To be honest one issue everyone seems to have lately is that the performance gap in between different generations of tanks is way to high and generates too much power creep, the same happens to a similar degree with guns and planes, but at the same time not having this iconic machines and weapons of war feels wrong.
So I think the solution to this issue is to have 3 campaigns for the main fronts in order to keep equipment around of every era without making it too powerful to fight against.
So for example in early campaign we would see light tanks and early medium tanks that ain’t well armored.
In the middle campaigns we can see the iconic medium tanks and some early/weak heavy tanks.
And in late war campaigns we could find powerful medium tanks and heavy tanks, such as the IS-2, Tiger 1, jumbo, Pershing, Panther, etc.
As for the King Tiger, it would be a hard addition, as its design in paper is amazing, but in practice many factors hinder it’s performance by a lot. Such as late war German metal quality, lack of spare parts, fuel, and of course the fact it was very rare compared to other tanks.
As for the settings we already got Moscow, Berlin and Normandy, for this to work. So we would need a russian mid war campaign, and a couple of western front campaigns in order to have most vehicles and weapons represent properly.
Moscow is way to early, with early tanks and weapons. And Berlin is to late, so it should have the best late war Gear combined with last dish weapons.
In the Easter front we should get a middle war campaign where we can have t34-76 and PZ3/4 with their upgrades, such as armor skirts and long barrel guns. also it should focus more in mid war Gear, meaning there should be less prewar weapons and more standard issue mid war weapons.
In the case of the Western front, we would need an early war and a late war campaign, to have a good mix of early tanks and late tanks, while reorganizing Normandy equipment to include less old early weapons and more weapons appropriate to the time. Including more medium tanks and moving heavy tanks to a late war campaign.
This sort of order is something I think will allow us to have the best representation of those factions without suffering from massive power creep in any given campaign.
Also this is only for the 3 largest factions, because they had a lot of time to develop better Gear, while lesser actors did not improve their arsenal enough to generate massive power creep in a specific campaign.
Moscow is 1941 into 1942,
It is very much an early to mid war campaign, things like the T34/76 start to appear en masse towards the mid to latter part of the battle.
But other than tanks, that don’t really change at all, there isn’t any small arms change between these periods.
Unless you are suggesting a Fall of France early war campaign, which would be completely different to the current one.
All in all, I don’t think seperating campaigns into Eras would solve power creep issues. Because you’d still have thinks like Tiger 2s v shermans or IS2s v Pz4s.
Yes, I know, I meant early in the patriotic war sense, not in the whole world war 2, in that time Germany haven’t developed powerful tank guns, not have adopted any semi automatic rifles, except the SVT-38s they captured from the Soviets.
And the Soviets on their side haven’t refined nor mass produced t34s or SVTs for their army as this had been developed but with the invasion they focus on easy to mass produce Mosin nagant rifles.
Both factions escalated the quality of f their gear during the war.
The fall of France would work very well for that purpose.
The reality of the whole thing is that the Stuart is a pretty bad tank for the time of Normandy, and the German recon vehicle, pretty much are holding the back the line up for the true vehicles used on Normandy at the time.
Maybe if they where used in other categories they would not be that much of an issue
The developers have already explained that if the kit had been designed, it would be included. So regardless of whether the Semi Autos had been adopted, they’ll be in game.
The main issue is that not everyone likes their armies to have bolt actions and the odd smg. So Moscow is probably the earliest campaign they’ll likely add without potentially scaring off more of the casual players.
For fighting other tanks yes, which is why the M5 was used in a recon role, or for anti infantry.
The issue with constantly one upping the armor, is that the heavier it gets, the harder it becomes for the poor infantry to deal with it.
I don’t get why everyone in this game just wants Tigers and IS-2s.
To me, they’re going to be boring when you are trapped in a spawn by 2 tigers that deflect all but the luckiest of Bazooka rounds or AT shells.
Until it gets replaced with something half as powerful because people start whining that their precious tigers are getting one shot K.O’d by some angry toilet roll tubes.
The only tank I actually feel it should not be around in its paper super stats in the King Tiger. Because it is both not a good representation of how that tank end up been in real life and it is also not really fun to use if it was realistic. Imagine not been able to turn the turret of your tank, because your haul is inclined 10 degrees.
But in a late war campaign, you can give engineers, the heavy anti tank guns, such as the 100mm for the Russians, the 88mm for the Germans, etc. Aside that tanks on that campaign will have guns big enough to not to be massively outgunned in any moment.
There will also be the late war versions of the panzerfaust and other late war hand held anti tank weapons able to fight those tanks effectively.
In the same way, if we have those campaigns, we could have a more late war focused gear in infantry.
Dynamite should not be changed ever, is pretty much a way to control that tanks can’t steam rol helpless infantry, and forces tankers to play better to avoid been killed by infantry