How do you know you are not the insane guy instead of them LOL.
This is not a simulator, for example Pacific campaign sacrifice historical accuracy for balance.
Lol, no that mean that some historical accuracy is acceptable in this game especially for balance.
If one seeks historical accurate game to last detail they are on the wrong game. And will be forever this way.
But then, there’s me, that I couldn’t give less of a shit if a tank saw combat or not in a difference of 1 month or 2 , as long it’s a ww2 shit, fun to play, and doesn’t break the game, I don’t care, I use it, and fight against it.
As for the f2, I didn’t ask personaly for it, but I m glad it’s here.
J1 does the job, f2 it’s a litle better. So I don’t complain about it,
Had fun with it so far. And I didn’t had issues against it.
At any instance I felt the campaign was broken or the feeling of a ww2 game was broken coz of that type of guns or tanks.
But that’s just me… My opinion is too soft on this types of questions because if. I wanted to play a trully historical game, I couldn’t, coz none is.
Moscow is lazy. At this point its just Stalingrad without KV and money accesss.
either way.and personaly, i dont care at all… i take each campaign as a unique experience. i dont care about repetitive stuff or what ever, coz its a diferent scenario. but, i do have alot of free time during the day to play , maybe thats one of the reasons the grind is second nature and unlocking a mkb again for example isnt something i loose sleep . coz overall , its the same game but, a compleatly diferent experience, with or without the same guns. i dont feel the need to own diferent weapons to “have fun” or feel that another soviet campaign need diferent weapons to feel, fun, unique. coz imo it doesnt.
and most of all, it works for me and i have 0 complains about items or grind ingame. but thats just me, my opinion doesnt reflect what others feel. .
Quite sure the historical part of the game has never been anything else than name of campaigns and perhaps weapons.
So you lost your point there.
game had stuff even on alpha that wasnt historical.
None of that will ever change. i dont know a single ww2 game trully historical tbh…
even cod2 we could use stg’s on tunisia/stalingrad, al alemain etc back then and that game is still considered “a masterpiece”…
That’s easy: did Pz IV F2 exist during Moscow? No.
Should the game be balanced? Yes?
Should historical accuracy be sacrificed? No.
Again, X bad doesn’t mean Y should be bad too.
Dont recall t-50’s being moscow either. Or are we drawing the line to “existing” part ? As the prototype of F2 did exist.
And still isnt.
Dont recall there was any historical accuracy to start with.
At this point ? Yeah it indeed has to be.
T-50 is also bad but at least it existed. F2 didn’t even exist during Moscow.
Following the “prototype” argument, let’s add Me 163 Komet to every campaign? It first flew in 1941.
Initial ads that get you into the game:
Then once you start investing time and money into the game:
clearly the game isnt for you then.
sad world we live 
I find it quite funny that you seem to be awfully butthurt over the historical issues the game has.
Yet in same sentence “justifying” existence of t-50 even it never was there.
Just saying.
And tbh, im quite sure the equipments are the least historically broken thing in the game.
Well soviets already have broken il2, cant really see reason why even su-57 would break the balance any further.
Yeah If I recall they mentioned something about historical shit in “about the game” tab.
Its now removed.
I just told you it’s bad. I wish it wasn’t there. But at least there is at least some reasoning that it could be added. Although once again, I wish it was not.
It’s still there:
The weaponry, soldier’s uniform, appearance and capabilities of the vehicles in the game are in line with historical facts.
Of course, the historical facts are not included.
Sad world indeed. A game that was different from the BFV/CoD mish-mas salad is becoming more and more like a mish-mash salad itself.
theres quite little to reason with when subject is historical accuracy.
And im quite sure we have now cleared that off the table.
