While yes during the war everyone captured anything if the situation arose, but I do not support a blanket captured weapon addition because I find it takes away from the gear that makes each country unique. Of coarse I do not mind if there are captured weapons here and there, but there should be some standards and thought process. For example, the MP 717 is a PPSh rechambered for German ammo, so therefore we have an excuse to have a German PPSh besides capturing them in battle.
German captured tons of stuff but I don’t think we can just have a whole line of captured weapons in the Progression. Captured SVT → Captured Mosin → Captured This ->Captured that. Would it be cool, yeah of coarse. But would it be ideal, no
Imagine we end up with a match where the entire German team is using the same exact weapons as the enemy team. It would take away the experience of playing a unique faction
Now with the Soviet Union I’d argue Lend Lease is a completely different situation than captured weapons. I’d love to have more Lend Lease stuff
See this is one of those complicated situations. On one hand the Soviet Union did capture stores of Panzerfausts as they moved West, but at the same time what I said about captured weapons above.
I’ve thought maybe instead AT weapons can drop from dead soldiers so if you want to have a Panzerfaust as a Russian you have to go out and hunt it.
Yes, it’s necessary to fight the best tanks in the game, not to introduce salvaged weapons for the sake of salvaged weapons. Can bring in enough weapons without creating trophies
That’s true but it can be done in the bunker on Normandy the main bunker at the very bottom there’s a sword you can pick up This game can work with random weapons lying around the battlefield Pacific campaign is a great example as well you can pick up Lunge mines lying around
Playerbase is dwindling bcs of lack of content ?
I havent seen this much of a wrong prognosis.
Playerbase is dwindling because devs adding uneccesary content while ignoring tons of core problems and bugs of the game. Non existent balance and matchmaking is not event need to be mentioned
A nice way to contradict yourself
If you don’t want new levels than say that.
Also I believe you did fail to see the bigger picture, all the content added now would better prepare the game for the merge update.
what is contradiction. sten is trash and tigers are unbalanced end game content. so either you put shit weapons for end game content, or you put overly OP stuff for end game content. both are bad.
you fail to see imbalance you would introduce with OP content.
I understand balance arguments but I think people have to understand this is a WW2 sandbox. To make a point, I want the King Tiger in Normandy because it was there, and I want the Tiger I in Tunisia because it was there.
In addition to just being setting appropriate, everything has its pros, cons, roles, etc. I love facing the mighty Kv-1 in Stalingrad, and I can’t wait til they add the Kv-2 one day. Will I get blown up, yeah, but that’s just part and parcel of the game
Otherwise we might as well not any more content at all if it’s like a never ending seesaw
“Y U kill me!?! U no kill me! I kill U! gAmE bRoKeN!”
Pershings will be added one day, but we don’t need a direct 1 to 1 counter for every single thing. Again that’s the whole point of a sandbox where everything has pros, cons, weaknesses, strategies, etc.
If we look at Normandy right now Shermans and planes would still be able to pound it. Does that mean we’re going to be one shotting King Tigers left and right, no. But like I said above
It’s like it would be cool to have Shermans in the Pacific already. Now say we have a match with Shermans and Ha-Gos. Does the Sherman destroy the Ha-Go easily, yes. But the Ha-Go still has its role to play on the battlefield. You could be a Ha-Go in that match and still perform very well. The Sherman has its job, and the Ha-Go has its
