Bad approach:
Good aproach:
How hard is it to understand?!
Ps.
Do not be guided by the positions of devices. They are only symbolicall and aren’t meant to show current nor future state of a game.
Do not be guided by the collors or symbols used on the devices, they don’t matter.
Ok, I misunderstood.
That’s what I was trying to tell you.
You went straight to hyperbole, so I did the same.
It wasn’t a hyperbole. It was what happened to me when I tried to play Arma 3, more than once.
That game successfully discouraged me from playing too realistic games.
I’m referring to track repair.
Not even VBS has the option to even try.
Oh, sorry then XD
30 min repair was a joke. Bad one, I know. (I should stop joking, it causes too much chaos.)
Could you explain this part?
What a load of rubbish - why do you think semi-auto’s replaced bolt actions FFS??
I’ll give you a clue - because they DO outperform them.
Seems to me your idea of what “feels right” is skewed far too much by fantasy games to be of any value in this matter! 
As far as I’m aware, Arma and VBS don’t let you repair tracks. tbh I’ve never even seen track damage happen there.
VBS is Arma modified into a training sim. It’s not very good at anything other than fucking around and making concepts more clear, but it’s a thing that exists.
I went through a VR convoy trainer implementation of it and it was hilarious. Our MG was glitched out and wouldn’t fire, so I was just going off-road running people over instead until one of them turned out to be a suicide bomber.
Someone else hit an IED, but instead of their humvee getting destroyed normally, it corkscrewed through the air across the map, landed wheels-down, and they drove back to us. Relatively common glitch where vehicles don’t break when they’re supposed to.
reality and in-game are entirely different matters. America was the only nation to replace almost all their bolt action rifles with semi-automatics during the war. As such, America would gain a massive advantage over the other nations in-game. And that will lead to the game dying even faster than it already is. Maybe you should think about what the repercussions are of buffing something before you comment 
Well it seems that my view of balance is shared by the developers as they lowered semi-auto rifle damage, so I guess my idea is actually valued more than yours.
For me, balance outweighs historical accuracy.
You are one of those people who wants to have the KV-1 in Moscow without thinking about how it will absolutely annihilate the balance between the two nations.
steel beasts?
I am only familiar with that one as training sim.
Firstly - no, I don’t want hte KV-1 in Moscow - T26’s and BT-7’s were much more common, so 
to you too
And secondly - yes it is sad that he developers cannot get past the bad balance mechanisms that are in every other game.
It saddens me that developers can come up with a number of innovative features but then throw it all away for “balance” when they could achieve that in other ways than bullshit damage reduction.
But hey - if this has crap balance like all the other games out there then it’ll save me money - since I’m the demographic that actually BUYS it…
Wow… This escalated into a different topic quickly. So let’s stick to the subject of the matter over here, let’s sum up THE subject at hand;
So I assume nobody has a problem with Bomber class having access to Trooper boltie guns, instead of just the starter bolties. Therefore, I think nobody has a problem implementing it, right?
So judging from this whole argument that has arisen we can clearly see that penetration is not even, so it should still be equated. Like I said I don’t mind which direction it really goes, but current state is not exactly satisfactory and people express it. This is a good opportunity for a public poll, unless this was already done in which case sorry my bad.
I do agree with Cat that different parts system is a bit excessive, but you know, this game engine already comes with this in the packedge, devs might as well utilize it.
Personally I got used to the armor bouncing mechanic from WT ground forces it seems reasonable and I see no problem with me NOT penning a Tank if I screw the shot and put it into a sloped surface, or not penning if I shoot a wheel, that is thicc metal.
I can’t however have a full opinion without info, yo Tchof I saw vid with you using PTRD can you tell me the penetration stats on this thing for 5 and 100 meters?
no, it did not. The game engine only provided the vehicle physics, the rendering, UI and networking systems. The rest is made by the devs. And they specifically made it to artificially inflate the time people have to play to get guns that actually work. And they most likely will monetize it similarly to War Thunder’s modifications system.
The supposed values and what it actually pens seems to be very different.
So judging from this whole argument that has arisen we can clearly see that penetration is not even, so it should still be equated. Like I said I don’t mind which direction it really goes, but current state is not exactly satisfactory and people express it. This is a good opportunity for a public poll, unless this was already done in which case sorry my bad
What do you mean by penetration should be equated? Like both Soviet and German anti-tank rifles should penetrate the same amount?
I think you misunderstood me there, I meant the whole X-Ray damage Engine/Fuel Tank/Cooling internal tank component thingy, It is clearly from WT engine, that’s what I was referring to XD But since you mentioned it I don’t think there is an alterantive to AT rifle at this point (other than Explosion charge) we only have 1 for each nation, I see no “frustrate to monetize” mechanic in AT rifles, other guns? yeah, I agree, but there is a different forum topic to adress that already.
MrPartt & Cat; Ok so making a comparison here:
PTRD and PzB have the same pen values 35mm at 5 meters 20mm at 100meters (as it should be for game balance’s sake).
It seems insignificant but if you do the math Germans can’t pen the starter tank from the front unless they get within 5 meters from the tank (ramming distance for the tank) so they must flank. Russians can pen the Starter German Tank from the front at up to 100 meters so they don’t have to flank. Now do you see?
Either give Starter German Tank +5mm armor or give Russian Starter Tank -5mm armor, problem solved, I don’t mind each way it goes, I don’t mind flanking starter Tanks I do like the challenge, but to me it seems unbalanced for one nation.
That is already ingame
Take the turret into account, which is only like 20(?)mm.
Uh no. The pz2 has much stronger turret armor and it’s frontal armor is effectively one of the best thanks to that stronger turret, while you can ignore the T-60’s hull armor as the turret is weak.
PTRD and PzB have the same pen values 35mm at 5 meters 20mm at 100meters (as it should be for game balance’s sake).
No, they should have their historical armor penetration values as they do currently (45mm vs 35mm). If everything was just made the same for “balance”, the gameplay and weapon mechanics would feel much more shallow. PTRD-41 was just better than the PzB 39, and that’s all that’s to it (as far as penetration goes, anyway).
No, their armor values should reflect the armor of the actual tank, not artificially reduced for the sake of “balance”. Not everything should be completely equal for both sides. A nation will have it’s advantages and disadvantages, and it is a part of the asymmetrical balance that the game strives for.
If anything they would actually nerf the Pz2’s frontal armor as this is a “late” Pz2C, with the early variant having 14.5mm, as it is probably the best tank ingame rn, with close second being the BT-7
Actually, I don’t feel that the Pz.IIC is better enough to justify replacing it with a different variant. I think it is really similar to the T-60, only being a little better. It’s significant advantage being that it has three crew members, and of course the extra turret armor.
The T-60 however I believe is better as a dedicated anti-infantry tank though, with it’s very quick firing 20mm and larger magazine (belt) for it’s autocannon.
Mostly, I think the Germans really need a tank that is better than the Pz.IIIB variant that is in game, as I heard it was very lackluster, and really not even used in any battles on the eastern front.
T-60 is unique, but I would say the only way it stands out for performance is that the steep sloped front armor makes it the most durable Russian tank in the game.
the T-26 and BT-7 are both better against infantry. Constant 45mm HE does better considering how long the reload on the T-60’s autocannon is.
With discipline you can space out the reloads so that you can fire the MG while the autocannon is reloading and vice-versa, but it stills leaves a lot of white space, and the Soviet coaxial MG is very bad. The RoF is low and it takes 3 hits to kill someone, so while it can suppress it doesn’t do a good job of actually stopping infantry on its own.
The Panzer IIIB has a pair of MGs that individually do much better than Russian coaxials.
I’m still in favor of changing tank progression so that the autocannons are in the middle rather than being the first tanks you get. They’re harder to kill than their successors, so they shouldn’t be so spammable.