Indeed, it must be said that Soviet paratroopers can avoid a lot of hassle. They don’t need multiple squads to operate at any BR—this is where the Soviets excel.
As for the T-44-100, it suffers from severe “cervical spine disease.” I don’t know where the data came from, but it feels like it has to “bow three times” every time it stops, completely losing the initiative in encounter battles. However, given the current state of the Soviet side in the game, I’d honestly be more than satisfied just to get the T-44-100. No matter how powerful a single soldier is, they’d still fall to machine gun fire in WWI, and in WWII, individual weapons alone were still suppressed by tanks. The Soviet wish is to have a tank that can both engage in armor combat and effectively eliminate infantry at a decent rate. The Object 648 could easily fit into BR 4, after all.
It’s true that the early T-54 was developed towards the end of WWII, and prototypes like the IS-4 and even the Object 704 saw combat. But once Germany’s Jagdtiger and Maus appear, Germany’s strength will surely grow even more. The Maus, for instance, can withstand a 500kg explosion from just one meter away.
As for the Grey Parrot—I’ve seen them around. Were they banned or just temporarily muted? I’ve come across them many times—a highly active user who often posts a mix of acceptable and unacceptable opinions.
I think the key lies in whether the two sides are divided or not. Grey Parrot is one of many who want the game to be more historically accurate. The forums are filled with various voices: some with Red Army avatars supporting the Soviets, a user who claims to be the Japanese Emperor and advocates for buffing Japan (I forgot their ID), and others who are passionate about the Italian faction, like Valkay, skdkfz, and vd45, who actively dig into Italian historical资料. They advocate for buffs on one hand, while also clashing and arguing in others’ forum threads, leaving their mark everywhere. Although they share some common ground on basics, disagreements often dominate the discussions, leaving actual issues unresolved. This is a tricky point.
How should I put it? I’m reminded of someone else—a person who, in their domestic videos, genuinely gives away money, using their earnings to help ordinary people in poverty, asking about their daily lives, and coming across as a truly good person. But once they go live, they become extremely divisive, pitting Android users against Apple users as “noble Apple people” versus “lowly Android people.” They were eventually banned for nearly instigating class consciousness among ordinary viewers.
I have mixed feelings about people who simultaneously express extreme views while also sharing normal, relatable opinions. It’s like—I agree with xxx, but only on some of their points. It might sound a bit laughable, but I’m not entirely sure how to process it.
