T-34 85 When?

[[La9]KeOsdenLM]

(Forgive me if this has already been talked about)

I do not understand how it is possible that it is not yet the T-34 85. Personally I do not plan to buy the expansion of tanks until they include it.
 

[Rjel]

Then don’t. I doubt that ultimatum will produce the desired outcome of its inclusion. 

[Monostripezebra]

4 minutes ago, Rjel said:

Then don’t. I doubt that ultimatum will produce the desired outcome of its inclusion. 

 

While you may be right there.. the argument that the T-34 85 would make a sensible, good addition for 1944ish scenarios is still very valid and it could help the game by having a bit more balancing options

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Just now, Monostripezebra said:

1944ish scenarios

That right there. Until IL2 has east front 1944 scenarios, the T-34-85 has no place in the game.

[CountZero]

52 minutes ago, [La9]KeOsdenLM said:

(Forgive me if this has already been talked about)

I do not understand how it is possible that it is not yet the T-34 85. Personally I do not plan to buy the expansion of tanks until they include it.
 

You get useless tank like churchil IV , why you dont buy that crap insted while you wait... LOL

 

Good choice in avoiding tanks here. 

[Monostripezebra]

31 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That right there. Until IL2 has east front 1944 scenarios, the T-34-85 has no place in the game.

 

Hmm... Maybe I have been playing a different game, but I remember even 1945ish scenarios online in MP. But then again I stopped by and large playing tank MP and ended up not buying tank crew, because the amount of invisible trees and how unbalanced sides in most MP matches where.. it has potential, but in the current state of affairs other games are just more attractive to me.

 

Well, Merry Christmas everyone and happy flying and tanking.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[[La9]KeOsdenLM]

I'm going to ignore absurd comments, I'm just saying that it would be good for the game to include that tank as well as balancing the game, I played little the expansion of tanks but my perception has been impotence against German tanks. I also see 5 German tanks that can destroy any ally tank and only two allied tanks capable of destroying any German tank, (pzkpfw iv ausf.g, pzkpfw v ausf.d "panther". Pzkpfw vi ausf.h1 "tiger" and sd. Kfz. 184 "Ferdinand") vs (Su-122, SU-152)

This is still a game, not an opportunity for Germany Nazi to win the war, if someone wants accurate simulation, then the amount of allied tanks / players, by battle, should be 10 times higher than that of the Germans.

And as for the historical rigor, more of the same, it is a game, there will be servers with games that keep it and others not, but as things are right now it is neither fun nor balanced.

[MajorMagee]

Since we're making Christmas wishes, we also need the IS-2 to go along with the T-34 85.

[DD_Crash]

The main problem is the T-34 85 wasnt involved at Kursk.

[migmadmarine]

These devs don't add things unless there is a package basis that the vehicle belongs in. As said above, there will need to a tanks package set in 1944 on the eastern front to include the 34/85. The mission settings that users create and post on their servers doesn't matter when it comes to this decision making, as ultimately hosting a mission like that with the current assets available is a user-choice. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

Hmm... Maybe I have been playing a different game, but I remember even 1945ish scenarios online in MP.

There's nothing stopping anyone from creating 1945 scenarios, just like there are people creating a 1920s Poland scenario for FC. And why not, if it brings people pleasure. But that doesn't change the fact that Tank Crew was not designed for it. TC is called "Battle of Prokhorovka" for a reason. It features a map and vehicles to replicate that battle, nothing more. The T-34-85 doesn't belong there, at least not until a hypothetical next expansion that includes 1944.

 

Personally, I think all this "I want [insert favourite tank/aircraft] or else I'm not gonna buy any more products" stuff is very childish. There's a hundred different tanks they could make and everyone has their own favourites. I'm sure the Developers would like to build each and every one of them, but they've got limited time and budget. Trying to blackmail them into making your own favourite is going to change very little about that.

 

9 minutes ago, [La9]KeOsdenLM said:

I also see 5 German tanks that can destroy any ally tank and only two allied tanks capable of destroying any German tank, (pzkpfw iv ausf.g, pzkpfw v ausf.d "panther". Pzkpfw vi ausf.h1 "tiger" and sd. Kfz. 184 "Ferdinand") vs (Su-122, SU-152)

 

This is still a game, not an opportunity for Germany Nazi to win the war, if someone wants accurate simulation, then the amount of allied tanks / players, by battle, should be 10 times higher than that of the Germans.

How about the Panzer III? And I'd also generally rate the Panzer IV lower than the T-34. You're also conveniently forgetting the Sherman, which is pretty good as well. Yes, the Panther and Tiger are strong, and so were they in real life. The Ferdinand is strong but moves like a slug.

 

Regarding the amount of Allied vs. Axis tanks, you should complain to the mission builders who create the online missions instead of to the Devs. The amount and type of tanks is set by the mission builder. If you only want Pz.Kpfw.IIIs against Su-152s who have a 10-1 majority, complain to whomever hosts that server as he can change that. The Devs can't.

[No_Face]

28 minutes ago, [La9]KeOsdenLM said:

the amount of allied tanks / players, by battle, should be 10 times higher than that of the Germans.

 

2 hours ago, [La9]KeOsdenLM said:

Personally I do not plan to buy the expansion of tanks until they include it.

Step 1: Buy the game
Step 2 : Play the russian tanks.
 

Congratulations, you have just contributed to create this 10 allies for 1 axis ratio.

[Frinik22]

This is still a game, not an opportunity for Germany Nazi to win the war,

 

1) Calm yourself KeOsdemLM, the war has been fought and won a long time ago!?

 

2) I don't think having children tantrum is going to impress the game creator into adding the T34/85.

 

I already suggested may be expanding the current Kursk campaign to the August-September 1943 including the last battle of Kharkov and to get the Su-85 and KV-85 into the game.These 2 additions would certainly help rebalance the odds.

 

 

 

[ShampooX]

[Peasant]

The developers could not have chosen a worse historical period to set this game in, other than, possibly, 1941 (how would you like to face a KV-1 in Pz.III w/ 37mm gun?).

Both 1942 and 1944 would've been a much better choice for setting.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Peasant

[migmadmarine]

From a multiplayer perspective, yes. But in terms of being a Iconic tank-on-tank battle to start a series on, it's hard to find one that is more famous. 

 

[40plus]

7 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

While you may be right there.. the argument that the T-34 85 would make a sensible, good addition for 1944ish scenarios is still very valid and it could help the game by having a bit more balancing options

 

What business does "balance" have in a simulator?

[migmadmarine]

I think the issues that people have with the historical lineup can and should be solved with mission design choices, so take this up with the mission builders rather than wanting the devs to add tanks that don't fit the timeframe but can pen a tiger or panther from the front is not the solution with out compromising the design brief of the series. 

 

 

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, Peasant said:

The developers could not have chosen a worse historical period to set this game in, other than, possibly, 1941 (how would you like to face a KV-1 in Pz.III w/ 37mm gun?).

Both 1942 and 1944 would've been a much better choice for setting.

France 1940, all the allied hevys vs crap panzers, that would be comedy of DLC when you dont have real world advantages axis had.

Thats why TC is so broken without any comparable tank to 1 v1 tiger or panther.

 

Also BoS come with 190a3 that didnt historicly participated in battle period DLC was made for, even now you have ar234b in BoN and its wrong model for it, and map dont even have base reacon prototypes used , so they can add airplanes that dont fit SP campaigns, it seams that for tanks they just dont wont to... and yes prokhorovaka was poor choice and fact that we didnt get TC2 shows that, and if idea was to get some momentum with 2 collector tanks for next TC, then choice was terible to not give red side IS-2 or 85mm tank...

But thats no prob, axis tankers can shoot at AI statics and complain how airplanes are bathering them...and no one is covering them LOL

[Monostripezebra]

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Personally, I think all this "I want [insert favourite tank/aircraft] or else I'm not gonna buy any more products" stuff is very childish. There's a hundred different tanks they could make and everyone has their own favourites. I'm sure the Developers would like to build each and every one of them, but they've got limited time and budget. Trying to blackmail them into making your own favourite is going to change very little about that.

 

Absolutely, but the T-34 84 is kind of THE iconic and symbolic russian tank.. which would also widen the scope of historic scenarios with the current vehicle set, so the gain game usability per vehicle is good value. Thats why I said what I said, I don´t even like that ugly thing.

 

It´s like with the Stug..  I mean, THE STUG, it really had to be added.. what would WW2 tank war be without the Stug?

 

 

2 hours ago, 40plus said:

 

What business does "balance" have in a simulator?

 

I guess you are new to gaming? Any sim is still a game and any setting includes balancing elements from numbers to position, intel, vehicle capabilities etc. And the whole point of "wargaming" is to cut out a scenario in such a way that it is interesting to play for both sides and ideally has an open outcome. It has been that way since 100ths of years when people starting playing with tin soldiers or chess figures.

 

A game with uneven player unit capabilities needs some other forms of mitigation. 3 T34s (ie: technically indivdually less capable vehicles) vs one Tiger (superior vehicle) could be a more interesting and historic correct gameplay then 3 Tiger and 2 Panthers and Ferdi vs 2x stock T-34 in an opent terrain CTF scenario.. as it happened more then once on the servers. Anyone then joining and going further blue is by default not interested in a multiplayer match.. as it gets closer and closer to a boring fixed results singleplayer.. and would would absolutely be same boring stuff making people leave the game if it was superior red tanks. Sure, Pz IIs did historically fight beefier tanks like the Char 1b, but would all the blue only guys play a scenario that is "historically correct" if your one lone Pz II goes up a gainst of multitude of tanks your weapons do little impact on?

 

Now, guess what is keeping interested players from joining and broadening the playerbase or make the game grow? It is not the historical setting it is the fact that most gameplay does not correspond to that historical setting where 10 Tigers were all in total there and faced 10fold numbers..

 

Now, in a game, that calls itself "sim" but bases the simulation purely on vehicle characteristics with no player count mechanics.. and a huge fanbase for certain vehicles which are just plain much better what happens is that few people who are sporting go up in less numbers and worse vehicles but that is not everyones idea of fun and thus the MP gameplay tanks.

 

I am an aircraft guy.. I liked tank crew, because I LOVE shooting at player tanks with big guns like the Stuka or the Hurri.. and then occasionally started to tank, but as fairplay-guy joining the side with less players I ended up 99% red in the stock T-34..  I kinda started to like tanks and get interested in tanks through the game.. but ultimately the cluncy UI, invisible trees and a big part of the tank people playerbase lacking any sort of sportsgeist in terms of organising sides and numbers towards an outcome-open game or even just historic more fitting numbers made me refrain from buying the game..

 

I post and visit here occasionally because I feel like I gona give it try again someday, but I do think that without chosing historic battles which are closer in vehicular capabilities, the game is gona be boring as signifcant part of the tank playerbase lacks the maturity required to do "numbers of less capable vehicle vs fewer behemoths"-type scenarios in which the numbers are not steered/balanced in anyway towards the historic target numbers. 

 

This only leads to the scenario ending up beeing "many behemoths vs few less capable vehicles". Which is neither a simulation of historic realities nor good gameplay, regardless if that is superior "red" or superior "blue" or whatever sides and tanks.

 

TL:DR the combination of vastly unequal armor+penetration+mobility sides in combo without any mechanism to balance playercounts leads to shitty gameplay. Sim or no sim.

Edited December 25, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[Rjel]

10 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

While you may be right there.. the argument that the T-34 85 would make a sensible, good addition for 1944ish scenarios is still very valid and it could help the game by having a bit more balancing options

I don't disagree with you. I do disagree with posters who b****, threaten and otherwise make this forum unenjoyable with petty demands. This team has given us more than anyone could have reasonably expected when this series started. We all have wants. Pet airplanes or vehicles we hope to see. Most of us understand the art of suggestion works far better than the method used by the OP. 

[Frinik22]

The only way you can achieve what you dream of is having server Admins who will limit the number of high power German tanks to say 1 Tiger and 2 Panthers per round  with the rest Panzer III , IV and Stugs vs more numerous Soviet tanks for the opposing team. But it's up to the server admins. You need to get them on board with that .  As  it is there are precious few servers.

 

As for players lacking maturity most people join for having fun not to engage into " Oh let's play according to historical values"as fair as it would be. For the kind of scenario you have  in mind you would need a serve made up of people entirely dedicated to reconstructing real WW2 battles meticulously and based on real life data. This you won't find on most servers which are dedicated to casual gameplay with semi simulation not historical reconstruction.

[Monostripezebra]

23 minutes ago, Frinik22 said:

The only way you can achieve what you dream of is having server Admins who will limit the number of high power German tanks to say 1 Tiger and 2 Panthers per round  with the rest Panzer III , IV and Stugs vs more numerous Soviet tanks for the opposing team. But it's up to the server admins. You need to get them on board with that .  As  it is there are precious few servers.

 

As for players lacking maturity most people join for having fun not to engage into " Oh let's play according to historical values"as fair as it would be. For the kind of scenario you have  in mind you would need a serve made up of people entirely dedicated to reconstructing real WW2 battles meticulously and based on real life data. This you won't find on most servers which are dedicated to casual gameplay with semi simulation not historical reconstruction.

 

I was just trying to explain, why "balance" is part of any sim.. and not a contradiction. I am fine with totally fictional battles and ahistorical anachronisms as long as its fun and all involved enjoy it, like a game is supposed to.  Casual is fine.  I even enjoyed total unqual numbers sides.. for bit, but that gets tedious and feels more like work then relaxation, so I left because it was too often the same old..

 

And I don´t need to get anyone on board, I currently don´t play tank crew or tank battles.. but I certainly would like to see it develop into a serious and good game that grows, who knows.. I may be back, I certainly maybe one day would like to try the stug. I am really thinking it was a good thing it was added..

 

Edited December 25, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[LukeFF]

I played Red Orchestra: Ostfront for a long time, and the super-tanks there (Panther, Tiger, etc) were always limited to one or two per map, and all was well. There was no bitching or moaning about balance and all that other nonsense. 

 

Now, if an old FPS can do that right all those years ago, then certainly server operators can do the same thing today without people having a meltdown or writing long monologues about why balance is needed. ?

[40plus]

2 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

.

 

TL:DR the combination of vastly unequal armor+penetration+mobility sides in combo without any mechanism to balance playercounts leads to shitty gameplay. Sim or no sim.

 

Player counts and balance are meaningless in a title that is predominantly a single player sim based on historical vehicle timelines.

 

Your playing the wrong title of those are important to you

[Monostripezebra]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

I played Red Orchestra: Ostfront for a long time, and the super-tanks there (Panther, Tiger, etc) were always limited to one or two per map, and all was well. There was no bitching or moaning about balance and all that other nonsense. 

 

Now, if an old FPS can do that right all those years ago, then certainly server operators can do the same thing today without people having a meltdown or writing long monologues about why balance is needed. ?

 

Hmm.. I remember the Red Orchestra titles actually forced team balance.. and you could actually end up beeing switched. Oh, the shock, the horror.

 

And people have been nearly lynched on this forum for merely suggesting that those things are on of the standard gamedesign options if side numbers drift to far appart.. all while "it has to be true to life accurate" to a war where most soldiers did not have that many choices in which sides uniform they would wear and what equipment they got to use... which I find quite ironic in a way, when people argue: "but I don´t ever want to play anything the tiger, even if there is allread 10 on the server and no red army, but its not simmy enough because the 2nd left rear locknut on the turret rack turns counterclockwise instead of clockwise"

Edited December 25, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[No_Face]

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

Also BoS come with 190a3 that didnt historicly participated in battle period DLC was made for

Unless I'm mistaken, Jason wasn't there yet when BoS was released (or not in that position) so he wasn't the one who decided on the FW 190 A3, if he had any decision making power at that time, the FW wouldn't have been released. But since Jason is in charge, he has always made sure to release only historical items.

(Correct me if I'm wrong)

 

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

But thats no prob, axis tankers can shoot at AI statics and complain how airplanes are bathering them...and no one is covering them LOL

The red players spend their time complaining. Their planes are not as good as those of the axis, their tanks are not as good as those of the axis.
Yet every day they are in the axis spawn while there are objectives between the red and the blue spawn.

The red players are complaining all the time but they win all the wars. So they can't be that bad.

 

Incidentally, blue players (and I think the same goes for most red players) are mostly looking for player vs player. Shooting at an AI is not very exciting, it's usually what you do when you're tired of waiting for targets.

But it's funny to see this kind of talk when the best red tankers have hundreds or thousands of AI targets destroyed on their counters.

[Frinik22]

The problem with any simulator is that everybody wants something out of it which others may not necessarily want. A lot of gamers are Prima Donas who are more difficult to content than a woman shopping for clothes or shoes... In other posts people are complaining about the lack of balance  or that the German tanks are too OP compared to what's available to the Soviet side( Welcome to history!). At the end of the day until we get super AI that has human-like reactions, reflexes and thinking( It will come eventually but not right now) we have to accept that a simulator can only simulate real life and imperfectly at that. 

 

MP-wise the only way you can have a more satisfying experience would be to have unequal numbers of players. Limit the German side to 1 player for two Soviet ones. That would certainly help the balance and the gameplay but you can bet that somebody getting owned would start complaining about how unfair it is to have more players on one side etc. There's no satisfying everybody as you end up dissatisfying most. I personally have a fairly competitive  nature, the tougher the better. I don't mind playing Soviet tanks because of the challenge of being forced to be more cunning or tactical to win. But I also understand and accept that not everybody is like me and there are people who privilege the fun and entertainment over the grind.

Edited December 25, 2021 by Frinik22
meant to say 2 Soviet players for each German one

[[La9]KeOsdenLM]

17 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

Absolutely, but the T-34 84 is kind of THE iconic and symbolic russian tank.. which would also widen the scope of historic scenarios with the current vehicle set, so the gain game usability per vehicle is good value. Thats why I said what I said, I don´t even like that ugly thing.

 

It´s like with the Stug..  I mean, THE STUG, it really had to be added.. what would WW2 tank war be without the Stug?

 

 

 

I guess you are new to gaming? Any sim is still a game and any setting includes balancing elements from numbers to position, intel, vehicle capabilities etc. And the whole point of "wargaming" is to cut out a scenario in such a way that it is interesting to play for both sides and ideally has an open outcome. It has been that way since 100ths of years when people starting playing with tin soldiers or chess figures.

 

A game with uneven player unit capabilities needs some other forms of mitigation. 3 T34s (ie: technically indivdually less capable vehicles) vs one Tiger (superior vehicle) could be a more interesting and historic correct gameplay then 3 Tiger and 2 Panthers and Ferdi vs 2x stock T-34 in an opent terrain CTF scenario.. as it happened more then once on the servers. Anyone then joining and going further blue is by default not interested in a multiplayer match.. as it gets closer and closer to a boring fixed results singleplayer.. and would would absolutely be same boring stuff making people leave the game if it was superior red tanks. Sure, Pz IIs did historically fight beefier tanks like the Char 1b, but would all the blue only guys play a scenario that is "historically correct" if your one lone Pz II goes up a gainst of multitude of tanks your weapons do little impact on?

 

Now, guess what is keeping interested players from joining and broadening the playerbase or make the game grow? It is not the historical setting it is the fact that most gameplay does not correspond to that historical setting where 10 Tigers were all in total there and faced 10fold numbers..

 

Now, in a game, that calls itself "sim" but bases the simulation purely on vehicle characteristics with no player count mechanics.. and a huge fanbase for certain vehicles which are just plain much better what happens is that few people who are sporting go up in less numbers and worse vehicles but that is not everyones idea of fun and thus the MP gameplay tanks.

 

I am an aircraft guy.. I liked tank crew, because I LOVE shooting at player tanks with big guns like the Stuka or the Hurri.. and then occasionally started to tank, but as fairplay-guy joining the side with less players I ended up 99% red in the stock T-34..  I kinda started to like tanks and get interested in tanks through the game.. but ultimately the cluncy UI, invisible trees and a big part of the tank people playerbase lacking any sort of sportsgeist in terms of organising sides and numbers towards an outcome-open game or even just historic more fitting numbers made me refrain from buying the game..

 

I post and visit here occasionally because I feel like I gona give it try again someday, but I do think that without chosing historic battles which are closer in vehicular capabilities, the game is gona be boring as signifcant part of the tank playerbase lacks the maturity required to do "numbers of less capable vehicle vs fewer behemoths"-type scenarios in which the numbers are not steered/balanced in anyway towards the historic target numbers. 

 

This only leads to the scenario ending up beeing "many behemoths vs few less capable vehicles". Which is neither a simulation of historic realities nor good gameplay, regardless if that is superior "red" or superior "blue" or whatever sides and tanks.

 

TL:DR the combination of vastly unequal armor+penetration+mobility sides in combo without any mechanism to balance playercounts leads to shitty gameplay. Sim or no sim.

Impossible to explain it better, thanks.

 

 

First I will clarify something, maybe I have not expressed myself well in the initial post and it seems that I am threatening, saying that I am not going to buy it. It was not my intention, I would like to buy it and in fact I want, but seeing that lack of balance in vehicles discouraged me.

I think that if there are heavy tanks in a side, they should also be in the other sides, obviously I am more of airplanes, but I also like tanks, all tanks and all the planes, true that I prefer the ally side and inside the side Ally I have special affection on the Russian side, for personal reasons, but that does not mean that I do not play with the axis. In fact, at all the games I try to enter the side with fewer players if the balance is very disproportionate.

I do not intend to enter the absurd debates of what tank / vehicle is better or worse, it's not a matter of "I want my favorite vehicle", but if I think the developers should better adjust the balance of their vehicles to give the Option to make more interesting servers. If there are no balanced servers, or are not created, it is another topic, but the option should exist, because not all of us care about the historical rigor.

What I do not like is the lack of balance, and this game is wonderful for many things, but it continues to scare more players than those who attract.

In any case, thanks to all who are giving your objective opinion.

Health, nerve and heart.

Edited December 25, 2021 by [La9]KeOsdenLM

[SCG_judgedeath3]

I rather have historical accuracy and have how it was like in prokarovka than doing wot or warthunder style of nerfing it adding tanks that wasnt around in the time period or even worse: add fantasy or post war tanks to make it balanced against late war german tanks. Other tank sims in the past had the same style and there were no t-34-85s to counter the tigers and best tank for the allieds in panzer front asusf b is the sherman. No players complained.

 

Tank crew 2 will happen im sure, but will take a few years, the devs are currently working on battle of normandy since soon 2 years back. 

But we will still have same issue: germans will get king tiger and jagdtiger in 44 setting and jagdpanthers and jagdpanzer iv lang which outclass the allieds. No tank managed to pen the front of jagdtiger or king tiger, so t34-85s will struggle there too. 
 

there are servers that heavily limit the german tanks if you look around

Edited December 25, 2021 by SCG_judgedeath3

[ShampooX]

Historical accuracy is one of the main things that sets this game apart from, and above, the "balanced BS" of WOT and War Thunder.  The minute we start mixing tanks trees from 1943, 44 and 45 together, this ceases becoming a sim and starts becoming a game.  And I have to disagree with the post above stating 1943 couldn't be a worse time to pick a tank line up - how is Kursk, the biggest tank battle in the world to that time (not Dubno-Brody as some might argue) not the BEST place to start the game?

 

Judgedeath just nailed all the relevant points above: tank technology from 42-45 leapfrogs so much that when are you ever going to find a "fair" period or theater?  and Servers like FVP and Advance limit the number of Panthers and Tigers based on way the game is played as well.....so whats everyone all worked up about?

 

When and if the T34-85 enters, so should the Jagdpanther, then we can have IS-1's with King Tigers. and so on and so on....  As long as it's historically accurate.  Until then, enjoy the best sim out there - this one.

 

Edited December 25, 2021 by MrLarry-Actual

[Peasant]

32 minutes ago, MrLarry-Actual said:

Historical accuracy is one of the main things that sets this game apart from, and above, the "balanced BS" of WOT and War Thunder.  The minute we start mixing tanks trees from 1943, 44 and 45 together, this ceases becoming a sim and starts becoming a game.  And I have to disagree with the post above stating 1943 couldn't be a worse time to pick a tank line up - how is Kursk, the biggest tank battle in the world to that time (not Dubno-Brody as some might argue) not the BEST place to start the game?

 

Judgedeath just nailed all the relevant points above: tank technology from 42-45 leapfrogs so much that when are you ever going to find a "fair" period or theater?  and Servers like FVP and Advance limit the number of Panthers and Tigers based on way the game is played as well.....so whats everyone all worked up about?

 

When and if the T34-85 enters, so should the Jagdpanther, then we can have IS-1's with King Tigers. and so on and so on....  As long as it's historically accurate.  Until then, enjoy the best sim out there - this one.

 

 

It is disingenuous to compare the "T-34/85 vs KT" with "T-34/76 vs Tiger I" situation. Yes, neither can fight their respective german opponent head-on, but In the first case the soviet tank can fairly confidently penetrate the enemy side armour at fairly wide angles and at ranges up to 1000-1500m, while in the second case you need to sneak up on Tiger I to almost point blanc range and get an almost perfect 90° shot into the side armour.

 

 

[ww2fighter20]

While I agree with historical accuracy, it's also important to look when specific tanks saw first action and at which locations.

For example the Tiger II and Jagdpanther saw first action in Normandy July 1944, while both the T34/85 and IS-1 already saw action in early 1944.

 

When looking at the current Battle of Prokhorovka the tank set is based on tanks used during the entire Battle of Kursk not just Prokhorovka, for example both the M4A2 and Ferdinant were only used on the northern sector of Kursk.

 

You can still have some degree of balance and historical accuracy.

For example an Tank Crew release based on Korsun-Cherkassy with the tank set in mind of the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive can include tanks like the T34-85, SU-85, IS-1 or even IS-2 while the germans have no acces to tanks like the Tiger II, Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV/70 since neither of those saw action yet.

 

If tanks like the Tiger II, Jagdpanther and Jagdpanzer IV/70 have to be included to attract customers you could go for Operation Spring Awakening in which the germans can have there late war tanks, but so do the Soviets like the T34-85, Su-100, IS-2, M4A2 76mm, ISU-122 or ISU-152.

 

Similar story with the western front, an Tank Crew release based on Normandy would grant acces to Tiger II and Jagdpanther but if instead of Normandy we look at the Battle of Bulge the allies can have more competitive tanks which were not used during the Normandy campaign (M4A3E8 Easy Eight, M4A3E2 Jumbo with 76mm, M36).

[SCG_judgedeath3]

10 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

but so do the Soviets like the T34-85, Su-100, IS-2, M4A2 76mm, ISU-122 or ISU-152.

 

11 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

M4A3E8 Easy Eight, M4A3E2 Jumbo with 76mm, M36).

Still same issue: players on the allied side will complain as none of these tanks have a chance against king tiger or jagdtiger frontally which is the whole balance that players who dont like it now wish for. Warthunder players complained when gaijhin tested to have king tiger etc to face the actual tanks it would face like: su 85, su 100, JS-2 etc and was so much they made the german tanks have to face post war tanks to please players.

[ww2fighter20]

1 hour ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

 

Still same issue: players on the allied side will complain as none of these tanks have a chance against king tiger or jagdtiger frontally which is the whole balance that players who dont like it now wish for. Warthunder players complained when gaijhin tested to have king tiger etc to face the actual tanks it would face like: su 85, su 100, JS-2 etc and was so much they made the german tanks have to face post war tanks to please players.

The Jagdtiger only saw only action within Germany and near the French border, Spring Awakening was in Hungary.

 

While I do admit the Tiger IIH had no actual equal adversary 1 to 1, the IS2 would be the closest, especially the 1944 model which had removed the hull weakspot.

The IS-2, ISU-122 and SU100 all have just over 200mm of penetration, which can frontally penetrate the Tiger II turret (around 185mm), granted this would be mostly short range.

 

There is another option which would be including the rare Tiger II version with the early turret (around 50 built) which had less armor on the turret (around 120mm) and an turret shape that enables shot trap, only an handfull were used on the eastern front (most were used in Normandy if not the only version to see action in Normandy).

There was atleast 1 early turret version in Hungary 1945 (314 Anneliese), so while the common Tiger II used the later turret, the early turret version would not be unaccurate for Hungary 1945, it would be an similar story as the Ar234 that's included for Normandy which only 2 saw action in Normandy.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Tiger IIH was used a lot on the eastern front, Kurt knispels unit saw lot of action with it there and defence of east prussia.
So still: germany has a better tank which players will complain about.
ISU-122 and SU-100 are assault guns and we already know how much soviet/allied players hates using them and want a normal tank.

the penetration data is against unsloped armour, against king tigers sloped armour ista  different story:
The Su 100 had the very effective 100mm D-10s. To my mind this was arguably the most effective anti-tank gun that the Soviets mounted on either a tank or tank destroyer. While it still couldn't defeat either the Jagdpanther or the King Tiger front on, it could penetrate the Panther or Tiger 1 from the front.

According to "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" by Steven Zaloga, the D-10s gun was capable of penetrating 85mm armour sloped at 30 degrees at 1000m.

there are no recorded kills with su-100 against king tiger frontally either.
 

Plus JS-2 takes long time to reload and is inaccurate gun and needs to get close to kill a king tiger and then against the lower hull to kill it, while king tiger can shot 3 times faster and can knock it out at longer range.

IF we get tankc rew on the western front 44 or 45 we get jagdtiger and same problem, players will complain there too.

So in short, unless you want to do like you say chose a battle where germans dont get access to their late tanks while soviets do, or on the west front at any time: players will complain german tanks being better and game is unbalanced xD

[Avimimus]

 

1) Technically speaking though... production numbers meant that Germans shouldn't have access to late war tanks usually - especially the super-heavy ones. Jadgtiger and King Tiger production was tiny in comparison to the IS-2 and T-34/85. So that could definitely be a justification to skip the Tiger II and Jagdtiger (and even my favourite - the Jadgpanther).

 

2) Any increase in penetration or increase in armour expands effectiveness. So, the 85mm will penetrate side armour are more oblique angles or at longer ranges (even if it still can't penetrate the front armour). Thus a Churchill M.VIII with its thick armour or T-34/85 would still help (even if it wouldn't level the playing field).

 

One final thought: An alternative would be to go back to a 1939-1942 scenarios. An early KV-1 vs. a Panzer III without bolt-on armour or a Panzer IV with the short barrelled 75mm is going to enjoy itself a lot more.

 

[ShampooX]

On 12/25/2021 at 8:03 PM, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

So still: germany has a better tank which players will complain about.

 

So in short, unless you want to do like you say chose a battle where germans dont get access to their late tanks while soviets do, or on the west front at any time: players will complain german tanks being better and game is unbalanced xD

I agree Judge.  On Finnish the German tank players are superior in terms of kills, holding Caps and live player vs. player fighting.  And this may often lead players to classify the German advantage as due to "OP" tanks.  Clearly, the top ranked players however are Russian tankers who maximize points/stats only playing against AI.  But no team is better at seizing, holding or recapturing a CP on Finnish like the German tankers - no matter the tank set at the time.  And this is made even more impressive by the fact that on FVP anyway, the German airforces are not good: not good at bombing targets and completely absent when it comes to coordinating CAS with tankers on the ground.  The Russian side is far superior at that.  So what you feel going up against Tigers and Panthers in the later tank sets, we feel every day watching IL2's, P38's , 51s and 47 harass us with impunity, or coordinate with one or two tanks on the ground to pulverize us....with almost no response from the Luftwaffe players.  Thus to me. it all evens out in the end.

[Monostripezebra]

On 12/26/2021 at 5:03 AM, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

So in short, unless you want to do like you say chose a battle where germans dont get access to their late tanks while soviets do, or on the west front at any time: players will complain german tanks being better and game is unbalanced xD

 

I think there were historically "balanced" settings.. as well as unbalanced ones, but it is kind of telling that you one-side only players are on one hand fetishising historical accuracy but on the other hand fear it like the devil when it comes to replicating it numbers wise or say "it is just not my problem if the opposition doesn´t show up" and sell 3:1 odds of the side with better vehicles as "historic simming" that in no way ever should be touched.

 

In the end, time will tell... But i think the one sided "one side only" player behaviour is a major factor in driving away new players and it is noteworthy that in other parts of the IL2 verse, like "Flying Circus" the same structural proplem exists, but the player comunity does a lot more to make the matches fun and open then in the tank verse where the player compositions toxic fanboism in essence doubles up a vehicle-level power descrepancy, making the game much less attractive.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Monostripezebra