If I don’t talk about balance from the perspective of vehicle performance, I’ll have no ground to argue at all. Besides, vehicle combat is inherently part of the game. If the enemy takes out my vehicles, their vehicles will pose a huge threat to our infantry, won’t they? It would just be subjective empty talk without practical basis, and you wouldn’t find that convincing either.
Allocating six squads to infantry is totally reasonable:
One squad for machine gunners, three for assault troops, one for signallers, one for paratroopers. If focusing on holding and defending objectives, we can add another nine-man infantry squad.
Even if we leave one slot for APCs, I can still free up four squad slots for armored vehicles. Does that mean I only play tanks? I actually prefer infantry gameplay. Saving more slots for vehicles is just to make my lineup more diverse.
My setup logic is clear: Panzer III is mainly for fighting infantry, Panzer IV H is for defending against T-34s, and StuG II is specifically for taking out heavily armored KV-series vehicles. I’ve already unlocked all 10 squad slots for every nation, and two of those slots are originally meant for premium and event squads.
When I focus on discussing the ISU-152, I’m not centering everything around vehicles. Ground vehicles in Enlisted are supposed to serve two main roles: clearing infantry and fighting enemy armor. That’s their basic design purpose.
When you argue against me, have you thought about the old BR 5 meta for the US? Back then, American players kept spawning three aircraft in a constant loop, launching rocket barrages every few minutes that completely wrecked infantry gameplay. It was so overpowered and unmanageable that the devs finally stepped in to limit it, stopping the endless three-plane kamikaze bombing cycle. Players have always just played whatever felt strongest to them anyway.
Sometimes even if I field a Panzer IV command tank, a Panzer III, plus a StuG II, rotating all three, I still might not be able to take down a single KV-1. Special cases need special treatment. What we’re talking about are only issues within certain battle ratings and specific game versions; they won’t cause massive balance disruption overall.
I’m specifically talking about ground vehicle balance, because the looping three-plane rocket airstrikes really do have an enormous impact. I’ve experienced it firsthand when playing German BR 5 Normandy, getting overwhelmed repeatedly by enemy P-47s.
I actually like the idea of faction unique advantages. Every nation should have its own characteristics and playable strengths.
Unfortunately, a lot of game content is far too homogenized. Items like satchel charges, entrenching tools, knives, axes, landmines, and TNT are almost identical across all factions. Those so-called faction traits only really shine at a few specific BR tiers.
If we keep locking vehicles behind the excuse of “not fitting their current BR”, why ignore past precedents?
The Allied Spitfire IX was placed straight into the 1941 matchmaking environment with its late 1945 configuration. Performance-wise it completely outclasses aircraft from BR 1 all the way to BR 4, and players even asked to give it even better bomb loads. People were perfectly fine with that.
Then there’s the XA-38. It sits at BR 3 yet has payload and overall performance comparable to the new tier 3 bombers at BR 5.
These are already implemented facts that the community has accepted. We can’t quietly overlook these overperforming vehicles while denying the Soviet ISU-152 a reasonable BR placement—that’s clearly unfair.
Besides, the Victory Day event is already over. Not everyone managed to grind through all the tasks to get this vehicle. The 25,000 event score requirement is hard for many players to complete, and plenty even missed the event because of work. In the end, this vehicle will be extremely rare. If Enlisted had a trading system like War Thunder coupons, it could probably sell for hundreds of dollars. It’s such a rare niche item, like a drop of ink in the ocean. Expecting it to seriously break balance or ruin dozens of matches is simply unrealistic.
Comparing the ISU-152 and KV-2 in terms of infantry suppression:
The ISU-152 only replaces the KV-2’s large ammo pool DT machine gun with a DShK that only has 250 rounds, while gaining a large-caliber main gun capable of penning the front armor of Tigers and Panthers.
Yet both use 152mm high-explosive shells, so their efficiency and area effect against infantry are almost exactly the same. The ISU-152 has no real advantage here. You know its gun can only elevate and depress at a tiny single-digit angle most of the time, right? It has to rely on hull aiming just to aim properly. Even the turreted M10 handles better than it.
Historically, the ISU-152 was just an emergency wartime design. It lacks the sloped armor found on German dedicated tank destroyers. It’s basically a rough, boxy hull built just to fit the
By the way, I have two more points to make.
First, about the punishment policy.
My opinion is that they shouldn’t ban these players completely forever. No matter what mistakes they made, most of them are first-time offenders. Besides, this situation is also caused by the game’s own poor management and supervision.
Since the official side also bears part of the responsibility, permanently banning their accounts completely is just a way of passing the buck. It’s like giving someone a death sentence in a hurry without looking into the details.
In the past, War Thunder used to ban and ruin accounts directly for players who recharged with black market funds.
Now they have become much milder toward those players. They only confiscate the illegally obtained gold, or set your currency balance negative. You can still earn silver and gold normally through matches or legal purchases later on. It’s basically giving players a chance to make up for their mistakes.
But Enlisted acts just like The Merchant of Venice. Once players gain even a tiny improper advantage, the official hunts them down completely and leaves no room for mercy. Isn’t the punishment way too harsh? Especially when most of them are first-time offenders.
Besides, let’s be realistic.
If we keep delaying adjustments, can the Soviet faction afford to wait until Japan releases a decent BR3 rocket launcher, or a strong BR2 vehicle?
I already explained it clearly in the previous vote:
German BR2 vehicles already have the capability to penetrate the frontal armor of the ISU-152.
What’s more, the BR reduction of the StuG III F was never meant specifically to counter the ISU series. Its main purpose is to deal with heavy vehicles like the KV.
Actually, I’ve always been confused why the Panzer IV can’t shoot through weak points like it does in War Thunder.
If anyone still doubts that I’m over-favoring the Soviets, I can make a discussion or suggestion post later specifically about the Panzer IV’s 75mm shell.
It clearly has up to 145 mm penetration, and it’s the best stock shell available — basically one of the best main cannons in BR 3.
Yet it performs so poorly against regular KV tanks, even the 3.7 version KV, not the ZIS or E model.
If Soviet players really think their vehicles are too strong, they could just ask to nerf the KV.
Then German players could aim for weak points just like in War Thunder, and take them down easily by targeting those weak spots.
Instead of keeping the KV untouched while also holding the ISU-152 back from a reasonable BR placement.
