SPA and tanks

[pine otter]

To start things, I would generalize the loyal and long lasting players as enjoying the game due to the unique strategy required, teamwork, and attention to realism. I may not speak for all, but these are the reasons I continually play this game, and I’m confident these same reasons apply for many others.

That being said, you’re simply inventing roles that didn’t exist during WW2 and it’s ruining the realism and immersion.

1. The difficulty with adding self-propelled arty to the game

• It was stated that there was difficulty with adding SPAs due to the open top nature of the machines, so you took creative liberties. The reason SPAs are generally open top is because they’re not meant to be this close to the front lines. They’re meant to be behind the fighting and adding indirect fire to troop movements. You had trouble finding SPAs to add because the role you wish to have filled simply didn’t exist. Close infantry support was provided by tanks and mortar units, not whatever this is that’s been added to the game.

2. Why are you inventing new roles for the tanks (not SPAs)?

• The 105 mm Sherman was a beefed up medium tank, the sturmpanzer was a tank destroyer, and the KV was a Russian heavy tank. None of these tanks had a role other than providing direct fire against enemy infantry and armor units. Reinventing these tanks as SPAs for the purposes of this game willingly misinforms players about WWII combat and completely ignores the physical limitations of these tanks. None of these tanks had the ability to vertically traverse their guns that high; doing so would destroy the gun upon firing. This fact is completely ignored in the development. In essence, you took real, tangible war machines that served specific purposes and reworked them to serve an imaginary role without considering a shred of realism.

3. Recon Arty Loop

• This loop has been a problem for as long as I’ve played the game (3.5 years), and I do see some progress. I will give kudos for requiring the commander the refill the gun and limiting arty to one static gun. This is especially important in public matches where random blueberries would deplete all the munitions while not having a great effect on the enemy team. However, the loop still exists. As long as arty players can be shot while on the gun, the loop will exist.
  I really only see two potential solutions to end the loop. One being to create an artillery gun bunker that can’t be destroyed. This isn’t the most realistic of options, but it’s at least a on brand for the time period. Players would enter it as if they’re entering a tank and can’t be shot or grenaded out of it; the only way to kill them would be with a satchel which recon teams do not have. The second solution would be to remove static arty and have mortar squads. At least then, the hunting of these units would seem fair and realistic; with good positioning, mortar teams would be able to protect themselves from enemy units via friendly blueberries.

4. Tank destroyers

• Please stop tinkering with tanks and AT; it’s truly exhausting. The previous update beefed up tanks and this update nerfs them straight back into the ground. The solution isn’t messing with penetration values, turret rotation speeds, tank speed, etc. The solution is to add tank destroyers, which were extremely common and widespread during WWII. Oh no! A Tiger tank has an extremely powerful and commanding position on the battlefield, what can we do? The answer isn’t to make AT more powerful or give them more rockets. Simply spawn in a tank destroyer that can deal with the frontal armor of heavy tanks and are susceptible to enemy infantry. You’ve already coded and modeled in a German SPG, but instead of fictionalizing its role, please use it for its intended purpose.

To summarize, it’s subtly worrying to see the development team abandon reality for their own purposes while ignoring community feedback and suggestions. This update, truthfully, has shaken my faith that upcoming updates will better the game and that the upcoming Vietnam game will honor the realities real people experienced during the war. This game serves a niche audience; it can be grueling, extremely fun and rewarding, sometimes cruel, but (most importantly) maintains authenticity to the era. I love this game, I really do, but it will simply take a few more lousy unfinished updates which ignore player feedback and suggestions to destroy the player base.

[past birch]

I can only agree

[lilac plank]

You need to do your research better. While your initial description of those two tanks, M4 105 and KV-2 , were correct, your assertion that they were mainly used for anti-tank and infantry roles was not. The 105mm Sherman was in fact mainly used as an indirect fire tank. If you do your research you will find that while it could be used in a tank to tank role, its main gun was not designed for such. Here is an example https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/sherman/3rd-ad-indirect-fire-mission-les-rouges-eaux-france/

Also reference here: https://www.facebook.com/ArmorandCavalryCollection/posts/for-todays-tanktuesday-we-look-at-the-m4105-one-of-the-new-variants-of-the-m4-me/5133383216725908/

The KV-2 was a bunker buster, again not an anti-tank role. It also performed quite poorly during WW2 due to its slow speed and numerous issues with breaking down.

The KV-1, KV-1S, KV-85 were the KV tanks used for infantry support and anti-tank roles.

As for the Sturmpanzer, again you are wrong. I think you are mixing up the Stug IV with the Sturmpanzer IV. The Stug IV was the tank used for AT roles. The Sturmpanzer IV was used similarly to the KV-2, bunker busting and at times infantry support.

Stug IV

Sturmpanzer IV aka Brummbär