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.
Japan’s problem is that its BR3 tanks are BR2 tanks and the tanks that should be BR3 are currently in BR4. But Japan also has advantages and disadvantages compared to America outside just the tanks.
Meanwhile Germany doesn’t really have any advantage over Russia at BR5 besides the King Tiger, so giving Russia a tank on par if not better than the King Tiger would be unbalanced. I think right now the vehicle system, BR5 compression, and the fact that Russia is already stronger than Germany just makes it a bad idea to add something as strong as the T-44-100 right now.
just call your trusted A-10 Warthog and blast is or that plane isnt enough for you yet? maybe a B-2 bomber oh wait F117 nigthhawk is def your taste or maybe king tiger and its powerfull transsmission are to much for it?
No, the Tiger II is German. German players understand this well. The issue with the Meteor is a separate matter. You can’t use players’ concerns about the Meteor being nerfed as a parallel to speculate that the Tiger II will face stronger Soviet tanks in the future. Why should the Tiger II monopolize dominance? The United States still has the more powerful M26E5 Pershing yet to be introduced.
German players complain about Soviet strength at BR 3—semi-automatic weapons being overpowered, tanks being too durable. Instead of thinking about what new additions Germany could get to counter this, you’re fixated on the overall state of other nations. Since when have you been so considerate? If Soviet players demanded that the FG42 revert to its old mechanics—requiring every gun to have its safety switched, forcing each player to manually toggle full-auto—or insisted on further nerfing the Tiger II’s horsepower for the sake of “balance,” would you agree? You worry about balance at lower BRs, but at BR 5, you suddenly push the narrative of the Tiger II’s supreme superiority—without even providing reasons. What are you asking for? Some kind of Aryan superiority theory? If Cold War Germany ends up with only half-baked American vehicles, wouldn’t you be furious?
Hmm—there’s no “best,” only unique characteristics! Each nation’s tanks have their own distinctive traits. If it existed, it can be added. Why all the fuss?
The Sturmtiger was as rare in service as its prototype, yet it’s still in the game. The American T99 only existed at Aberdeen, but it was added anyway. Similarly, the Soviet 44-100, developed to counter the Tiger II, could also be introduced. It’s not like Germany lacks other strong tanks waiting to be added.
Germany still has two formidable vehicles yet to appear—the Jagdtiger and the Maus. Given the game’s development trajectory, the Maus is only a matter of time. And when it finally arrives, what’s all this talk about prototypes? Historical accuracy? Real battlefield presence? Even its turret and hull were assembled by the Soviets after capture for testing purposes.
As you know, the recent trend with infantry squad weapons—whether captured or purchased—is leaning toward homogenization, which isn’t a good direction. In the future, when the German Maus is finally introduced, the closest counterparts the Soviets might have to offer would be the IS-3 or IS-4 prototypes, or perhaps the early T-54 prototypes.
Nerfing just the FG-42 or nerfing the KT wouldn’t be for the sake of balance though, the FG is currently the worst select fire rifle and the KT is all the Germans have going for them. I really don’t understand what your point is.
As for BR3 the best thing they could do would be the decompress BR5.
Holy crap, what are you even talking about? Do you have any idea how quickly infantry gets wiped out without fire support when facing heavy weapons? Besides getting up close with Panzerfausts, what else can infantry rely on? The Soviet forces are strong now, but the AVT-40 was introduced less than a year ago. What about before that? Tanks and infantry are tied together—they’re the foundation! Do you not know that in WWII, infantry charges against enemy trenches could cost hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day? Now, replace heavy machine guns with 88mm cannons and MGs—do you think flesh and blood will fare any better than in WWI? The American BR has endless rocket strikes and bombs, giving them a massive advantage over Germany. You don’t want to buff the Soviets, and you completely ignore how the U.S. has leveraged its air power to a terrifying degree. You don’t talk about Germany needing similar rocket or air advantages, nor about nerfing American power—you only fixate on the Soviets. Are you just trying to shift the frustrations you face against the U.S. onto the Soviets? Soviet players have been waiting for their own tank for so long. Germany got the MG-42/100, Japan got their “coffin tank”—it’s time for a response. If you haven’t endured the struggles of Soviet players, don’t lecture from a German perspective. I play both Soviet BR 3 and German BR 3, so I sympathize with German BR 3 struggles. Do you even stand with Soviet players? I’ve bought six premium BR 3 squads for Germany—I have every right to demand better vehicles, reload times, and semi-auto handling for German BR 3. Your opposition to Soviet buffs is like a Soviet player telling German BR 3 that the KV is the best at BR 3 and no one needs anything to counter it. Would you accept that? Do you even understand this complete reversal of arguments between BR 3 and BR 5?
