i mean…
i’m concern about asymmetrical gameplay.
but isn’t what enlisted is by now?
asymetrical damange within each faction, different guns, and different tanks.
not to mention, germany in real life did actually fought kvs with just pzIII & IV.
i changed my mind, i know. but i think kvs should be a thing.
although i do agree that pzII will not have fun in fighting those.
and the early Pz3/4s suffered against KV1s.
Not to forget that the Pz3/4s that actually were usable against KV1s are from 1942 or later (Long 50mm Pz3s like the Pz3J, or long 75mm Pz4s like Pz4F2. Most modern models we could have could be Pz3L or Pz4E or something, need more historical docs on this.)
And these would make ALL old tanks obselete.
T-60? take KV-1.
T-26? take KV-1.
BT-7? take KV-1.
Pz2? Suffer.
Pz3B? Suffer.
Pz3E? Suffer.
Asymmetry only works with proper counterbalances. Making one side shit on the other with nothing to balance it out isn’t proper asymmetry.
Having a heavy tank with nothing more than MGs or something, aka hard to kill, but doesnt do much against tanks, would be a good example of something that could be asymmetric.
But a tank that has the best armor, best mobility and best gun (76mm gun on there, mind you, with HE!)? Not really something you can balance asymmetrically.
Good compare
I have to defend the german side a little bit.
Comparison was good and all but he focused more on technology of both tanks instead of raw power which is armour, mobility and firepower. In ww2, having tanks with raw power was more useful than having tanks with better radios, optics, view…
I don’t think Pz-3H and t-34 should have equal balance.
Pz-3 should be available in bigger numbers
this is, good, and preatty much detailed.
but speaking in game terms, isn’t better if like, pz III H, T34, and many others tanks will be used in other campaigns? such as, perhaps a leningrad siege, or stalingrad.
the current problem is, ( sorry to always mentioning those germans but ) how people with pz II are supposed to pen a t34 if they don’t have 5 rounds of pzg40 and they don’t have a pz III H ?
you have to watch it by the beginner perspective. they are not gonna have fun in dealing with that.
i might could have agreed if pz H were already by the start, but than the overhall tank loaudout it’s not like the alpha one.
( PZ III B, PZ III E, PZ II ), ( BA-11, BT-7, T26 ).
many times the unlocks has been changed as it’s a hard subject.
that’ all.
cheers ^^
In WW2 it absolutely mattered, but in games like Enlisted and War Thunder it doesn’t matter at all. Maybe it would be different to improve how visibility is handled and change the radio system to work like in War Thunder where having a better radio (operator in war thunder but better radio here) would display your teammates’ markings more precisely. Not that markings are precise to begin with…
Of course that also leaves the issue of command tanks which would have had radios in models where they normally wouldn’t be.
I agree but only if devs decide to introduce more campaigns.
Topic aside:
Can we forget about out argument today?
I really don’t want any opponents on this forum and realizing now how stupid the argument was I really want if we could just forget that anything happened
Anyways, sorry for calling you arrogant and if we could have discussions like two normal testers in the future
Optics and visibility could definitely be powerful balancing points.
But the question is how far those can actually go. Good optics will make good players do even better, yeah, but as it stands right now, players can go half-blind and still do well enough that I don’t think a half-blind heavily-armored tank wouldn’t outperform a mediore tank with good visibility anywhere on the skill scale.
Thats not a bad idea but it will work only if devs introduce big maps as right know you dont really need good optics to win
Which tank is currently half-blind? Another possible way of balancing heavy armour would be weakening the treads. An immobile tank will soon be a dead one.
All of them really until cupolas get improved and the commander can order the gun to fire without the hatch being open. As opening the hatch is the best visibility you can get, but the commander will get shot out too quickly in most cases.
The T-60 especially is blind because it doesn’t have a commander.
I agree it should be easier to throw tracks though. War Thunder’s system of heavy tanks needing 5 hits to throw a track because reasons is ridiculous when irl it took 1.
Currently the tanks do have access to relatively decent sights. Take those away from select tanks and force the gunners to aim through viewing slits or the empty barrel of the gun itself, if possible. Machine guns would be fairly usable that way, as you could walk your fire to the targets, but the main gun itself would likely require a zeroing shot or two.
View range on t34 was bad but how is looking from an empty barrel better than just using the sights?
Well if the T-34s rolled out of the production line so fast they didn’t have any sights, that would be the only option.
Or, you know, the empty hole where the sights would have been.
if the engineers would spend the time drilling a hole into the armor, then yes. But at that point they might as well shove the sight into it as well. There was a reason why the Soviets looked through the gun barrel with breach open on early T-34s.
Some people mistake when they hear; some t-34 had no gun sights
You see, t-34 turrets were made by putting steel into shaped modules and after that turret cooled of, they put extra modules inside the tank.
T-34 without sights means that it had a sight hole but didnt have a scope attached into it.
Not all t-34’s had sight problems, only those who were produced very close to the front. Most early t-34’s just suffered from having no zoom on their optics meaning that they were bad at sniping from long distances
And why should we have t34s without sights in enlisted?
How is that fun?