese are attacking. Not to mention none of those Garrison units are represented in the game, same as their uniforms.
“Strategic planning lays out the long-term, broad goals that a business or individual wants to achieve. And tactical planning outlines the short-term steps and actions that should be taken to achieve the goals described in the strategic plan.”
The US can loose on the tactical level but on the Strategic level they won overall.
No I did not fucking say that. If you people want to argue with a point I only made inside your heads keep those discussions in there.
It does reflect Operations on the Strategic level. If it didn´t we would have “Eastern Front”, “Western Front” and “North African Front”. Currently we are playing in Campaigns with maps that all take place within a certain Operation like Operation Torch, Operation Barbarossa and Operation Overlord.
The Strategic level isn´t represented as a game mechanic but through the setting of the maps and campaigns to put it short.