yes
1 Like
it wouldnât work?
i have to remind you that in the selecting screen, you cannot change your tank. so if more people has selected the t35, how are they gonna use it?
might not always happens, but you know. at some point, almost everyone want to play the better tank.
creating the worse star wars battlefront 1 or battlefield 1 scenario. get the specific tank or pick up the one that spams first by clicking the spawn button⌠not ideal. iâll tell you that.
Yea, youâre right
( perhaps, we could suggest the ability to change tank in the battle screen squad selection 
since the tank squad itâs the same for all tanks )
I personally would prefer having a balanced selection of tanks that you must pre-select, as swapping on the go would be a bit too flexible and makes it possible for one player to do it all, aka discouraging teamplay / balanced picks when squadding up with others.
you are right.
than it should be leaved.
although, if germans will face t34⌠not many people are gonna like that.
And even if we did get a late Pz3 with long 50mm and extra armor, those two tanks would become the only picks as it wouldnât make sense to pick any other tank.
Like, sorry, Russia. Your tanks are too good.
Besides, with T28/Pz4C youâd get slow, low-armored derp guns, who doesnât want to have those xd
They would be near helpless towards enemy tanks but great for anti-infantry, especially when only loaded with HE.
Tank destroyers would be very vulnurable as they are open-top, but offer one-shot firepower against any tank.
Light tanks would offer the in-between. Good survivability, decent all-round capabilities and decent movement speed.
Got a bit of a triange here, donât we?
Well surprise surprise nearly all games that are considered balanced use rock, paper scissors concepts to balance their games. And this, I think, would bring the most variety and fun to Moscow campaign tankery.
1 Like
but coming from War Thunder, itâs easy to overlook a very significant feature of the T-28
or rather 2 of them
Thatâs why the Pz4 could get a roof mounted MG to bolster it MG firepower. It, alongside its higher rate of fire, should be enough to mostly balance that out. Note that both would be lethal to infantry, but dead in the water against other tanks, creating a more combined-arms feeling as all 3 groups (AT, infantry, support tanks) have to work toghetter.
1 Like
you can get to pre select 5 tanks in each battle consisting of loght med and heavy and once one dies you canât spawn anymore that tank also if someone has a heavy out you can brring another heavy only after his dies
well, you see, enlisted this system would only include flexibility on the field. which itâs something that enlisted does not have. and once again, itâs not a bad factor. you relay on what you have.
it would be too easy swapping for making it simple.
I personally think that all of you are overestimating the issue. This is not a tank on tank focused game, and heavy tanks are much more vulnerable to infantry than light tanks are. Unless the devs change a lot about the FOV and general ability of tanks to perceive their vicinity, weâll be fine.
- The KV-1 is more mobile than anything outside of the BT-7.
- It has better roof/belly armor than anything in the game, making it much stronger against explosive packs.
- It is invulnerable against anti-tank rifles.
- It is invulnerable agianst anti-tank cannons when angled.
- Its gun is 76mm, offering better HE than anything currently in the game.
- Its gun also has APHE capable of taking out any tank currently in the the game.
It really would not be balanced at all. The game might not be majorily tank focussed, but giving players a tank that is nearly impossible to kill, has the ability to nuke cap points with a single shot and nuke tanks with a single shot, you got a recipy for disaster.
Itâs turret traverse is slow, and the machine guns it has have very tiny arcs of fire. But the worst part about it is its exposed engine deck. Place an explosive pack there -or a Molotov cocktail once they work correctly against tanks- and the problem is solved. Not to mention more and better AT guns for the German engineers. Your lack of creativity is no reason to limit tanks in this game.
It has an MG in the rear of the turret
Which is no more exposed than any other engine deck? and has double the armor to boot.
Would require you to get to it first. Again, it is mobile enough to outrun your walking pace.
You literally need a long 75mm or 88mm gun to somewhat deal with one and even then the 75mm doesnât cut it if the KV-1 simply angles. Mind you, your gun can not move. They have full control over the angle at which you can shoot them.
My âcreativityâ has suggested the addition of the Pz38t as a counterpart of the T-26 instead of the Pz3B. Make these the starter tanks and both sides have a nearly identical tank in practical usage.
It has suggested the addition of a Pz4C with roof MG and T28. Both have good MG firepower, but would only get HE to support infantry. That way, they can get taken out by other tanks.
Then, I have suggested about a dozen diffrent tank destroyers which would have the most powerful guns but have open-topped structures that would make them great at killing tanks, but vulnerable to infantry.
This way, you got one set of vehicles decent at everything (the ones we have now), one focussed in anti-infantry but weak against tanks, and one focussed in anti-tank but weak against infantry.
That could lead to properly balanced battles.
If you want to add the KV-1 and T-34, those would render every tank in the game right now obselete. It would require an all-new set of cutting edge German vehicles that were introduced a day or whatever before the end of the battle of Moscow, just to have somewhat of a chance. And then all we would have is Pz3s with 50mms that can only deal with weakspots on either, those aforementioned open top tank destroyers that match the KV-1/T-34 firepower but die to infantry, or Artillery vehicles with guns so large that they can fire HE that can destroy those tanks - and every enemy soldier in a range of 20+ meters.
The rear turret MG too has a tiny firing arc, and at the point at which the player using the tank is so attentive that they have noticed you, youâve already made so many mistakes that they deserve to kill you. Every single other tank in the game is also faster than my walking speed, yet I donât have any trouble killing them with Explosive packs whatsoever, and the armor on the engine deck is by no meas substantial enough to change that.
The Flak 36 was a very common sight during the period when this particular campaign is going to tack place as well, and engineers are probably going to be able to build it.
If your âcreativityâ doesnât even suffice to think of ways to deal with tanks like the KV1, you probably should remove yourself from this conversation. Proper linear balance in these battles is and never was the goal of the developers. Balance instead is supposed to come from the different strengths and weaknesses of both armies. Germany has better infantry weapons and will have better support guns later on, while the soviets get better tanks. All youâre going to achieve in your misguided attempt to balance tank on tank combat -which was largely irrelevant at the time- is make germany once again too strong.
2 Likes
Very often they stop driving. Iâve run into a couple players that would just keep driving nonstop, or even let one of the crew out so a teammate can take control of the driver while they man the gun. Those are much, much more difficult to take out and KV-1s would be the king of that playstyle
Well we have seen frontal armor of Pz2s stopping explosive charges (throw on top of the transmission housing), which would be 20-30mm, while the engine deck armor of the KV-1 is 30mm as well. So it would very much be possible to stop the pack that way. These packs use the same damage model as war thunderâs HE rounds and seem to have ~20-25mm armor pen. Increasing the pen would = increasing their lethal range against infantry so buffing them would make them at least as powerful as grenades, screwing up throwable explosive balance (one has longer throwing range and explosion range to deal with infantry, other can deal with tanks)
So to counter these tanks you are suggesting a stationary gun that requires at least 10 seconds of uninterrupted setup time to use, would have a tiny gun shield at best, no protection at all at worst, and could probably be destroyed in one hit from the tank? We already know that the AT-guns are so bad rn that nobody really uses them.
Well your creativity doesnât go beyond âwhat we got worksâ - which would not work, and âbig AA gun go boomâ, which would in no way create a balanced situation.
Then why did they add Germany defending to make the battles more balanced? or did they buff Soviet guns to try to fix the winrate issues? Replace BA-11 with the T-60, a tank extremely similar to the Pz2 in function? Replace the DP-27 with Madsen to not give either side a LMG with big magazines?
I donât think you have ever heard about the BA-11 to begin with. It used to be here but got removed a while back. While it did not have the protection of a KV-1, due to the wacky damage model, it was nearly unkillable by any tank and had the mobility to outrun explosive packs, much like the KV-1 would. It has already been proven in practice that people hated it for being too survivable against other tanks. The KV-1 would take that and turn it up to 11.
But giving one side a tank without weaknesses (the turret rotation is as fast as all the other tanks ingame) does not allow for counterplay.
Well this is a game, not real life. Whether it was relevant in real life or not does not make it relevant or irrelevant in a video game. Engagements IRL happened at much longer distances than in Enlisted. Germans would cut off supply lines to take away fuel from the Soviet tanks to incapacitate them that way. But there is no way we would see that in Enlisted because it is not a milsim.
Germany never has had a huge advantage in combat power when compared to the Soviets. The only advantage they ever really had was player count. And you will not increase the Soviet playerbase drastically when adding the KV-1 or T-34. Instead, it would annihilate the German playerbase, as shown during the time they buffed Soviet gun damage by 20% and it resulted in big drop of players, so big in fact they had to undo the change. I would asume the devs would have learned giving one side OP stuff that âtechnicallyâ can get countered but not really.
Your current arguments put into the +20% damage context would be âjust dont get shotâ or âjust headshot them. They canât use their higher damage if they are deadâ. It just does not work in practice.
I will join soviet if they bring out kv lol
1 Like
I imagine most German players will do that, or leave.
It would not be healthy for the game in the slightest.
My counter argument put into the context of a 20%+ buff is that this too is entirely unrealistic. Iâm not sursprised that theyâd take things out of the game that donât work correctly, or that they current testing stage is somewhat balanced. In the current context, all of that make sense.
The goal however, is to have very large battles on very large maps with no direct balance. And in that context, balance will be found in the different strengths and weaknesses of the factions. The vision of actual you have does in no way fit the game, or any attempt at realism. Youâre not adding anything to this discussion whatsoever, and this needless contrarianism will just rob the game of its unique approach if it is ever given a chance.