Well not actually professional… but apart from that - sorry - obviously the wrong place for any of this sort of thing!! 
I don’t think that’s the case, enlisted tank play is maybe stripped from WT but doesn’t mean it’s connected it’s already independent from WT so if they want to fix stuff they can just do it without forwarding it to wt
It carried over issues from the build of WT’s tanks they ported over, so its a fair assumption.
I’m really hoping they iron it out once Tunisia is full out and they can focus on polishing everything up
Oh I wasn’t meaning they’d have to shuffle it back to WT and Gaijin, but that the issues from WT were carried over when they got their build of it to begin working on Enlisted.
All I’m seeing is proof of you playing like a rat and coming here to complain when something rightfully swats you down
Only my stupid allies get spanked. My win percentage is about 70 by my count in 200 matches.
I wanted to dilute your insults and say the following: I don’t like the gameplay of tanks in general. Duel for 10 minutes, search for pixels in the bushes - bad, who saw first is the winner - bad.
I do not like the current system. Including because of the jumbo. I find it more advantageous to kill infantry, and jumbo will be blown up infantry because it is easier. That seems silly to me.
They usually do
That’s honestly how tanks work IRL, dude
Who spots and blasts first wins
We should get rid of the pen indicator imo
1 Like
If people want change, they have to compromise. If the Allies want an FG and MG analog, the Germans want a Thompson analog, a Jumbo, a P-47, right?
Otherwise it’s just begging for toys. Personally, I’m doing just fine, but sometimes tank duels are annoying. I’m willing to compromise and agree to fix American gun sights and their performance in exchange for that. Otherwise, no, I’ll think only of myself.
Yes, there should be no indicator, but the tanks themselves should be easier to punch out of each other. I understand when a tank has a vulnerable turret or hull, or a large part. But geez, can I not aim at 2 pixels. not everyone has a 27+ inch monitor.
nah seriously, it just doesn’t make sense
it possibly like this
- enlisted stripped wt vehicles codes
- applied it
- tons of thing removed to make simpler and reduce bug possibility
- then enlisted team develop it independently
if enlisted vehicles does connected to WT then WT dev has to make 2 different code for a vehicles, that’s not convenient considering they can just left enlisted develop their own codes
I meant M1 and M2 sights. Shut your mouth, please. Insults are what make you look like a child or an illiterate person.
They unironically didn’t have one that wasn’t just used in tiny amounts and certainly no native ones.
OH THOMPSON
The Beretta works well
You could give the PzIV H the track armor that makes it nearly impervious outside of CQC to the Sherman’s 75mm like @Rickyd123 suggested several times
The ground attack 190s instead of the fighter variant would fit well. I’m quite partial to the Fw190F-8 with the big bomb, but Idk if it was actually in the Normandy fighting
There’s nothing to fix there aside from portraying all ring sights properly
You’re actually using the gunner view and not the commander’s optics, right? I have no issue plinking things across the map even with shitty Moscow gunsights like using the 76mm on the T-28 to shoot through the tiny driver’s port on the PzIV from one end of Manor to the other so like 250-300m
1 Like
What it was most likely was just copying the current build of WT when development started on Enlisted so a ~2015-16 build and it just carried on flaws and all a completely separate development under Darkflow
This is just my and my friend’s best guess as to how it went though
Yeah they’re not connected anymore aside from having the same publisher
Of course I’m aiming right. Again, I’m willing to look at your jumbo kills if you say aiming at any range is easy.
Regarding the Thompson, the Germans have a stg44 that will come sooner or later. So far I like the Thompson better than my SMGs.
Generally equality when you are willing to trade your own for someone else’s at any time. If jumbo and pz4 are equal, have you agreed for the allies side to get a pz4 instead of a jumbo?
Berreta M38 is a terrible smg. I don’t like him. I play with the MP35. My results show that it is effective. I would love to replace them with a Thompson
or they only take the 3D model and write the coded completely independent from scratch but still follow WT styles
If you were you’d be able to mailslot him just like you have to do to some panzers in Moscow or the Grant in Tunisia
Same
I really like the Thompson in Tunisia
???
Why would the Americans get a PzIV?
I like it a shitload more than the MP35 tbh
1 Like
I mean in terms of strength. It’s just that many people say that tanks are equal, but that means that they are willing to trade their own for someone else’s.
That is, if I cut the cake into identical pieces, I would be willing to take either one. If I’m not willing to trade, I think my side is better.
Would I trade an M38 for a Thompson, yes.
Would I trade a Pz4 for a jumbo - yes.
Would I swap the Mg42 for a Bar - probably not, but I’d swap the Mg34.
Would I swap FG for M2 - no.
No, they aren’t - not even for different tanks within the same army!
Absolutely Nonsense??? Sounds like you are describing numerical superiority just as I was. Granted you went into more detail while I just referred to it as being able to fix and flank and being able to endure loses in greater numbers …
Sounds like what this wiki article is saying as well:
the M4 was inferior in firepower and armor to increasing numbers of German heavy tanks, but was able to fight on with the help of considerable numerical superiority, greater mechanical reliability, better logistical support, and support from growing numbers of fighter-bombers and artillery pieces.[12]
The relative ease of production allowed large numbers of the M4 to be manufactured, and significant investment in tank recovery and repair units allowed disabled vehicles to be repaired and returned to service quickly. These factors combined to give the Allies numerical superiority in most battles, and many infantry divisions were provided with M4s and tank destroyers.[
What is your definition of absolute nonsense? … sounds like we were both talking about the same thing …
This is absolute nonsense - I expanded it a bit for you.
You one dimensional “analysis” is nothing like the wiki article - which is of course also a nonsense analysis by comparing the Sherman Medium tank with German heavy tanks. What sort of reasonable analysis says that a medium tank is bad because it is not as good as the opposing heavy tanks??
Simplistic, jingoistic, superficial analysis - that is what sort of analysis does that.
In Normandy The Heer was outnumbered, but it was barely 2:1 at some points of the Battle for Normandy, which is less than the classic minimum advantage required on offense - and the allies had to resupply over a large, uncooperative body of water know as The Channel without benefit of a port for the battle.
And they beat the Axis outright.
They didn’t flank German units because of numbers - they flanked them because they were more maneuverable and used better tactics. There were no equal armoured forces in front pinning German tanks - there was normally infantry with anti tank guns that the Germans were fixated on, only for the allied armor to hit them in the flank.
A classic example is at Norrey on 9 June - Panthers of 12 SS Pz Regt advancing on the town were hit in the flank and routed by Canadian 6th Armoured Regt, losing 7 destroyed write offs and 3 more badly damaged.
Note the small numbers of actual losses too - games like Enlisted and WT give an utterly unrealistic view of casualty rates involved in real warfare 
In those cases where 75mm Shermans did fight head on and with superior numbers, it was often sheer weight of fire that would defeat hte panzers - doing all the “unimportant” damage that games like tracks, wounding a crewman, sights, guns, etc - not actually flanking to destroy.
Again at Villier-Boccage there were 60 British tanks - mostly Cromwells with essentially the same gun as Shermans, with a few Fireflies. They were caught totally unprepared by German forces totalling approx 30-40 tanks - but the Germans could only inflict 2:1 tank kill casualties, and LOST THE BATTLE! Despite all the advantages they had - that’s a straight up fight where 1 side has the considerable advantage - and completely fails to win the day.
So again - it is absolute nonsense to say that " the only way that the American Sherman could compete against the superior German Armor was in numerical superiority" - they competed on skill, and tactics, and with superior technical equipment such as better sights (eg giving hte gunner a panoramic so he could easily find a target outside the fov of his gunsught then immediately switch to his gunsight when lined up) better turret traverse including an override for the commander, a rotating periscoope for hte commander - these are all things that mattered in geting off the first shot that was what REALLY mattered in Normandy - and which are hardly ever relevant in games.
1 Like