Developer Diary 311 - Discussion

[Roland_HUNter]

13 hours ago, oc2209 said:

This could well explain how so many experten bit the dust as 1944 progressed, along with plenty of other factors.

When your enemy outnumbered you by  10:1 even the best plane could not make your fight easier.

Example, the Hungarian Royal Airforce took of with 20+ 109 G-6, against 500 bomber and 150 fighter.
The Americans thought they were the most fanatic fighters of Hitler because of the Hungarian White Cross In Black square.
They didn't know they were hungarians. (a Hungarian pilot heard this during an interrogation of an American pilot. )

[jeanba]

This week will be terrible for me at work but this DD gives me a good reason to like it

[GOA_Karaya_VR]

3 hours ago, =LG/F=Gora_ said:

It is always safer to flight high, but... that way you will never give support to the attackers that are working low over the target or your team mates that have to go low for many reasons. So flying high is... hartmaning  and it is not so good for winning the map. 

Yes and no.. And for going at the deck on support missions it's clear that you have to go on a Fw190 not on a 109.. 

 

The 190 is a dogfight plane, with their advantage at low altitude/speed ( 550 kph or more on A3,A5,A6 and 600 on A8 ) and roll rate, the 109 its a deficent plane at low altitude that you go. ( Less speed and poor roll rate ).

 

Many people still leaving apart the strengths and weaknesses of the 109, and going at the deck is their main problem agains Allied planes.

Edited March 14, 2022 by GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR*

[Dukethejuke]

I know it is off topic but the support rib on the canopy of the P38 is driving me nuts! the  port side it is outside of the canopy and on the starboard side it is on the inside. ARRRGH! Again, thanks for all of you guys do.

Edited March 14, 2022 by dukethejuke

[354thFG_Rails]

On 3/11/2022 at 8:17 PM, QB.Beno said:

This Update sounds exciting, goodwork Jason, my game has been un installed for well over a year due to being too busy but this is making me consider re-installing and making time.... The 109 prop hang fix is what gets me excited, spitfire vs 109 I think for me will be much more realistic and easier to gain energy advantage flying in the spit! Will be watching to see people's opinions when patch is released! 

This Update sounds exciting, goodwork Jason, my game has been un installed for well over a year due to being too busy but this is making me consider re-installing and making time.... The 109 prop hang fix is what gets me excited, spitfire vs 109 I think for me will be much more realistic and easier to gain energy advantage flying in the spit! Will be watching to see people's opinions when patch is released! 

[No.23_Gaylion]

If I was captured, I'd be talking my enemy up too.

 

6 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

When your enemy outnumbered you by 10:1 even the best plane could not make your fight easier.

 

Example, the Hungarian Royal Airforce took of with 20+ 109 G-6, against 500 bomber and 150 fighter.

The Americans thought they were the most fanatic fighters of Hitler because of the Hungarian White Cross In Black square.

They didn't know they were hungarians. (a Hungarian pilot heard this during an interrogation of an American pilot. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rache-der-Boote]

On 3/12/2022 at 5:16 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

Tell me what should I do except bailing out.

Have you tried listening to Erika on repeat from takeoff to touchdown?

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

When your enemy outnumbered you by  10:1 even the best plane could not make your fight easier.

 

Well, I did say 'along with plenty of other factors.'

 

What I was really getting at, was this:

 

When the Germans' main opponent in the West was Britain, and therein the Spitfire was the most commonly encountered fighter (post BoB), the 109 and Spitfire were so equal in terms of poor high-speed control/extremely heavy stick forces, that one plane could not be said to have a distinct advantage over the other. The Fw-190 upset that balance greatly in the Germans' favor.

 

Over in the East, the Germans had a raw speed and/or altitude advantage over all Russian fighters until well into 1944, which again concealed or mitigated the 109's obsolescence.

 

It was only with the advent of the P-51, and an aggressively-flown P-47 (i.e, not as they were typically used in 1943), both designs with great speed, great high-speed control, and great-to-adequate performance at all altitudes, that the 109 became well and truly obsolete in comparison. It's not that the 109 still couldn't compete with the '51 and '47; it's that its pilot had to exert more effort to achieve the same results. Thus it hindered experten, and was more or less a cannon-fodder deathtrap for raw recruits.

 

Another way of looking at it: both the Spitfire and the 109 were obsolete by 1944, but the British could get away with it, while the Germans could not. There really shouldn't have been mid-30s fighter designs still in use by 1944.

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, US103_Talbot said:

If I was captured, I'd be talking my enemy up too.

 

6 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

When your enemy outnumbered you by 10:1 even the best plane could not make your fight easier.

 

Example, the Hungarian Royal Airforce took of with 20+ 109 G-6, against 500 bomber and 150 fighter.

The Americans thought they were the most fanatic fighters of Hitler because of the Hungarian White Cross In Black square.

They didn't know they were hungarians. (a Hungarian pilot heard this during an interrogation of an American pilot. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not a fairytale.
I quoted from this book:

Csaba B. Stenge is a very well respected historian in Europe/US, he met with American veterans and with their families to talk with them or ask for permission to write about them or ask for memories/pictures etc..
In his book, he writes very detailed about american pilots who fought against hungarians.

[86th_Buzzi]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

It was only with the advent of the P-51, and an aggressively-flown P-47 (i.e, not as they were typically used in 1943)

 

8th Air Force fighter groups flying P-47s flew very aggressively in 1943. Their sole responsibility was air-air combat and the destruction of LW fighters. They took on the LW at it's strongest in the West, and did it well. 

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, QB.Buzzi said:

 

8th Air Force fighter groups flying P-47s flew very aggressively in 1943. Their sole responsibility was air-air combat and the destruction of LW fighters. They took on the LW at it's strongest in the West, and did it well. 

 

AFAIK their main issue was one of range, not one of performance or pilot skill.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, QB.Buzzi said:

8th Air Force fighter groups flying P-47s flew very aggressively in 1943. Their sole responsibility was air-air combat and the destruction of LW fighters. They took on the LW at it's strongest in the West, and did it well. 

 

There's a clear difference between 1943 close escort doctrine and the much looser 'free hunt' mentality of '44. That's what I was referring to.

 

Aggressively defending bombers isn't the same as being sent out on search and destroy patterns well ahead of the bomber stream, which is what typified '44 combat.

 

Hence the more rapid and complete destruction of the Luftwaffe.

 

The same thing played out in reverse for the Germans during the BoB. The Germans did well in free hunts initially, then were chained to close escort duty once bomber losses began to mount, which instantly and measurably relieved the pressure on the RAF overall.

[Regingrave-]

17 часов назад, dukethejuke сказал:

I know it is off topic but the support rib on the canopy of the P38 is driving me nuts! the  port side it is outside of the canopy and on the starboard side it is on the inside. ARRRGH! Again, thanks for all of you guys do.

What do you mean? Please take some schreenshots showing what's wrong there.

[Jooyz]

Thank you for making this game greater with every patch !
Waiting for the new patch this week and from what i've readed / seen i really think that this game soon will take a step towards a more realistic sim and thats greate.
Looking forward for the DEV of drop tanks of fuel that will add a new gameplay.

I've readed all the postes before writing this ( with all argues about the changes of 109 etc. ) and i've just wanted to say that the problem is not about planes but about the ability of watching in plane. I will give my thoughts about that could improve the gameplay / realism in this game:
I think that a much penalty (that is not giving a new realism) in IL-2 is the fact that you can look back ( check your six ) in a arcadish way, i am explaining myself :
I have the impression that ingame our pilot doesn't have a body and he has just a head ( imagine beeing in a plane without a lot of space to turn around and imagine yourself bending your head on left or on right side, i think that in reality you will never be able to touch the glass with your head due to your neck bending limitation ) 

Same

Going for checking your six while bending right or left, Just imagine the pilot position for doing this ( its kinda funny how he should turn his chest towards the left or right side of the plane in order to look six with a bending right/left.

And don't forget that almost all the pilots were attached on their seats (and yes i know that some pilots didn't do this but we don't have a lot info about it aren't we ?)

And
 

Maybe you should think about having just 1 FOV value available for all of us without an option to change this ( i really think that there are pilots on this forum that doesn't know about the FOV and the way of changing it, giving you an advantage on your enemy )

 

So in conclusion
 

I really think that giving some limitations for pilots head (taking in consideration the G he is taking on, beeing glued to seat from taking G etc) will improve the overall realism in this game and will change all the gameplay and aproaching tactics, flighing in pairs for cheking 6s of your allied.

Don't forget in many cases the human ( pilot ) is a limitation for a plane

But for now, thank you a lot for beeing active on forums, reading our ideas, making decisions and making this game progress.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jooyz

[I./JG1_Baron]

24 minutes ago, Jooyz said:

Thank you for making this game greater with every patch !
Waiting for the new patch this week and from what i've readed / seen i really think that this game soon will take a step towards a more realistic sim and thats greate.
Looking forward for the DEV of drop tanks of fuel that will add a new gameplay.

I've readed all the postes before writing this ( with all argues about the changes of 109 etc. ) and i've just wanted to say that the problem is not about planes but about the ability of watching in plane. I will give my thoughts about that could improve the gameplay / realism in this game:
I think that a much penalty (that is not giving a new realism) in IL-2 is the fact that you can look back ( check your six ) in a arcadish way, i am explaining myself :
I have the impression that ingame our pilot doesn't have a body and he has just a head ( imagine beeing in a plane without a lot of space to turn around and imagine yourself bending your head on left or on right side, i think that in reality you will never be able to touch the glass with your head due to your neck bending limitation ) 

Same

Going for checking your six while bending right or left, Just imagine the pilot position for doing this ( its kinda funny how he should turn his chest towards the left or right side of the plane in order to look six with a bending right/left.

And don't forget that almost all the pilots were attached on their seats (and yes i know that some pilots didn't do this but we don't have a lot info about it aren't we ?)

And
 

Maybe you should think about having just 1 FOV value available for all of us without an option to change this ( i really think that there are pilots on this forum that doesn't know about the FOV and the way of changing it, giving you an advantage on your enemy )

 

So in conclusion
 

I really think that giving some limitations for pilots head (taking in consideration the G he is taking on, beeing glued to seat from taking G etc) will improve the overall realism in this game and will change all the gameplay and aproaching tactics, flighing in pairs for cheking 6s of your allied.

Don't forget in many cases the human ( pilot ) is a limitation for a plane

But for now, thank you a lot for beeing active on forums, reading our ideas, making decisions and making this game progress.

 

 

 

 

 

What you have described is only possible with trackIr or keys. You will not turn around in VR.

[Jooyz]

3 minutes ago, I./JG1_Baron said:

 

What you have described is only possible with trackIr or keys. You will not turn around in VR.

I know mate, i am playing with a TrackIR, and i understand why this is not achived with VR ? because you have a body, and your limitiations is your body, and even in VR you dont have a lot of limitation comparing with real life, we can't imagine what is to have a 4G on your head and try to move your head ?

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jooyz

[Zooropa_Fly]

 

27 minutes ago, Jooyz said:

Maybe you should think about having just 1 FOV value available for all of us without an option to change this ( i really think that there are pilots on this forum that doesn't know about the FOV and the way of changing it, giving you an advantage on your enemy )

 

Being able to zoom in and zoom out is is critically important.

 

Fully zoomed in - consider this as viewing things 'life size'. But you only have the size of your computer screen to see the World, and bugger all peripheral vision. It's not as some seem to think, like using binoculars.

We need to be able to zoom out so we have peripheral vision and don't fly in to stuff, but it makes objects look artificially small. Still, it falls short of our real World peripheral vision which is close to 180 degrees.

 

It's an integral part of the game, which pilots need to figure out - and I expect only a small minority won't be aware of it when they start playing.

S!

 

 

[kendo]

1 hour ago, Jooyz said:

I think that a much penalty (that is not giving a new realism) in IL-2 is the fact that you can look back ( check your six ) in a arcadish way, i am explaining myself :
I have the impression that ingame our pilot doesn't have a body and he has just a head ( imagine beeing in a plane without a lot of space to turn around and imagine yourself bending your head on left or on right side, i think that in reality you will never be able to touch the glass with your head due to your neck bending limitation )

 ...

So in conclusion
 

I really think that giving some limitations for pilots head (taking in consideration the G he is taking on, beeing glued to seat from taking G etc) will improve the overall realism in this game and will change all the gameplay and aproaching tactics, flighing in pairs for cheking 6s of your allied.

Don't forget in many cases the human ( pilot ) is a limitation for a plane

 

This was in their plans. A few years ago, as part of a long-term view of upcoming plans for the year ahead, the devs mentioned about modelling a pilot's spine and realistic ability to turn to look behind, for exactly these reasons.

 

This was even before the physiology/G limits changes I think. So it was in their awareness with plans to address it, but obviously other things have taken energy and attention and this feature has taken a back seat.

 

Still think it would be a good idea. The instant swivel 180 thing is ridiculous.

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

I am all for sticking with one POV, no zoom and perhaps the ability to loosen our straps to see behind better but be disadvantaged in violent maneuvers BUT....

 

...only when the screen/headset definition and FOV is the same as the human eyes so what we see in game is identical to what we see in real life. I am not sure the FOV can ever be the same while people are using monitors but one day in the far future it might be possible in VR (or Schreibman port in the back of your neck ? ). Another issue when using monitors is that in real life the brain focuses tightly on the target and ignores everything further out but that cannot happen when you are looking at the center of a monitor, the surround is too distracting. Meanwhile we need 'aids' to make up for the inadequacies of technology.

[I./JG1_Baron]

2 hours ago, Jooyz said:

I know mate, i am playing with a TrackIR, and i understand why this is not achived with VR ? because you have a body, and your limitiations is your body, and even in VR you dont have a lot of limitation comparing with real life, we can't imagine what is to have a 4G on your head and try to move your head ?

 

Exactly ?

[JG1_Shadepiece]

The monitor zoom conversation is one that has always baffled me. The human eye is so incredibly better than what we can produce on a monitor. The amount of definition you can see on objects miles away is so much better than what can be produced in the sim. Zooming in is absolutely not like using binoculars, it is just rendering the detail that our eyes would be able to without zoom.

[unlikely_spider]

4 hours ago, Jooyz said:

Maybe you should think about having just 1 FOV value available for all of us without an option to change this

Oh dear God no

[Jooyz]

3 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

Oh dear God no

I don't want to start a flood off topic here on this topic so i will give you all just a better explanation of what i meant by 1 FOV and lets stop this conversation here, or i will open a new topic dedicated for this topic.

What i wanted to say previously by 1 FOV is that we should have the ability to zoom in ( i don't have a problem with this ) but the zoom out should be limited at 90 - 100 (that is the real max non-blurry angle of eye, all angles that are getting more that 90-100 in our vision is a bit blurry in real life, we have an understanding of forms colors etc. but not a clear view) and this values should be the default maxed zoom out view pre-saved in cockpit.
Today the FOV question is presented like this in IL-2 :
When you install the game and when we enter into a cockpit our default pre-saved view is at a FOV of aprox 85-90 ( indicated by the green nr in right up corner), BUT, we can zoom out more and more to aprox 120 ( my screen 34' max FOV) and after that save the new view with a FOV of 120. So this is what i was talking about, the ability to zoom out more than 90, but one more time this is my opinion and i don't want to start a flood here on this topic so lets end this FOV discussion here.
I only hope that our DEV's saw this discussion and that they will think about this.

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

all good except this.
ajajaj when you see that mars? and the moon look like brothers please the sizes are really disturbing

[13/JG5_Luck]

There are tons of original data available from the Messerschmidt factory and all the reports regarding trials in Rechlin or at "Erprobungsstaffeln" at the front. In addition there is a handful Me109 flying around the world, with original engines and equipment. I don't understand why one should use Sovjet sources regarding German planes. Datas in Sovjet sources often stem from captured or demolished and worn out planes which did not show the original performance. 

Do the makers of the game miss the German language capabilities to go the real data or is there too much moaning about the supposed superiority of the 109 in the community?

[13/JG5_Luck]

Well, it's great to see the overall development of the game with new models like the Ju88 C6 and other to come in the next months. On the other hand I doubt if the developer base their work on the best data available. Jason comments: " As usual, we have used a mix of German and Soviet sources to try to get a more accurate picture." 

Why would somebody use Sovjet data at all in order to develop a German plane model? There are tons of data available from the factory Messerschmidt, from the RLM at Rechlin and from the Einsatzstaffeln at the front. And in addition, there are more than a handful of Me109 airborne again with the original Daimler Benz engines at the global war bird scene. Why use data from captured, often demolished / refurbished or worn out German planes in Sovjet hands? 

I guess the developer team has some challenges when it comes to German language. You can also tell from the lettering in some cockpits or the legend at the German menu. 

It would be recommendable to have at least one person in the developer team who understands the technical German expressions and take care for the translation when it comes to lettering and to flight data. The right mix of members in the beta test team would help also.

As a German simmer for almost 2 decades I still like to play the game, but I'm bothered by these things continuously.

[Jade_Monkey]

10 hours ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

all good except this.
ajajaj when you see that mars? and the moon look like brothers please the sizes are really disturbing

 

 

Sizes are different in monitor and VR. Monitor are correct and VR are large. It's a technical limitation (at least for now).

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

3 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

 

Los tamaños son diferentes en monitor y VR. El monitor es correcto y la realidad virtual es grande. Es una limitación técnica (al menos por ahora).

Thx jade Monkey for answer, I supose that +-

[CountZero]

15 hours ago, 13/JG5_Luck said:

There are tons of original data available from the Messerschmidt factory and all the reports regarding trials in Rechlin or at "Erprobungsstaffeln" at the front. In addition there is a handful Me109 flying around the world, with original engines and equipment. I don't understand why one should use Sovjet sources regarding German planes. Datas in Sovjet sources often stem from captured or demolished and worn out planes which did not show the original performance. 

Do the makers of the game miss the German language capabilities to go the real data or is there too much moaning about the supposed superiority of the 109 in the community?

Did you try 109s after this update, they are even better now, they can roll and turn like crazy now, what are you guys complaining about LOL

[Jooyz]

On 3/16/2022 at 3:24 AM, 13/JG5_Luck said:

Well, it's great to see the overall development of the game with new models like the Ju88 C6 and other to come in the next months. On the other hand I doubt if the developer base their work on the best data available. Jason comments: " As usual, we have used a mix of German and Soviet sources to try to get a more accurate picture." 

Why would somebody use Sovjet data at all in order to develop a German plane model? There are tons of data available from the factory Messerschmidt, from the RLM at Rechlin and from the Einsatzstaffeln at the front. And in addition, there are more than a handful of Me109 airborne again with the original Daimler Benz engines at the global war bird scene. Why use data from captured, often demolished / refurbished or worn out German planes in Sovjet hands? 

I guess the developer team has some challenges when it comes to German language. You can also tell from the lettering in some cockpits or the legend at the German menu. 

It would be recommendable to have at least one person in the developer team who understands the technical German expressions and take care for the translation when it comes to lettering and to flight data. The right mix of members in the beta test team would help also.

As a German simmer for almost 2 decades I still like to play the game, but I'm bothered by these things continuously.

Maybe because there was a german propaganda about the luftwaffe ? And I think that the devs are doing the right thing about using german and soviet sources.
What I don't understand, what is bothering you about ingame luftwaffe aviation ? The planes are good as the allied one, there is still a problem with the damage models but this is fixing with updates.
If there are some mistakes with german / english / soviet planes, there are dedicated topics with all of us giving the feedback.

[Cybermat47]

On 3/16/2022 at 1:24 PM, 13/JG5_Luck said:

Why use data from captured, often demolished / refurbished or worn out German planes in Sovjet hands?

 

Given the immense destruction Germany endured when the Allies counterattacked, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the relevant documents were destroyed, leaving the Soviet data on captured aircraft as the only/most accessible sources available.

 

I expect that the Soviet records would also provide better data in regards to comparisons with Soviet aircraft, seeing as the VVS would have an easier time finding Soviet aircraft to test against a captured Bf 109.

 

There's also the fact that the Soviets would have captured a lot of aircraft, designers, and pilots when they occupied east Germany. 

9 minutes ago, Jooyz said:

Maybe because there was a german propaganda about the luftwaffe ?

 

There was definitely a lot of propaganda around the Luftwaffe (and everything in Nazi Germany, really), but I don't think that propaganda would find its way into technical documents.

 

Then again, the Nazis managed to delude themselves into thinking that they could fight the British Empire, the USSR, and the USA at the same time and win, so you never know.

[firdimigdi]

2 hours ago, Cybermat47 said:

There's also the fact that the Soviets would have captured a lot of aircraft, designers, and pilots when they occupied east Germany.

 

Defectors from the Slovak Air Force provided quite a few.

 

 

[Dukethejuke]

On 3/15/2022 at 4:16 AM, Regingrave said:

What do you mean? Please take some schreenshots showing what's wrong there.

Oh Wow , so when you look at your shoulder at 9 oclock where support meets the canopy frame, the frame is outside of plexiglass. when you look at your shoulder at 3 o'clock the frame is on inside. This could be a VR thing. My VR buddy sees it too. Hey this is no big deal, you DD guys have other more important thing to do. Thanks for responding though!

[ATAG_SKUD]

On 3/17/2022 at 5:55 AM, Jooyz said:

Maybe because there was a german propaganda about the luftwaffe ? And I think that the devs are doing the right thing about using german and soviet sources.

I doubt very seriously the devs would make the assumption that Luftwaffe data is compromised by propaganda and only LW data suffers from this tainting of the source and thus requiring correction by using captured aircraft data.

As I said previously, if there was a gaping hole in the LW data that could be filled with reasonable captured data then that would be a legitimate use. But using the two sources by substituting or even interpolating the result of the same data point available in German technical documents I would not consider legitimate use.

skud

Edited March 18, 2022 by ATAG_SKUD

[[Tarczay]SandorGrof]

Why the Churchill? Why arguably the worst allied tank of the war? Why collectable? We need something/anything that brings some balance to the game so desperately! We need to break the German hegemony! So why? Why the Churchill? Why not an IS2? Why not a long barrel Sherman? Why not a Pershing? Why not a T35/85? Why something awful slow? Why something that can't penetrate anything? Why something that is just a fun target to shoot for the German side?  You can't hold your ground in a frontal engagement against a Tiger or Panther but you also can not flank them because you are so slow. Why you bring everything to farther worse? Just why???? Give as an Easy 8 Sherman or a T34-85 at least!

[LukeFF]

52 minutes ago, [Tarczay]SandorGrof said:

Why the Churchill? Why arguably the worst allied tank of the war? Why collectable? We need something/anything that brings some balance to the game so desperately! We need to break the German hegemony! So why? Why the Churchill? Why not an IS2? Why not a long barrel Sherman? Why not a Pershing? Why not a T35/85? Why something awful slow? Why something that can't penetrate anything? Why something that is just a fun target to shoot for the German side?  You can't hold your ground in a frontal engagement against a Tiger or Panther but you also can not flank them because you are so slow. Why you bring everything to farther worse? Just why???? Give as an Easy 8 Sherman or a T34-85 at least!

 

Because they're modeling tanks that were at Operation Citadel. 

[Asgar]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Because they're modeling tanks that were at Operation Citadel. 

i wonder if he’s just trolling

went from „excited for the Churchill“ to „anything just not the Churchill“

[Lord_Strange]

There are certainly better contenders for "worst allied tank" and the Churchill was perfectly good at the job it was built to do. Too often people use anti-tank capability as the only metric for what makes a tank 'good', which may make sense for Tank Crew, but not in reality.

[Pikestance]

The problem with games that focus on tank combat is that it isn't how they were used. They were never used in a vacuum. Infantry, anti-tank artillery, air support, etc.. wee used in conjunction. I have a similar issue with Post Scriptum and Hell let loose. These games are essentially squad to squad combat with a sprinkle of tanks thrown in making for a very unrealistic combat scenario. Then again, computer limitations would make any realistic rendering impossible. The development team has never weighed in balance. However with tank crew they seem to be missing key ingredients to combat. 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Lord_Strange said:

There are certainly better contenders for "worst allied tank" and the Churchill was perfectly good at the job it was built to do. Too often people use anti-tank capability as the only metric for what makes a tank 'good', which may make sense for Tank Crew, but not in reality.

You do NOT have real ww2 simulated for tanks in this game, churchill is the worst posible choice, it would be better if they selected onother axis tank insted of it.

 

In real world lagg3 was crap airplane, in game its great airplane, because you do not have to worry about lack of coms, dirty canopy, poor make, you can take 23mm whenever you wont, its roll rate is out of this world, its deadly when used like mini-FW, and your more likely to have veteran red player mostly fighting noob axis players...  so who cares what churchill did in real world, in game enviroment he will be crap as it will be tasked to kill overwhelimng numbers of axis tanks like panthers, tigers and ferdinands, that have no real world problems they were famous for.

Edited March 19, 2022 by CountZero