Do not add BR5 to Japan

Suggestions
1

  1. In order to do that you need to add fake/fantasy/never produced stuff like the rejected Tokyo SMG and Ho Ri wooden mockup. It’s not worth it.

  2. This will bring all the US BR5 stuff on top of BR4 stuff to the Pacific: Pershing, M4A2 76mm, M4A1 76mm, Calliope, etc. which was never used there and Japan is absolutely not ready to be fighting that. This is weird.

  3. Japan is fine as it is, being a unique “shorter research tree” nation. This makes it possible to add other shortened nations like France (BR1-2) for Battle of France or even separate Italy or Britain in the future and doesn’t set a precedent that “every nation should have 5 BRs” because then we’ll end up with ARL-44 and Avenger which were also never used in WW2. This sets a bad example.

11 Likes
2

devs would beg to differ and actually think otherwise.

i’m starting to get on board with the people that argues in favor of putting ussr vs japan.

it could be fun. or a bloodbath.

on one hand, i would agree, on the other, CAS of japan isn’t that bad, and often overlooked.

and, the newly add tanks can even take out tigers II. so i’d think they are good enough to face muricans and soviet tanks.

their equipment is good too. similar to the germans, the mp34 is highly underrated and the type 2a.
plus, the new drum smg it’s almost better than the m2 carbine.

now, that’s a question.

why do you want to add france or italy as low br nations.

it’s not gonna make it better.

because you’ll find your self with veterans france members ( using odd vehicles too because wait until you’ll find out how little equipment the french had ) fighting " fresh " german players.

or for the japan situation, averange US soldiers fighting against fully equipped and highly experienced br III / IV japan soldiers with tanks that are paper thin, but can still outgun pretty much everything.

as said, i’m not against it, but others might as it goes for the experience being that impactful.

3

I’m absolutely in favor of historical and potentially fun 1939 border conflicts with BA-7 and T-26 vs Chi-Ha and Ha-Go, so only BR 1-2.

BR 3 would be nonsense because T-34 and KV-1 not only didn’t take part there but in general had not existed.

And obviously not high BR because IS-2 vs fantasy tanks in Manchuria would be just sad.

That’s an inevitable evil you can’t avoid, there will always be people who take US BR3 lineup with 2 paras, 2 Shermans, truck, carrier, flamethrowers and impacts and go quit every high BR game until they find a low BR Japanese lobby where BR1 steam newbies have nothing of the above.

3 Likes
4

Glad to know the idea of BR5 Japan bad is spreading.

7 Likes
5

That’s common sense. I called BS on Tokyo SMG and Ho Ri Wooden Mockup immediately when they were announced.

1 Like
6

BR5 for Japanese is inevitable because of MM reasons, since not a lot of people are playing BR4 US lineups I bet.

But I personally believe Japanese needed only 3 BRs. The recent smgs was completely unnecessary and basically everything else (on BR4) except few planes sucks/could be BR3 or lower.

4 Likes
7

Exactly, realistically speaking Japanese WW2 army needs Arisaka, Type 100 SMG, Type xx MG, Zero and Chi-Ha to be authentic, fun and viable for its BR1-3 Pacific experience.

1 Like
8

Recently I started play Pacific Allies. They are not very different from BR V:

  • paratroopers with BSA Welgun instead of Thompson 100 rounds
  • AP-4C instead of AP-4C + P-47D-28
  • Jumbo or M4A1(76)W instead of Firefly

The whole rest has not changed - BAR M1918A2, M9 Bazooka, M1 Garand.

So - in current state it is somewhat playable (to use BR IV both in Normandy and Pacific), but - over a longer period of time it is a waste of Allies resources. Allies need BR V (Pershing + Super Pershing), so is Pacific needs BR V to not become a bot farm for Japan.

2 Likes
9

Missing the M2 Carbines you give to every man, woman and child that acts as de facto assault rifles for everyone.

1 Like
10

well… before the war ended, ussr did attempted to seize as much ground as possible striking against the japanese.

so it wouldn’t be totally unhistorical as japanese soldiers did fought against t 34-85s

i was more talking about the fact that,

considering that a certain item would be, for example, tier IV / III material, getting putted in lower br because " it doesn’t deserve to be " in X tier, will lead to having better equipment at lower br. plus, more experience to it.

i’m… not sure how can be handled too.

but we’ll see.

1 Like
11

I don’t fully disagree with not adding paper or wood tanks, but also for the sake of fun and variety I do not fully agree either.
And being rejected or not in service is not an argument, by that logic more than half of the weapons would be ruled out and the game would be worse off for it. The only problems I have with the Tokyo Aresnal Model 1927 is that it doesn’t have its fully name, and that the model is a bit scuffed with the bolt.

But BR4 and BR5 are indistinguishable, the “5 BR’s system” doesn’t exist, it’s just 3 BR’s with a ±1 match making. They should’ve just gone with x.0, x.3, and x.7 system that war thunder has and made them work like in that game. And I hope to god they’ll eventually remove the BR map lock.

And I wouldn’t mind the ARL-44 or the Avenger, because again, you’d have to remove a lot of stuff if you go by what was actually used. Especially since one of the main draws of Enlisted is that it’s one of the few games, or even the only game, that the equipment in question is implemented. Personally I would love to have the MAS-40 and the MAS-44 in the game (vichy French stuff would be fun too).

2 Likes
12

If we could somehow limit to BR4, then … maybe.

Please. How much land did USSR get after the war in the East? Kicked Japanese from Manchuria, it became China, kicked Japanese from Korea, it became Korea.

The devs never really shy themselves from nerfing stuff when they see fit.

Sorry can’t agree with that.
I will always be fighting for removal of fantasy stuff, not adding more of it.

1 Like
13

i could have phrased it better, all to say, they did fought the two towards the latter end of the war though.

which i think could be interesting to explore in enlisted

that is also true…

14

Was enough fighting to lead to 30k soviet casualties and 60k japanese casualties. So it could work.

Last time I checked, proper prototypes existed, unlike paper and wood tanks. What do you classify as “fantasy”? Does something have to have been in service at the map location at that exact month and
year to not be fantasy?

3 Likes
15

I’m not saying Far East campaign didn’t happen.
In fact, its rapid success was one of the major factors of Japan’s surrender.

Ho Ri - wooden mockup, nobody even knows if it would work;
Cönders - never finished, never serially produced;
Tokyo SMG - testing failed, canceled;
AS-44 - never serially produced or adopted or used in WW2;
STG-45 - never serially produced or adopted;
MG-45 - never serially produced or adopted;
Fedorov Avtomat - flimsy WW1 gun, never seen after 1940, etc.

1 Like
16

The only thing I am wondering is who’s even going to play with br 5 Japan?

17

I’m not asking for examples, I was asking for a hard rule to determine if something is “fantasy” or not. So either give me the entire list of “fantasy” with a “why” for each entry. (I should probably have asked “how do you classify something as “fantasy”?”). Personally, as long as it’s historically authentic and mechanically correct, I don’t really mind. And by “historically authentic” I mean things that existed and could reasonable have been produced, and used, if some historical chips would’ve fallen slightly differently. I would even extend it to things that were made post-ww2 if they were possible in a technological sense during ww2.

Didn’t exist, calling it a fantasy tank would be apt.

Partial completion, so could also be called classified as fantasy to a certain extent. And it’s a battle pass weapon.

But they still existed. And could reasonably have been adopted in a limited capacity.

Still existed. This reasoning can be extended to:
1907 Mosin Carbine
Mosin Dragoon
Madsen

18

If it was never adopted by the military, assigned a nomenclature code, issued to troops and used during WW2 – for me that’s fantasy.

I would definitely hate AF less if it was represented in a more true way, i.e. being an early war use panic-mode Arisaka cartridge flimsy clunky weapon, which was surpassed by SVT, AVT and PPSH in all its intended roles by 1940-41, rather than the ultimate proto AK for the assault on Berlin like it’s depicted ingame.

19

I can understand your concerns. But I am afraid the train has left the station ever since the addition of the AS-44 to the regular tech tree. Everything is possible as of right now. While they have teased the Ho Ri I am more interested to note what AR will they give to the Japanese assault engineers. The same goes for the US. Also what would be the counterpart to the M2 carbine then? What select fire rifle will the Japanese get? This is the reason I am not grinding any new weapon for Japan. The SIG is way better than the Type 2 SMG and the Type 100 (late) SMG is a much more viable option than the Tokyo Arsenal SMG. Despite a lot of people claiming to the contrary. The Type 99 LMG is completely useless as opposed to the no-recoil Type 96 LMG. It would be interesting to see how the ‘fantasy’ BR V weapons for Japan transcend some of their BR II-III stuff leave alone their BR IV unlocks. Looks like more power creep ahead.

3 Likes
20

Indeed. This warthunderization where every faction can fight (almost) any other faction and needs to have mirrored equipment by type and power is horrible.

1 Like