There’s this term “suspension of disbelief”.
When I used to see 9 soldiers with FGs I might go “huh?” but it wouldn’t take me out of the WW2 game immersion.
However, when I see a German Panther tank disguised as American M10 time and space travelling to 1942 Stalingrad or Volkssturm boys in fur hats and fedoras in Tunisia wielding Soviet PPS, that’s beyond simple disbelief.
You’re gonna love the chinese in tunisia and the french in the pacific 
Realism and arcade are business models that suit modern games, if it suits Darkflow and they see their wallets go up, they are not going to change course. It doesn’t matter how they describe the game as long as it suits them.
Actually the French participated in the Battle of Hong Kong but we don’t have it but all the devs have to do is bring back the campaigns so we can pick a campaign we play without having the old progression system and that’s how you control the cosmetics and when they introduce BRs for campaigns when we have enough maps we can return some form of historical accuracy.
They tend to suffer more losses.
and have to bear more risks of failure
Not to mention that most sprints in history have had basic cover measures
If I remember correctly
The Soviet Union had indeed experienced what it was like to encounter a mixed force of tanks, infantry vehicles, infantry, and smoke on a certain plain.
So why protect these incompetent commanders?
Sadly Heroes and Generals 2 was cancelled
The only major game I would call even half way realistic to irl, is Squad 44/Post Scriptum for WW2 at least, and even then that has issues, but in the grand scheme of things those are nearly invisible, like the game itself models itself off a completely asymmetric balance,
Normally though map design rather than weapon nerfs and etc, saying that the tanks in enlisted are far better to play purely due to the better damage model, where as.
This game before the merge at least gave the benefit of the doubt where you had some slightly rarer weapons being used by people, which did happen on odd occasion. And even after the merge I was fine with it to a degree, sure I lost some HA but gained a better community MM, but recently the devs have clearly been trying to push it so far out.
War Thunder is massively unrealistic, for many many reasons, its simply a detailed game and hence enjoyable for those reasons. If you tailor make a match, tailor make the lineups, and tailor make the plan of action, it can become realistic, but jsut generally its not, like its such a shame WT doesnt have actual historical battles mode, Id love something like the world war mode for a battle of Britain scenario for example.
ahh it was such a scam since they announced it xD
which brings up why i said war thunder isn’t authentic
the only time that this was ignored was Ho-ri due to someone forging that thing into existences, and you could say modern vehicles too but those are guess work due to the classified nature of them all.
but yes war thunder is realistic, not authentic since a work of realism does allow for liberties/limitations when it’s needed like to make the game enjoyable.
speaking of that gaijin originally wanted to added mechanical failures into war thunder but wrote it off knowing that it wouldn’t be enjoyable just like this game had weapon failure that wasn’t enjoyable because of the RNG nature of it
I mean no, its not realistic by many standards of metrics, like the entire camera view in WT detains it from being realistic on its own. To call WT realistic would make you call Battlefield realistic, because by the same metric only if you play in certain gamemodes with certain rules does it become “realistic”.
Like I dont even get what you mean by saying authentic here, it makes no sense, no game will ever be authentic to real life, or well maybe a very well organised milsim irl, but thats against the point. You seem to be equating realistic is a semi realistic and authentic to realistic.
Is your argument here that the game is realistic because its in a WW2 setting? You mean like CoD Vanguard, because I have many things to say about that, and none good.
Or is it more as I said above that your equating realistic to a semi realistic semi arcade style of game like Enlisted, while calling any realistic games such as Squad 44 or etc as “authentic”?
Because Squad 44 isnt “authentic”, sure its realistic, but it still takes liberties, perhaps you mean something like Foxhole which edges to your definition of “authentic” but isnt whatsoever at the same time. Im just rambling here because I genuinely dont know what the fuck your on about.
to compare those 2 and call them the same is laughable at best disingenuous at worse but yes the game where you can tank any shot where armor isn’t calculated at all and the way to destroy a vehicle is by draining Hit points is totally the same as a game where the way you do it is by force a critical point to snap whether it be the wings sniping or the ammo getting hit.
you can however be authentic to the historical facts with definition 3B of the word Authentic reading as follows: “Conforming to an original so as to reproduce ESSENTIAL features” so having jews fight along side the germans is unauthentic as it doesn’t reproduce what happened in our own timeline, or again the mentioned T-90A fighting against the M1a1 in ruined streets of berlin
no i am using the definition of the word realism and realistic since it has it’s origins in the Art world, yes video games are a form of art, where artists in the 1800s started to paint the scenes based of real life of course they had their stylized touches so it can still appeal the eyes the commissioner. this is way i am putting stress on the difference between authentic versus realistic
My brother in christ, stop the waffle. You have made no point here, its a verbal stew on par with jacks cooking. And before you pull the “well just read my last posts to figure out what my point is”, just dont my dude, now that would be disingenuous af. Like your entire post could be summed up with;
“well errrr… posts dictionary definition”
As for the first part, yes that is my point, they are similar only by the fact they are war games, however if played in each owns hardcore mode, each game can become something closer to realistic, hence making any semblance of the drivel you have been posting irrelevant.
Yet neither of us would call Battlefield realistic by any measure, so why do you call WT realistic? Because it has a slightly more in depth HP system where each component has its own HP points? Because many games which would be described as far more realistic have far less in depth HP system mechanics.
You have taken up such an infantile approach to this I’m frankly bemused.
no i am not going to do that, though i will be keeping track on if you skimmed over parts.
way to simplify, didn’t also give you a short history lesson as well on how we have the word realistic and realism and what it means, the reason why i bring up definitions for the word is because that is how language needs to work to convey ideas. to someone one who doesn’t have any idea on the definitions for a vast majority of that last sentence would sound like a mishmash of sounds thrown together.
well that is one reason since the human body, and all living things in general, has HP; take the game Grayzone Warfare who’s Damage system can be simplified as this:
you have 5.5 liters of blood shown to you as 5,500 you get shot in the arms you lose a bit of health and are now bleeding which will continue to tick down your HP until you patch it up or go into a coma and die. another way comas can be induced is by having an organ failure which can happen if you get hit anywhere outside of heart and more important the brain if no players can treat you in time you die, there is also status effects that can affect you 2 of which are based on your HP/blood levels. you can turn your HP back to 2 ways: time and blood pouchs. Now i know you are wondering why on earth am i bring this up? well it’s to show that a more detailed HP system is truly realistic as all parts of an animal’s body is just life support for the brain. However War thunder also has things besides the detailed HP, which isn’t as detailed as DCS but the only major difference between the 2 is DCS has more components that can fail if you get hit, is that has the actual vehicle stats that were documented and are always willing to change to the actual documented unless it’s classified information for obvious reasons though that doesn’t stop those autists from repeatly sending over that information over the forums.
I actually like the realism to that idea.
