That’s simply not good enough of a reason to deny the Soviets legitimate gear produced during the war…
2 Likes
He didn’t see combat, and that’s a valid and solid argument for rejecting this addition. The IS-2 is there; if it has a slow reload, that’s their problem. But to introduce prototypes and throw them in the face of the…The German faction is not fair,If we include Panzerfaust 250, Maus, E-75, etc., then it will be fair, right?The Soviets simply must bear the consequences of the prototypes they are demanding, and there should be no collateral damage.Just to seek profit They already have a 46-inch fighter and a 48-inch RPD, which are badly off. Now to ask for something that was made but not used, yet was built during the conflict It’s not valid because Germany needs that too.In order to be on equal footing with Prototypes
Regardless of the argument used, its inclusion should not be an option, neither as a TT, Event, nor Premium; its mere existence in the game should be unacceptable.
Depends on which Panther II one is referring to, in the worse case scenario it scores even lower than the E-75.
It’s not justification to give Germany some random napkinwaffe to buff the areas that they already are supreme in either.
2 Likes
Yes.
Su-9 (1946) is completely post war, designed on the basis of captured German Jumo 004 jet engine.
1 Like
Oh no, it would be a real shame if they removed the worst jet in the game, that would be tragic. (Remove it who cares)
1 Like
I endorse this message.
Just please stop spreading misinformation presenting it as facts.
Both of these statements are false.
Shhhh, spreading misinformation is funny.
But I would like to see the T-44 added, it’s the least prototype prototype vehicle so it wouldn’t really feel out of place. The T-44-100 on the other hand has no place in the game right now and people need to understand that.
As for a high tier Soviet fighter, a Yak-9UT would be fun, especially with 45mm APHE.
Just like the Soviets with submachine guns and the Allies with aircraft like the Meteor and P-80. But if it’s with Germany, then there’s a problem, right?
None are valid, they did not see combat, there are no reports of their use in combat, they suffered no casualties nor inflicted casualties.They didn’t win/They lost battles, etc.Its inclusion must be prohibited or it should not arrive as a TT, Event or Premium; its existence should not be in the game
It’s been five years since the game’s development began, and you’re still going on about whether things saw action in WWII, rare prototypes, mass production, or post-war deployment?
Take a broad look at the entire nation.
Germany will inevitably have the Maus in the future,won’t it?
All of Japan’s equipment at BR 5—rifles,tanks, aircraft, the whole BR 5 lineup—are basically one-offs. Don’t you get that? One of those vehicles is even openly fictional, added by a Korean data miner just to buff Japan. What WWII-era vehicle had composite armor and more than double the horsepower of any other tank from that period? Not to mention that fully automatic rifle that only ever existed as a test prototype.
And now you’re telling us Soviets should keep ourselves “historically pure,” fighting clean while going up against those Japanese who’ve long stopped caring about historical accuracy? What’s your bias here? You’re fine with the Japanese having these things, but the Soviets can’t?
1 Like
You talk about historical rarity and accuracy, yet you apply a double standard to the equipment of Japan and the Soviet Union. It seems to me that you don’t truly care about historical restoration. Instead, you’re using “historical authenticity” as an excuse to weaken the Soviets and prevent them from receiving new equipment.
1 Like
Oh, I don’t think you need to care about what he says or listen to him constantly opposing the Soviet Union. If you take a look at Japan’s equipment, compared to what Japan has—stuff that only came to light after digging through archives—what the Soviets have is just a drop in the bucket. Japan’s top-tier tanks are practically fictional. We Soviets at least have physical vehicles, and it’s said they were even tested in the Far East. Doesn’t that put us a step ahead? So in the future, whenever people start debating historical accuracy, just ignore it. Every nation has equipment that never saw battle but still made it into the tech tree.
Um, continuing translation.
Besides, he’s also an Italian tech tree enthusiast. In the future, for Italy to appear, I wonder if he’ll make the same mistake on the forums—perhaps repeating that hypocritical attitude.
When you listen to him criticizing Soviet fighter jets, have you ever considered that the Japanese jet—a copy of a German design—only underwent a few tests in reality? It never carried any payload, never saw actual combat, and was hastily shelved in the end. Its inclusion in the game is simply based on its mere existence. Doesn’t that starkly contradict his earlier criticism of Soviet equipment?
I think you mistake me not arguing with him as me agreeing with him. The Su-9 is gonna stay in the game, I don’t really care for it so it makes no difference to me. I don’t care what he says about “It didn’t see combat, it wasn’t even made, blah blah blah” cause in the end that doesn’t matter as much as whether or not it would be a good inclusion for the game.
The T-44-85 would be a good addition, the T-44-100 would not. The Su-9 is a good addition, so is all the prototype and paper stuff in Japan’s tech tree.
Why though? I’m still very curious—why are you so opposed to the T-44-100? This vehicle was also built before the end of World War II. Even though it never saw actual combat like the T-44-85 did, and even though it has excellent firepower, I think having a tank capable of facing the Tiger II head-on on maps with limited flanking opportunities could be meaningful. Both sides would try to target each other’s turrets to secure a knockout, rather than just going for hull shots. In that sense, their offensive approaches and weaknesses could align quite well. This might be the only tank that could exchange more than two shots with a Tiger II in a frontal engagement and still have a fighting chance.
Quote me saying Japanese having paper weapons is “fine”. Go on.
See the problem: fakes only lead to more and more fakes.
The only reason Japan is getting its FAKE Type 2 AR is because both Soviets and Americans have their FAKE AS and Hyde ARs, and the Devs just can’t figure out another way but mirror everything.
Because I still believe in asymmetrical balancing. Giving the Soviets a tank that is arguably better than the King Tiger is a really dumb move. Germany should get better tanks and machine guns at higher tiers, the Soviets should get better assault weapons.
It’s the same reason why I don’t really like the Meteor getting nerfed, America should have the best aircraft in the game without a doubt.
Asymmetric balancing? I just feel like the game adds whatever is available at the moment. Once the German Me 262 with 64 rockets is introduced in the future, it’s hard to say whether it could create a reverse imbalance against the US. Hmm, as for the actual value of the 744 or 100, all I want to say now is that they should just give the Soviets more—anything that can stand up to the Tiger II would be enough. Something that can withstand a few hits and effectively weaken its dominance, like the M26 does. I’d be completely satisfied with that. Right now, Soviet top-tier battles are seriously lacking players. Why would anyone choose to grind in tier 5 when there’s a much more relaxed and low-pressure experience in tier 3?
Oh, you’re really polite! I thought after I criticized you so much, you’d stand right up from the table, kick your chair over, and sternly argue back.
You’re right. Currently, in this pre-order squad, the Soviet silenced PPSh and the Japanese-captured American light machine gun really leave me speechless too. Zero uniqueness — they’re just out of ideas. Looking at it now, Japan also has a fictional aircraft in the tech tree that’s even documented in the other game, War Thunder. Even though I strongly oppose it, since Japan is a major shareholder… things done by a major shareholder can’t be called stealing, nor can they be called fake. In the face of capital, we’re all powerless. So, maybe it’s better to just compromise within this larger trend.
When the time comes, if you suggest wanting better weapons for Italy or even a longer tech tree like Japan’s, I’ll support it. I’ll also make an effort to address some of the Soviet side’s shortcomings, at least to ensure they remain competitive at a baseline level.
I don’t think the US or the USSR should be getting tanks that are equals to the King Tiger, at least with the way the game is currently setup. Also more people would probably play high tier games if the meta wasn’t just spamming select fire rifles with 9 man infantry squads, or if BR5 compression didn’t put the equivalent of BR5 and BR6 in the same group, or if BR5 compression didn’t cause BR4 to be unviable which leaves BR3 with barely any uptiers.
My point is—at the very least, the quality of armor and infantry should remain relatively balanced between factions. These are the two fundamental pillars that ensure fair gameplay; if either is lacking, the balance collapses.
Take the real-life conflict between Japan and the United States in the Pacific, for example. The Japanese, with their emphasis on close combat and training in weapons like the katana, had infantry quality that wasn’t inferior to the Americans. However, the Americans followed a doctrine of minimizing infantry exposure whenever possible—tanks led the assault. The Sherman, often mocked in the European theater as a “lighter,” became Japan’s most feared weapon in the Pacific. Japanese anti-tank weapons and tanks could only penetrate it at extremely close ranges, and even then, only from the front or side weak spots. Japanese soldiers often resorted to suicidal charges just to destroy a single Sherman, which was made even harder due to the barren, vegetation-scorched terrain and the infantry support accompanying the tanks. Ultimately, the Sherman’s unmatched armor advantage in the Pacific allowed it to crush Japanese tanks with ease—a clear case of armor superiority dictating the outcome. This serves as a stark illustration of how armor dominance can shape a conflict.
Now, the Soviet IS-2 follows a similar logic in-game: it can be destroyed, but only under very specific conditions and with little room for error. The T-44 can also be taken down, but only at dangerously close ranges. As for the T-44-100 and IS-3, they represent the peak of Soviet firepower and armor during this period. It’s worth noting that the T-44-100 was shelved partly because the T-54 prototype was already in development. If Germany had managed to hold out for another year in a counteroffensive (which in-game has long since happened), they might have faced the likes of the Object 704 (which saw limited combat in WWII), the Object 703 (predecessor to the IS-4), the IS-3, and more advanced T-44 variants. The Soviets weren’t like Japan, who only developed tanks capable of fighting the Sherman by late 1945.
Now, Japanese tanks at BR 2–BR 3 face Shermans they often can’t penetrate frontally, forcing them to aim for tiny weak spots on the turret. Doesn’t that mirror the same issue the Soviets face? The difference is that Soviet tanks weren’t introduced as early as Japan’s—and at least they don’t suffer from reused game assets. So let’s revisit the discussion around the T-44-100 with this in mind.