I did respond to it, you’re the one who’s not responding to me.
yes, we are all responding to the points you’re making, the issue is that what you’re saying is so goddamn retarded that your brain simply refuses to process our responses as such. i actually don’t even know how to respond to you beyond this. kutarin is not my alt, he is a buddy- a concept you’re no doubt unfamiliar with. you’re a complete schizo, please reconsider your approach to such conversations in the future:)
Stalingrad and bulge with the current implementation of campaigns in the game would be direct competitors to Moscow/Berlin and Normandy, with mostly copy paste equipment.
They had definitely better be added as extra maps AFTER a major overhaul of the research system into grind by either nation or theatre.
1 Like
That could be a good idea, having a system to where you play as a certain nation, rotate certain maps and grind on it. They could also use this to implement an operations system in the future. It is important to keep weapons from one time out of battles in another time.
Of course any major maps or campaigns should wait until what we have now is great. Something like Stalingrad should be one of the best maps in the game, and they should take a lot of time on making it good.
Russian domination in Berlin CBT and shortly after, Allies domination in Tunesia (that starts to change a bit now, but it’s still valid), Axis domination in Normandy after the addition of Panther… Even Axis domination during CBT before Normandy was introduced.
Those are only few examples of how splitting the playerbase causes problem in the game. Players move from campaign to campaign which sometimes creates great unbalances and situation when one faction completly destroys the other. Saying that it is not an issue is basicaly ignoring the things that are happening around you.
Yes, more content is fine. But not at the cost of “copy+paste” of 90% of equipment to the hypothetical Stalingrad campaign just to get few new vehicles and maps. Playerbase would absolutely love unlocking the same things for the fifth time as Germans and third time as Russians.
LIke what exactly? What unique things would Stalingrad bring that Moscow or Berlin don’t deliver beside few new maps (in urban combat theme exactly like Berlin, but with snow) and vehicles?
Overall Stalingrad, Bulge etc. would be fine as additions/expansions to the current campaigns, but definetely not as a separate campaigns in their current implementation.
4 Likes
“Players move from campaign to campaign which sometimes creates great unbalances and situation when one faction completly destroys the other.”
I say it isn’t an issue because it isn’t an issue for me, there are plenty of ways to fix it. You can make it into a front or country leveling system, where unlocked weapons carry over from battle to battle, and have a battle rotation system. nobody wants copy paste stuff.
“LIke what exactly? What unique things would Stalingrad bring that Moscow or Berlin don’t deliver beside few new maps”
im using stalingrad as an example. i wouldnt want a battle with unique items to be tossed in with moscow or another battle where they wouldnt fit. and yes, stalingrad could have plenty of unique levels
“urban combat theme exactly like Berlin, but with snow”
stalingrad and berlin are nothing alike
1 Like
Just make the game more fair. T-50 out or germans also get a really good premium tank at Level 2.
Berlin make spots actually defendable, tactics and all, nerf some of the russian SMGs since in reality they are inaccurate as fuck. Besides a 9mm doesn’t fly further than 161m.
Also the cheater problem… standing ground floor and getting killed through the roof from someone 
1 Like
P-47 domination on Normandy you mean.
Grant domination on Tunesia you mean.
T-50 domination on Moscow you mean.
I don’t see any Axis domination here.
So… you say P47 dominate Normandy because it got bombs against heavy tank like Panther.
And at the same time say Grant dominate tunisia and forget about bombs?
In the forum we call this bias.
Yes. Grant is strong. But can be countered.
Yes. P47 is very strong. But can be countered.
T50 can be countered too, the main problem is the spam of this tank by every player since it’s available lvl1 with gold tickets.
You capture objective with rally points and soldiers, i got a full squad of 3x9 smoke grenade, it strange at first until you realise it’s better than 27 det pack…
Now calm down or I call Mister W.
3 Likes
Who the hell said we dont want additions like Stalingrad and Battle of the Bulge? Everyone is worried about player base split which is already an issue. Every wants those additions but to play against humans not bots. They should simply expand campaigns so we can have them
2 Likes
No, I mean the time when almost all high level Allies players left Normandy campaign and went to Tunesia to dominate there. For some time lobbies on the US side were filled mostly with new players and bots because of that. Same for Axis side in Tunesia.
I call this being stupid.
P-47 dominates because of the rockets and bombs that literally do this:
Killing 90% of the Axis team. Not OP at all.
The Grant is far superior to the Axis equivalent they receive at the same level, yet the Grant can also be purchased as Gold vehicle /with gold; while the III J of the germans dont have even near 76mm frontal armor.
Level 2, ah yea, can be countered when the tanker knows what he’s doing its 100% win rate. I am doing right now a test, will play 100 rounds on Moscow Russians with T-50. So far I am at 100% win rate after 20 matches.
1 Like
Like what you people dont get, mysteriously somehow, you always say can be countered with this and that. Assuming you have a ideal team, perhaps yes. But the moment you as a Top 1-2 player step into the bomber to kill the enemy tank - your team will lose. Happens so often. So… Assuming shit now too: Game has no playerbase and only a very few skilled drag the teams to a win.
1 Like
I will try to explain how biased you are using your own screenshot:
-
Did you realise that you have in your squad list on your screenshot a plane with 8x 250kg bomb?
(Correction: 6x 250kg) -
While you insist in the kill feed that show 18 people killed by 1x 227kg bomb from a P-47.
I love this exemple because you literally “only look in the direction you prefers and are blind to the other side”.
Kill feed is on the right, squad list is on the left.
Amazing exemple of blinded bias, i will save it for later.
2 Likes
Yeah probably an A20 but of course that goes against his narrative/bias as he uses a 188 lmao
1 Like
That has no possibility of defending itself or attacking other airplanes. So what?
It’s not about P-47, it’s about map design that on some maps (especially Ruins of Vaux) the defending side are forced to stay in small, open areas where the attacking side’s planes can easily kill dozens of people, making it impossible for defenders to defend properly. That’s why I always quit or just keep kamikazing when playing this map with P-47 on the other side.
This problem also exists in Berlin, where attackers usually farm kills with explosive or RMN since Soviet planes are not so effetive like US ones.
1 Like
Oh I know. I just enjoy trolling him. He also said the M1 carbine is better than a Thompson lmao
The 188 is a better bomber. Has more bombs and thats way better then a .50 cal that only has 500 rounds. Are A20s suddenly out turning fighters or something now?
Man you are just silly.
Since Bombs got nerved, 188 is pretty shit.
I am at match 25 now after getting the T-50, 100% win rate still. Clearly this tank is not OP at all.
Also you have to be Level 2 to access Goldorder Vehicles.