If the point you’re making is that we already have too much fake BS in the game and we don’t need even more of it, I fully support you 
Oh, I’d love some more semi-auto rifles in BR 3 for the Allies, because I know it’s unpopular opinion, but I HATE the sights on the Garand and either I can’t aim with it or the dispersion is so high, I can’t hit a single damn thing with that half the time.
Edit: The sights on the Johnson aren’t great either.
A problem with this is going to be once again the obnoxious rule of “every factions needs a copy”.
And while the Western Allies can at least have the Skink as their medium-tank-based AA
I’m afraid USSR/Japan will again receive some insane fakes or time travellers from the Vietnam War era
3 Likes
Not necessarily, if the Lewis .303 had it’s name changed to Lewis (chrome) or something that puts the emphasis of the shiny colour of the gun instead of it’s calibre then it can be like the prohibition Thompson.
1 Like
I hate when people use this logic, same people use it to justify the stupidest decisions like adding captured weapons. I see it amongst new players and on the Enlisted Reddit all the time, if only they knew how much damage it cause to the game.
2 Likes
My point is that we have some pretty obscure things and prototypes; the T-44 had many units produced before the end of the war, so it’s much better than a lot of things in the game.
And I will never agree with you unless someone wants to add a Cold War weapon.
And Hell cat got 20mm of armor, open turret, underpowered HE shell, it’s still BRIV
Some good, some not, you really did good work with your time and effort on this post but its shame that devs not gonna consider any of it. Maybe 2-3 years later? who knows
Just a little point - the MG’s are fuselage mounted and fire through the prop.
The Japanese need a higher BR attacker more than this - IMO the D4Y3 with 2 x 250kg would be a better addition.
No.
This is the right in BR4.
If BR3 comes out, BR3’s tanks can’t destroy it from the front. (also M9A1 Bazooka Too)
It actually becomes Ho-Ri Season 2.
I-Go would also be nice to have
BR2 tanks like Grant, T-28, M8 Scott can one hit kill the Hetzer with overpressure by shooting a single HE shell at the remote MG. This works on WT.
Even .50 cal MG can kill the Hetzer from the side.
1 Like
Although it can be destroyed by HE, it is not easy to respond immediately because of its small area.
There is no case to show sides. (only camp Gray zone)
That’s the logic the devs have used ever since they added Fedorov and ASs to Berlin “because Germany got STG”, and that same stupid logic brought us SU-9 (1946), T20, Hori, Autohei and Hyde.
And that is bad.
And we don’t need more of that.
So T-44 is BS.
SU-9 is from 1946, which is already not WW2, and basically Cold War.
Now your argument will be “we already have Cold War stuff so adding T-72 is not bad at all”?
2 Likes
Remember when this game was broken in the past because it didn’t value balance?
Rather than that, it’s better to balance it even by adding a prototype.
Because of thoughts like you, this game has been broken in the past to the point where it is hard to turn around.
In one faction, there were no players, only bots, and thanks to this, the number of users dropped dramatically.
I’ve experienced it myself, and the developers have, so the changes so far have allowed me to put a ventilator on the game.
Looking at the sign-up date, I’m sure you know it.
Because it was putting players with Mosin M38 against players with STG, and players with Stuart against players with Tiger.
Then The Merge happened and we got The Holy Belens.
No, can’t agree.
Battle of Berlin saw a grand total of 0 of AS, RD, AF, and SU-9 1946, yet that’s all we see ingame, that’s how low we reached.
“Balance” by sacrificing the soul and concept of the game is not the way to go.
Balance should only happen by tweaking widespread WW2 items’ values, not by adding insane BS.
2 Likes
That being said, it will be added someday.
Are you stupid? Can’t you read? The only thing I don’t support is the Su-9 and nothing about the Cold War; you need to learn to read.
There’s that, but do you remember having to deal with FG42 with M2 carbine and using M4A1 76mm and M9A1 against Tiger?
I honestly don’t want to go back to then.
U don’t know how lucky I am to have T20 and Ofenrohr added to my US Army.
Instead of adding T20 which saw 0 service in WW2 they could have easily buffed the BAR for instance, as those weapons are both viable choices as LMGs in BFV, for instance.
I’m not saying balance is bad. But for me, balance achieved through BS stuff defeats the purpose.
1 Like
I remember that the reason why They couldn’t add the BAR was that the weight was a problem.
The FG and AVS were light at 4-5kg, but for the BAR, it was over 8kg (even the lightest is 7.25kg), so I remember they had to give them a movement speed penalty.