The Panther has a surprisingly large number of weapons.
From kar98 to grenades.
Can this be used?If not, why not?
1 Like
They’re just the cosmetics from WT
Sadly they can’t be used at all
I would like to see a system where you could put an ammo/med box on your vehicles like HnG though
7 Likes
Honestly that could be cool, and it will give people some reason to actually defend their own tanks
5 Likes
Fury in Normandy when lol
1 Like
Hard to gauge 1 liners, but if all you’re after is a “Fury” like tank, then there is a M4A2 76 (W) in the Lend-Lease section of the Soviet Forces as a premium tank.
If you are asking about the Normandy campaign, then there were no 76mm Shermans in that campaign and infact not until much later into late 44 did any arive into the ETO - Maybe there will be a Battle of the Bulge or Ardennes Campaign at some point? The actual Fury variant was not available in the ETO until early 1945, so the only campaign that comes close is the Battle of Berlin.
If there is Jumbo in Normandy I don’t see any reason for not having this tank. This game is everything but not historical.
1 Like
Devs have said Normandy campaign is meant to represent all of operation overlord, not just D-Day. Jumbo was in europe toward the end of the operation, so it can be justified in the campaign (though I agree it was a mistake - for game balance reasons, not historical ones). It’s a bit weird to see them on the beaches as if they were there for the invasion, but that’s the least of the historical inaccuracies in the game IMO.
Yeah, same like STG in Moscow. That one did see the campaign during the winter war. Oh wait.
I’d play the absolute hell out of a winter war campaign, would be great.
I think that naming something around a historical context and then misrepresenting that historical context is a flawed game design approach.
Operation Overlord was the codename for the invasion, there were subsequent names for other operations thereafter, let me cite Market Garden for you as a more known example, which had nothing to do with Overlord or the Normandy Campaign, but took place in the ETO.
There are copious posts on this forum that criticise that decision as well, infact they started with the T-50 which just like the Jumbo not being present in Normandy, was not deployed on the Moscow front, but further to the north on the Leningrad front.
The sad part about this is that there are plenty of vehicles available in WT, which could have been used instead and it only takes a modicum of research on even wikipedia if the devs don’t have time to do proper research, that will give them suitable historical context for the appropriate campaigns.
I can see why people would feel that way, but it’s an easy enough problem to solve.
That’s true, and it would be kinda neat to see campaigns based on those later operations. I wasn’t arguing one way or the other on the devs’ decision regarding normandy and overlord, just pointing out that it’s their express stance.
I don’t know for sure, but I think this was a compromise decision. They could have added an early T-34, and as it sits the T-50 is essentially a down-gunned T34 with some extra vulnerabilities.
They should have added the early T-34 with the L11 cannon. At the engagement ranges in Enlisted, neither the German 50mm nor the low velocity L11 gun (ironically the same as on the T-28) would affect the balance of the game.
They also need to fix the ballistic models and correctly represent their effects on armour, to at least the mediocre standard that exists in WT.
You can play these tanks in WT and try out how they perform there - test ballistics vs armour at various angles.
It wouldn’t be any less of a problem for balance than the T-50 is for being more historical.
Yes.
1 Like
Well the issue with the T-50 is the poor sloped armour implementation which plagued WT initially and seems to have crept into Enlisted. The same would go for a T-34 but at least it would have been more historically accurate.
I would prefer that they tighten up on the appropriate ammunition performance a balancing measure, rather than introduce other tanks into the campaign.
I do like the Lend Lease Valentine option though that was a nice touch, I much prefer that to the T-50 as a piece of diverse armour that took part in the Moscow Campaign.
That, and the front plate is 5mm thicker than WT, and WT is 3mm thicker than history.
I’m hoping for both.
whole heartedly agree
sorry I should have been a bit clearer, I’m all for new tanks but they should be representative of the campaign.
I’m out of likes, but yes, this.
I have to see the Jumbo in Normandy as an abstraction just to keep my sanity. I justify it due to the numerical superiority of all the Sherman variants available to the allies at that time.
So instead of one tank it would represent a tank section … I know it’s a pretty weak abstraction but that’s the way I deal with it … Otherwise I would never use it …
2 Likes