I’d rather gaijin made money by giving out a churchill premium than by doing a terrible april fools event battle pass, haha right guys that’s be crazy…
3 Likes
Centurion is WW2 yes, but it would feel cold war when you compare it to all the other heavies, and the speed vs ww2 vehicles is fine enough, and stabaliser would be made up for all that speed problems, but anyway still would be wierd, you should argue for something most people could support easier and would like easier. I don’t think adding a Centurion would keep the vibe of the game right. Comet and Cromwell should already be in like srsly wtflip. And AVRE should already be an event vehicle at the least, or a premium, like the KV-2.
2 Likes
On the money with the Churchill AVRE, I just added it in my list!
Centurion is indeed WW2, reports differ wether or not they participated in any combat, but they all agree that by the German surrender at least 8 examples were in France and issued to crews. I think the vibes fits the tank perfectly well, way more plausable than the Japanese paper tanks! (Also only one model of the Super-Pershing existed during WW2, a crew field modification, so the Centurion was comparatively common!)
I don’t know if the Black Prince did have a stabaliser (though I would assume it), but if it did it’s slow speed with the stabaliser would indeed make it a moving menace!
The Comet and Cromwell should indeed already be a thing! And so too a tech-tree Churchill (hence why I want a later model as standard, earlier model III to stay as premium as it was more of a working and fighting prototype).
1 Like
I was referring to speed and stabaliser of the centurion, perhaps some confusion there.
A Centurion is an MBT, whereas Super Pershing and Japanese paper tanks (although japan paper tanks are necessary for balance IMO because they lack decent real ones lol) feel like ww2 tanks, heavy tanks. And being British my bias should mean I should encouraging giving us the most advanced tank of WW2 whether or not it participated in combat. But in reality the community wouldn’t be happy about it with decent reasoning. Hence we should focus attention on the more reasonable strong British tanks.
Churchill 7 needs to be in here somewhere for sure as well. One slot with some folding Churchill types would be good.
1 Like
Matilda is already at BR2, and it fits there, I mean its a tank and a half there, but it fits still, certainly lives up to its name.
Challenger could technically be BR 5 as well.
Churchill 3 as a prem is a bit of a tragedy considering we would be talking about a hypothetical british tree. Maybe the Churchill Mk 1 could go there instead, that howitzer in its hull is unique and also really effective in this game. You could even have something like the 3 inch gun carrier as a dicker max equivalent.
Personally I’d like to see the Sentinel Mk4 as well.
1 Like
The danger of several Churchill models are that they would be a bit same-ey.
Yes, my bad, I thought you had accidentally merged the Centurion paragraph with a Black Prince paragraph! I hear your worries, but with the reasoning that I provided I think a Centurion I would/should be accepted by the wider community. Stabaliser existed during WW2 and were common in both US and British tanks, and the MBT being a “post-war concept” is only in the sense that the idea became commonplace at the time in other countries,
The Centurion (and the MBT role in general) was being tinkered with since 1943 or even earlier by the Brits, giving the Western Allies the first true (and decidendly WW2) MBT would be a interesting and unique choice.
Ah, glad you caught my error! I missremembered the Matilda II being in BR III, rather than the actual BR II, I’ll remove it from my original list. In any event the Matilda should indeed still be in the tech-tree, anything else is a crime!
No Tech-Tree Churchill is indeed a also crime, hence why I’d like a later model added, the Mk III can stay a premium I’d rather give that honour to the Firefly.
A later model Sentinel would also be cool, keeping the current one as is. But I feel like I’m fine with the Sentinels overall staying premium (new one or no), being able to field Australian tanker crews in other British or US tanks instead as that was more common.
1 Like
yeah ofc, the AC’s are prime premium material,
Though I think the option for both the Mk3 and Mk7 should be in the tech tree, and you can keep the Mk1 as a premium then
1 Like
Really I’d just like the game to be divided into Tech-Tree stuff acording to was was common and Event/Premium content for the prototypes/rarely issued equipment (with considerations to game balance, some factions need certain things, damn history if it wasn’t quite as common).
Hence me wanting the Fireflt in the Tech-Tree and Australian tanker crews should use British or US tanks unless you purchase or grind out something rarer!
yeah hence the Mk3 Churchill should be TT, save the Mk1 as the prem
A million dead I am sick of this victim worship how many Japanese, Italians, Germans ect did they kill no one won a war by dying for there country they did it by forcing the enemy to die for his. If death was the most important stat China and Russia would have won the war. Second you forget the war had multiple fronts including Africa and the Pacific
Uk does well on Europe and Africa but unlike the US and USSR falls down in the Pacific. But yeah if the rename every faction but Japan that would help a lot. Even Russia was the Soviet union made of many smaller countries. As for why no pure play subfaction it’s content. You would need new squads and uniforms as well as weapons that’s a lot of content. Which they are not just going to hand over for free so it would be a long grind. Without new squads and weapons it’s just playing as the UK while us is squads and weapons.
Last comment of mine on Centurion. I understand the MBT is not a post war only concept but just the feels different when that enters.
Also with Churchills, folding them is just one way for larpers to larp harder or use different variants based on what they like even if they are same-y.
1 Like
So, your position is “screw the Brits they’re not important”? Sure, the numbers aren’t in the end important, people are people, but can you seriuously argue that the UK was a second-rate power? That’s ridiculous!
The British were major players in the pacific too, Burma for one (which queues up with the rest of the Japanese, they’re not seperate games), but also in Indonesia and Malaysia , as well as taking part in may island invasions such as the Battle of Okinawa. The US had very little to do with the Mediterranean outside of Tunisia and Morocco and later invasions of Italy and souther France, whilst the British had troops all the way from Morocco to Greece! South-East Asia the same, outside of the Philippines they never really did much there either. I suppose the US is the true second-rate power then?
2 Likes
You lack both historical knowledge, objectivity and the reality of the fact there are frankly, people who enjoy playing British, and it is not just limited to British people. Learn your historical facts, get off whatever your sitting on that got up there. And cope.
3 Likes
I’m Swedish and I play the Brits in every game if I get the chance, often the only European representation after Nazi Germany or Commie Soviets.
2 Likes
God save King Gustav V
2 Likes
Gud bevare Konungen!
This is a low bar. Might as well change nothing then.
Yes people did.
You mentioned it to begin with and I only pointed out how it worked so far in WT so what the hell are you on?
Alright continue to be annoyed then.
No one here has yet done it. I think we’ve all been quite clear that it’s something we DON’T want.
My bad if you were not complaining but it very much sounded like it!
1 Like
1942-05-04 – 1942-05-08 Battle of the Coral Sea
1942-06-04 – 1942-06-06 Battle of Midway
1942-08-07 – 1943-02-09 Battle of Guadalcanal
1942-08-24 – 1942-08-25 Battle of the Eastern Solomons
1942-10-27 Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands
1942-11-15 Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
1943-08-25 New Georgia Campaign
1944-02-17 Attack on Truk
- 1944-06-15 – 1944-07-09 Battle of Saipan
1944-06-19 – 1944-06-20 Battle of the Philippine Sea- 1944-07-21 – 1944-08-10 Battle of Guam[13]
- 1944-10-20 – 1944-12-10 Battle of Leyte
1944-10-24 – 1944-10-25 Battle of Leyte Gulf- 1945-07-04 Battle of Luzon
- 1945-01-09 Invasion of Lingayen Gulf.
- 1945-08-15 Battle of Mindanao
Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign
- 1945-02-16 – 1945-03-26 Battle of Iwo Jima
-
1945-04-01 – 1945-06-21 Battle of Okinawa - 1945-04-07 Operation Ten-Go
Sorry did not include more minor battles or ones that did not involve the us but. I never said the UK/Commonwealth did was not a major contributor of the war. they were just a lesser contributor compared to the USSR and US. The us contributed more men, fought in more battles and destroyed more of the enemy than the uk. This is to say nothing of the war material donated to other allied countries such as UK and USSR. The UK was a crucial ally but its biggest asset was a place to stand on dry land. Of course also war fighting experience the US lacked at its entry into the war. I only bring up American muscle when other countries bring up bruises.
In Europe the firefly, daylight bombing raids, superior engines that made the p51 the long range escort it was meant to be. Contributing greatly does not equate to equality of outcome. Second hand waving the lack of br5 GEAR for the UK/Commonwealth.
Or the amount of copy paste addition of content needed to allow a player a full line up of not just the Commonwealth but an individual commonwealth nation such as the Aussies. Saying UK/Commonwealth was one of three equal allied powers is like saying the US was a major power in WW1. and not a minor contributing belligerent power that barley saw action.