Then why you ever bothered to write the squads historical backgrounds if now you imply we can get rid of them since “they have the same function”, why not to tie squads to maps and arming the squad to be tied to every variant of it? Like I have 4 rifleman 1 from 4 german campaigns right- i put rifleman 1 squad to my army, I put guys in it, I arm them and depending where match maker throws me I have regiment xyz that was on moscow if i play moscow or regument abc from normandy if it throws me to normandy.
It just feels like throwing out of the window all the historic background and reaserch that was put to it, it was neat to play those units and get to know that they actually participed in thoae battles…it feels…well wrong. I don’t want to say im aginst the merge cuz I’m in for it…but to sell those old squads with background…
If we go that way just get rid of the unit backgrounds alltogether, auto-compensate us for the squads we have unlocked and just leave “rifleman 1” “asulter 2” “tanker 3” and soo on.(plus unique or premiums also as “assaulter 1” but leave history for them at least maybe in squad tab or smth)
I know; it wasn’t like that before when it was tied to the Radio II squad in the Pacific.
Why didn’t you leave the M2 Carbine upgrade with the 167th regiment alone and just add another to the M2 Carbine to the 4th Division? You did it with the 90th Panzergrendier Regiment and 77th Grenadier Regiment, so why don’t you do the same with the 167th Regiment and the 35th Infantry Brigade?
you know that if you divide it to early, mid and late war you would still see fg42 in stalingrad? it was in service since 1943 and stalingrad was fought from 42-43. and this was explained to you multiple times with similar examples in the topic you made. do you know what early war weapons are (from 39-41)?
fedorov, ppsh41 drum, t34, kv1, kv2, svt-38, svt-40, avt-40, avs 36, garand, thompson drum, m1919a6, p47, p38. and do you know what e.g. germany has to counter that with early war weapons? kar98k, g41, mp40, short 75 panzers with low armor and mg34. does this seem like good matchup for early war weapons? similar examples could be made for mid war weapons.
You really need to look at the low-mid BR Axis equipment and put in a folder at least 4 early smgs.
There are no way for the Axis to compete against PPS-42/-43/PPSh-41 box while both of them are at BR2 or 3 for Soviets, or Thompson/Lanchester(especially 50 mag)/Owen/Austen for USA.
New BR tiers for SMG:
Kiraly moved to BR4 and Mkb42(h) moved to BR4
I propose to also move few weapons from other nations like PPD-40 and PPSh-41 Drum to BR4, Box mag Thompson to BR3 since it’s so similar to other Thompsons, German G41 need a buff to reload speed it’s so damn slow when loading full clip. US also need better tanks and rocket launchers to deal with Tiger 2 spam.
this was discussed on forum few times and it wouldnt work. you could easily smuggle tiger 2 (H) into low tier battles or stg44/fedorov/ppsh41 drum with average.
absolutely terrible suggestion. one veteran that wants to seal club newbies can easily bring stg44/fedorov/ppsh41 drum and absolutely dominate. there are already proposals with weighted average so you can search them on forum.
imagine having forethought about clusterfuck that would happen when you have hundreds of squads that need sorting. idk how could you have such idea.
idk why. people should always remember all their squads BR and what they equipped even if they have hundreds of squads.
tiger is better armored, their gun performs similarly against most enemy tanks, while tiger has better anti infantry capability. and cause panzer VI>panzer V.
I dont understand why you refuse to use the same exact matchmaker as War Thunder did. Now that the playerbase isnt seperated to 12 different sides, it shouldnt be a problem. Battle rating 1 should face battle rating 2 max. Battle rating 2 can face battle rating 1 and 3. Battle rating 3 can face battle rating 2 and 4. Battle rating 4 can face battle rating 3 and 5. The game will be more balanced that way.
Because according to devs bigger caliber = better tank. While in reality Tiger E cannon will struggle hard against Jumbos, but Panther can frontally pen it, it’s armor is also much better.
It’s only a strawman if I named you personally…
And then you go on talking about stuff as if I did.
That’s historical existence authenticity, which in a game like this makes it worse since maps would be locked behind your gear meaning you have to optimise your entire loadout to get the maps you want whilst also being able to play the way you want as well.
Either it should be an opt in thing, or you should just go with historical technological authenticity. As in it’s something that could realistically have been made earlier when taking the technology required into account. An example would be the MP 3008, it’s literally just a Sten copy, meaning it could theoretically have been made as early as the first time the Germans found a Sten in the first place.
The current forever roundabout of compromises that will just lead to a worse experience whilst not making the “historical accuracy club” happy anyway is just wasted time and effort. Darkflow should prioritise fun gameplay over the accuracy, as long as they don’t bring in polymer weaponry and modern attachments I’m happy. And right now being stuck in Berlin forever is not particularly fun, and I shouldn’t have to sacrifice my own enjoyment and progression just to have some more map variety. Map variety and fun gameplay and sense of progression should not be mutually exclusive.
I did not mean it like that, it’s just that I felt it was kind of slandering the “historical accuracy camp”, where I was trying to show how I am relatively flexible and reasonable in my logic
Like I don’t mind the Federov, a WW1 gun in game, but I think it should just be in Moscow and Stalingrad
However I will say that I am somewhat complacent and like the new system, I just think some things should be a bit tweaked
