I would rather expand the time frame to balance everything out than either making the Soviets massively OP or leaving out historical vehicles
Idk the engagement ranges in the game are pretty close. From looking at Wikipedia, the KV-1 had 90mm armor from the front (at the thickest), while the late war Stug mounted the 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 which could pen between 97-120mm at 500m.
tiger has been confirmed multiple times.
1 Like
True, but it’s a late war one… if they add something like that it would be the same as adding the tiger, chronologically speaking. If so… they really have to change the campaign name and call it eastern front 
I love how so many people are fiercely against the Tiger even though in a tank vs tank scenario (which seems to be the main complaint of most people, in a game where their main role should be to provide support to infantry…) the Panther is just a much better tank. It’s hull armor is much more reliable, it’s gun has more penetration and it’s mobility isn’t too bad either. The Tiger is much easier to penetrate because it’s armor is just flat, it’s AP shells don’t have as much penetration as a Panther’s and it’s much easier to spot than a Panther. The one thing the Tiger would be better at is infantry support because of the much larger HE shells it could fire. The only thing that should be avoided is what happened to both the Jumbo and the Panther: the opposing counterpart wasn’t exactly a fair matchup.
1 Like
and what’s funny is that people used that same reasoning of armor, only really applied to tank v tank, against jumbo too
3 Likes
no one thinks of the infantry, with still, the 50mm anti-tanks that do not even harm the t26
3 Likes
Panther > Tiger
so if anything a Tiger should be a downgrade
and tiger still has enough armor to be immune from everything but firefly and m10 because m72 is shit
I know, that is why I mentioned how in both cases the main issue for everyone seemed to be that the other team’s counterpart didn’t feel balanced for them while those who benefitted from them said it’s fine.
And the same argument could be made against the Jumbo too, since a well angled Jumbo hiding his sides and protecting his weakspot is immune to any Pz IV.
In the end it’s mainly about which tank would be balanced against the other on the same campaign level, however even in WT we see pretty big issues about this where people consider the Panther to be better than many tanks it shares it’s br with but it wouldn’t be a good tank against the ones above it, while the Jumbo is considered inferior and yet still performs pretty well. Overall the problem is that the 2 sides had completely different expectations for their tanks but in a video game everyone expects the same thing from most if not every tank which makes balancing them really hard in some cases. And I’m not going to lie here, I have no idea how we could make both sides happy.
3 Likes
I for one can’t wait to see a tiger player figure out how to nonpen an armored car.
1 Like
panzers in Normandy tigers went to Africa bozo learn your history
The Tiger I, and Tiger II, will definitely come eventually, they will roll it out when they need to get player #s back up.
Yeah but jumbo has not a long 75 with APCBC, and basically with every tank if you are skilled enough you can destroy the jumbo.
The Panther is simply invulnerable to all tanks apart from m8 and m10 and I would argue that the m8 is better at killing the Panther.
and firefly but firefly has uncapped AP
1 Like
Bold of you to assume they left the gray zone to allow you to flank them lol. Also I’m pretty sure even the Panther can be flanked and side penned by any other tank in that case. So I’d say the main issue is the gray zone doing the job of what the commander should be doing in these heavily armored tanks (keep an eye on the sides so they won’t get flanked).
Yes but only by m8 and m10, all other tanks have AP that don’t do shit.
I don’t particularly have problems with Grey zone campers, all you need is a plane.
So you mean the M5A1 doesn’t have more than ~40mm of penetration (even if post pen sucks)?
Until you can’t bring a plane because you don’t want to sacrifice the next 2 squads of yours for nothing. Don’t get me wrong, as a det pack enjoyer I usually don’t really have a problem with any tanks I meet, but the gray zone provides way too many advantages: no fear of flanking, no fear of det packs and as long as there are no planes up absolutely no need to use more than one hand while the other does whatever it does… It covers most of the vulnerabilities of a tank. If we had a very slow tank destroyer in the game that heavily relies on it’s frontal armor for protection this would cause huge problems for the game.
you can try it, not gonna end well
when finally they are gonna make maps like H&G instead of choke point after chocke point, grey zone camping will not be a prolem anymore.
forcing a tank to be too close to the infantry when irl wasnt desing to do that is stupid.
So you mean the blitzkrieg was just a myth and it was actually spearmen hidden in metal boxes that rushed at the enemy and broken through? Also tanks were used in many urban environments as well, deployed with friendly infantry around them, where they had to get close to infantry. Sounds like even after a few decades after inventing the first tanks they were still good at what the first few generation of tanks were designed for: infantry support. What is their most relevant role in Enlisted? Idk, maybe anti-air? Or maybe to provide infantry support? Well, it is hard to provide support for infantry when the tanks are kilometers behind them so I guess they are anti-air now.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying tanks should rush face first into the enemy lines (even though I love to meme around doing exactly that in small, fast tanks), but the main obstacle between tanks and enemy infantry shouldn’t be an imaginary line where suddenly a soldier’s lungs will stop receiving O2, it should be friendly infantry imo.