At the same time, I think prototype, and post-war contents are also part of what makes this game interesting. That said, balancing them properly can definitely be difficult.
There is reasoning behind it. There are accounts that an IS-3 regiment was sent to the Far East in 1945, including recollections describing the tanks being transported toward the operational area. What is disputed is whether they actually entered combat against Japanese forces, not whether there were reports of IS-3s being sent there in the first place. So “used in Manchuria” may have been too broad if we mean confirmed combat use, but the idea that IS-3s were deployed to the Far East in 1945 did not come out of nowhere.
yes, im lucky
Oh, looks like there wasn’t any hunger after all 
. Ah, I’m talking about the cat, of course. Judging by how well it’s doing, I guess it hasn’t been going hungry.
Source?
1 Like
Ugh… “Bon appetite to your dog,” huh? I don’t think someone who des escargots is really in a position to say that.
Wait a second… you’re basically Gaijin’s natural predator, aren’t you? It’s honestly nice to finally meet the kind of pest that slowly eats away at a game from the inside.
Are you talking about yourself or what’s your logic in the first place?
Be faster with IS-3 sources already instead, will you
1 Like
Honestly, when there are so many real tanks that aren’t in the game, I’d not support the inclusion of more prototypes to address a balance issue.
I’ll also say balance doesn’t need to be achieved symmetrically. If the game is too symmetrical it lacks flavour and gets boring.
I haven’t played T5 soviets in a loooong time but don’t the Soviets have better ground attack at the Tier?
https://biography.wikireading.ru/hU2t0YxSyi
https://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/P/POPOV_Nikolay_Sergeevich/_Popov_N.S..html
Umm…Air support or Infantry or both?
I agree that prototype and post-war vehicles can make the game more interesting.
But The additional variety isn’t necessarily worth the balance problems they introduce.
This is a well-known myth based on a probable timeline mix-up.
Roshchin’s memoirs claim the IS-3 might have been transferred to Manchuria, but all known archives disprove this. It’s possible that he conflated the 1945 war with his post-war service in China.
The shipment of IS-3s to Dairen he mentioned happened in 1946–1947. In August 1945, the port was occupied by the Japanese.
Besides, Far Eastern combat logs for August 1945 show zero IS-3s. Heavy regiments fought exclusively on IS-2s.
Also, universally respected tank historian Yuri Pasholok concluded that IS-3 never made it to the combat zones of WWII.
2 Likes
Yeah, I agree. If additional variety ends up completely wrecking the game’s balance, then it’s probably better not to have it at all. I agree with you on that.
Because…. there are already things that didn’t participate in actual battles in ww2 and didn’t pass the prototype phase even in the tech tree… so repeating yourself is unnecessary and doesn’t make any sense… it kind of shows you can’t even accept unfortunate circumstances.
However you’re entitled to continue spewing your opinion whenever something like this is mentioned… but it doesn’t make any sense.
So?
Does it mean we should have more of them?
Why stop at that, why not go to Cold War, Zombie or Nazi moon base?
I still hate stuff that has nothing to do with WW2 combat.
1 Like
Ah yes, of course. The inevitable progression. First somebody suggests a tank that was physically built and tested in 1945. Then naturally we add the entire Cold War. Then zombies arrive. Then, inevitably, the Nazis establish a lunar colony. I was wondering how long it would take before the T-44-100 discussion reached the Moon. Apparently not very long. This is an absolutely magnificent escalation, but unfortunately it does not actually answer anything. Nobody said that because Enlisted already contains prototypes, every prototype ever conceived must now be added. Nobody said that because the game contains equipment that did not see combat, there can no longer be any limit whatsoever. Nobody said that because one historical exception exists, we must immediately abandon the Second World War and start preparing the Wehrmacht’s lunar divisions for battle against the zombie army of 1963. You invented that entire journey yourself. The actual argument is considerably less exciting. The game already contains equipment that does not satisfy your personal standard of “must have been used in actual WW2 combat.” That does not automatically prove that every additional prototype should be added. What it does prove is that “it did not see combat, therefore it categorically has no place in Enlisted” is not the rule the game actually follows. That means the real discussion is about where the line should be drawn. How complete was the vehicle? Was it actually built? Was it tested? When was it developed? Does it fill a legitimate gameplay gap? Does it create serious balance problems? Is there a better historical alternative? Those are all reasonable questions. “If we add this, why not zombies?” is not one of them. The T-44-100 is not a paranormal entity. It does not require resurrection technology. It does not come with a lunar module. It was not discovered in a secret crater on the dark side of the Moon. It was a real tank prototype built in 1945. You can absolutely argue that this is still not enough. You can say that only equipment that actually entered combat should be allowed. You can say that prototypes damage the atmosphere of the game. You can say that you would rather see historically used vehicles added instead. Those are coherent positions, and you have actually been consistent about disliking this kind of equipment. But the moment your response becomes “well then why not Cold War, zombies and Nazi moon bases,” the argument stops being about where a reasonable historical boundary should be drawn and becomes a sightseeing tour through every absurd thing you can imagine. There is also a rather important difference between saying “The game already contains exceptions, therefore another exception can at least be discussed” and saying “The game already contains exceptions, therefore there should be no rules.” Those are not remotely the same statement. If a museum accidentally displays one reproduction among a thousand original artifacts, that does not logically require the museum to replace the next room with dragons. If a historical movie combines two minor characters for storytelling purposes, that does not mean the sequel must feature Napoleon flying an F-16. If Enlisted contains a 1945 prototype that did not enter combat, that does not somehow open a dimensional portal through which zombies, Leopard 1s and lunar Wehrmacht bases are legally required to enter the tech tree. There is no historical domino effect here. Nothing is waiting behind the T-44-100 whispering, “Excellent. Once they add this tank, the Moon is ours.” And the particularly strange thing is that your own position does not even need this argument. You already said you simply hate equipment that had nothing to do with actual WW2 combat. Fine. That is your preference. You could simply say, “I know the T-44-100 existed in 1945, but because it never saw combat, I do not want it in Enlisted.” Done. Completely understandable. I would disagree with the standard, but at least there would be an actual standard to discuss. Instead we somehow went from a real 1945 Soviet prototype to “Why stop there?” Cold War. Zombies. Nazi Moon Base. At this rate I am surprised you stopped there. Why not time travel? Why not the Roman Empire? Why not give the Soviets T-44-100s commanded by dinosaurs while the Germans defend their lunar headquarters with Tiger IIs? Apparently once a vehicle without confirmed combat service enters the discussion, historical chronology itself immediately collapses and every fictional universe becomes eligible for BR V. Truly terrifying. Someone suggests a prototype tank and suddenly the entire concept of history is hanging by a thread. But fortunately, there is a very simple mechanism that prevents this catastrophe. It is called “judging additions individually.” We can discuss whether the T-44-100 belongs in the game without simultaneously approving every prototype. We can discuss prototypes without approving post-war production vehicles. We can discuss post-war equipment without approving zombies. And, astonishingly, we can even discuss zombies without being legally obligated to construct a Nazi moon base. Human civilization has somehow developed the intellectual technology required to distinguish between different things. So no, pointing out that Enlisted already contains equipment that never saw actual WW2 combat does not mean “therefore add everything.” It means your absolute rule is already inconsistent with the game that actually exists, and therefore other people are perfectly entitled to question whether that absolute rule should determine every future addition. You are equally entitled to continue saying “no” every time a prototype is suggested. But repeating “I have always said no” does not transform your preference into an objective law of game design. Nor does adding zombies and lunar bases to the end of the sentence make the original argument disappear. If your position is simply that combat service is the line you personally want Enlisted to follow, say that. If you want to argue that the T-44-100 itself would be bad for balance, argue that. If there are better historically used Soviet vehicles that could solve the same gameplay problem, name them. Those would all be substantially more interesting arguments than pretending there is a perfectly straight historical road running from a 1945 prototype tank to undead soldiers attacking a secret base on the Moon. Although I will admit one thing. The Nazi moon base idea was impressive. I came here expecting a discussion about Soviet BR V tanks and somehow received the plot outline for an entirely different game. Please let me know when the lunar campaign DLC releases. I assume the T-44-100 caused it.
1 Like
That’s exactly my stance and it’s funny when people try to force their (different) opinions onto me.
Ah yes, of course. Someone disagreeing with you on a public discussion forum is now “forcing their opinion onto you.” That is a fascinating definition of force. Nobody is forcing you to change your stance. Nobody is preventing you from saying that you only want equipment that actually saw combat in WWII. Nobody is confiscating your keyboard until you promise to support the T-44-100. People are simply disagreeing with you and explaining why they think your standard should not determine what can or cannot be added to the game. That is generally what happens in a discussion. You state an opinion, somebody else states a different opinion, and then both sides argue about it. Apparently your preferred version of a discussion forum is slightly different. You state your opinion, everyone else quietly acknowledges it, nobody questions the reasoning behind it, and if somebody does, they are suddenly “forcing” their opinion onto you. Very convenient. And if that really is “exactly your stance,” then wonderful. We have finally reduced this enormous journey through prototypes, the Cold War, zombies and Nazi moon bases to the incredibly simple statement I already described. You personally want combat service in WWII to be the cutoff. Fine. That is your preference. You are perfectly entitled to have it. Other people are equally entitled to think that an actually built and tested 1945 prototype can be acceptable under certain circumstances. Their disagreement does not somehow invade your mind and overwrite your opinion. You can continue saying “no” forever if you want. What you cannot reasonably expect is to post that opinion in a discussion and then act surprised when somebody discusses it. If merely hearing a different opinion feels like someone “forcing” it onto you, then perhaps the revolutionary concept you have encountered here is not prototype vehicles. It is conversation. Nobody asked you to surrender your beliefs. We just responded to them. There is quite an impressive difference between “I disagree with you” and “you are required to agree with me.” You seem to have misplaced that difference somewhere between the T-44-100 and the Nazi moon base. So yes, keep your stance. I genuinely do not care whether I manage to convert you into a devoted supporter of 1945 Soviet prototypes. But if you present your personal cutoff as the obvious answer in a public argument, people are allowed to explain why they use a different cutoff. That is not forcing an opinion onto you. That is literally the discussion you voluntarily joined. Otherwise this stops being a forum and becomes your personal announcement board, where you post “NO” and everybody else is apparently expected to applaud respectfully and leave.
1 Like
IS-2 (Its gun depression is only -3 degrees, and its reload speed is twice as long as that of the Tiger II and Ferdinand.It is not as if the firepower of high-explosive shells is far superior to those two. )
Unlike the Tiger II, the IS-2 cannot even use binoculars. This makes it difficult to use the DSHK on the IS-2, and the tank commander cannot take out and fire the submachine gun.
For a Soviet Tier 5 tank to have anti-personnel firepower, one must use the T-34-100 or IS-1; however, the T-34-100 has a limited number of HE shells and is an event vehicle that must be obtained with an extremely low probability in the first place.
The IS-1 has improved anti-personnel firepower, but it can never defeat the Tiger II, Ferdinand, or Ho-ri.
Yeah, you’re right. All sources about the Japanese‑operated Tiger confirm that Germany never actually transferred this tank to Japan in real‑life history.
DF just gave Japan a fabricated fantasy.
This game has long been wildly historically inaccurate.
Might as well release the 105 mm Tiger and 88‑mm‑armed Panther and throw them into BR6 to go head‑to‑head against the IS‑3.