I dare to say a pretty strong one.
Considering the way of things.
So, once again, Numbers of production are irrelevant.
except, you can and pretty much use the exscuse of being historically based, and base your own criteria on it, but it doesn’t mean devs will.
Beside the locations, nothing else is really historically based in enlisted.
Otherwise I really have to ask where you get your knowledge about ww2. ( well, I guess the weapons too. But that was to be expected I guess )
I don’t claim to have degrees in historic subjects, but can I tell tigers or vulksturm weapons never really saw Stalingrad. Or, insert one of the 9384828 historical in accuracies that enlisted has.
Unless you’re mentioning and basing your thesis on one of those 3.AM channels which I’m not familiar with.
So, YOU can take into consideration how much something was used and ideally, in your own judgement “decide” if it should be there or not.
But perhaps you forgot that devs don’t do that. As they are not supposed to.
And pretty much do what they want.
Except Japan is technically an entire “ bp weapons “ tech tree.
Because otherwise they wouldn’t have anything to fight with other than few rifles and sticks.
It’s not really a Matter whether i agree or not.
It’s just how it is.
So… more like if you can accept that… or even see it.
Because once again, sounds me one of those milione cases that people tries to use HA argument to justifying or change something in a game that has been clear day as night since day one that it wasn’t going to be historical accurate.
Because an historical accurate game is not balanced.
And enlisted tries to be one in that regard.
( whether it succeed, that’s another topic for another time )