Black Prince Poll

Maus was never more than 1 assembled vehicle.

Black Prince was both a series, and it actually worked. Slowly, but it worked.

More practically speaking, there's no real need to reach for a super heavy in that way when, all things considered, wehr already has end game heavy tanks that fit that bill. UKF doesn't have anything that's a functional equivalent to the BP in service.

I'd say it's a step from plausible into absurdity, but if they wanted to introduce some absurdist wunder waffen, all the more power to them. My royal artillery regiment will appreciate the target practice.

V-1 would like a word with the RA and its many many many pieces afterwards.

In any case it's incredibly unlikely Relic will remove the BP because of some mixed feedback towards it.

The first prototype was done in January, the last was done in May.

Doesn't change the fact that it was not used

But we don't. They have already taken a big bold step away from a linear, historically faithful campaign. They want to give players the option to wage the war to their liking, and even in the most liberal levels of feedback review they won't gut the freestanding campaign in lieu of a linear one now. The work has been done.

We have a campaign where we get to make our own decisions on the method and direction of the war.

Well. It is not like we are able to invade in Norther Italy instead of in the South but I see your point. But while it is obvious that this Map won't be scrapped it is also not finished and "subject to change"TM ... so maybe we will get a slighlty more historically faithful campaign (which I and a lot of other people are hoping for)but yea ... rather unlikely

But still. Attacking place X before place Y might be historical inaccurate too but does it really mean that we also gotta bring Tanks into the game which never saw service? Red Orchestra 2 for instance had the option to do something similar in Muliplayer (and Singeplayer too iirc) but still they tried their best to only have Weapons in the Game that fit the setting and were historically accurate (yes ... the had a Mkb 42 in Stalingrad (which a lot of people were mad about) but they at least tried to justify this by showing some pictures which allegedly showed a Mkb 42 being used in Stalingrad)

Also the Campaign starts in late 1943. One would really have to fuck up a lot for early 1945 tanks to appear.

In this context, the Black Prince makes perfect sense

It doesn't. BP was also not used because there were other, better tanks, that got the job done way better.

The campaign is alternate history. That's what we got.

Which is sad considering that lelic wrote the following:

Historical accuracy is important to our team

You're welcome to this opinion, but the format of the campaign makes such restrictions entirely arbitraty.

Don't use 'em if you don't want to. But Relic are letting people run the campaign in the manner they choose. So... others will disagree. And they will use them.

So the same would apply for Maus tanks being available for DAK in a possible German single player campaign? Don't use it if you don't like it?

Also I would feel slightly more open towars BP being a thing in SP as a "easteregg" (for instance after 100 in game days) if I had 101% confirmation that it won't be a thing in Multiplayer

BP should stay for multiplayer, but not used in the campaign.
The campaign should be authentic. If I am supposed to be the marshal of this theater, I should have the same tools that they had. The multiplayer was always more far fetched, there is also neither a time frame nor any context attached to a multiplayer battle, so I don't care as much if a tank appears that missed combat only just. It should be believable that this battle could have happened, nothing more.

Overall I don't get the choice of the BP though. Does it really add THAT much to gameplay? Some unicorn units like the German Sturmtiger or USF Pershing at least have a very recognizable and distinct role. So breaking the immersion can at least serve a gameplay role. Does the BP really have that? There are other options that could fill that spot.

Maus was never more than 1 assembled vehicle.

Black Prince was both a series, and it actually worked. Slowly, but it worked.

So 1 Prototype is not ok but when a tank has 6 Prototypes (of which one was just used for gunnery trials) it is ok??

Also aren't there pictures of the Maus driving around so it technically worked too (yes, it probably broke down after 50 meters but the BP also had problems too)

More practically speaking, there's no real need to reach for a super heavy in that way when, all things considered, wehr already has end game heavy tanks that fit that bill.

If Maus tank is not needed because Wehr has Tiger I then neither is BP needed because UKF has Churchill with 6 pounder.

And I actually agree with you. There is no need for super heavy for Wehr either.

UKF doesn't have anything that's a functional equivalent to the BP in service.

So give them T28 then ? Show Spoiler

I'd say it's a step from plausible into absurdity, but if they wanted to introduce some absurdist wunder waffen, all the more power to them. My royal artillery regiment will appreciate the target practice.

So BP is plausible but Maus is "absurditiy" hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

BP should stay for multiplayer, but not used in the campaign.
The campaign should be authentic. If I am supposed to be the marshal of this theater, I should have the same tools that they had. The multiplayer was always more far fetched, there is also neither a time frame nor any context attached to a multiplayer battle, so I don't care as much if a tank appears that missed combat only just. It should be believable that this battle could have happened, nothing more.

Overall I don't get the choice of the BP though. Does it really add THAT much to gameplay? Some unicorn units like the German Sturmtiger or USF Pershing at least have a very recognizable and distinct role. So breaking the immersion can at least serve a gameplay role. Does the BP really have that? There are other options that could fill that spot.

Would be difficult to make the Italy campaign authentic since Axis were able to hold off only thanks of USF wrong decision making at some crucial moments on the early campaign. If the US didn't wait like sitting duck once landed they would have storm 2/3 of Italy before the Axis being able to reinforce their positions.

But I agree with you on the distinction between campaign and skirmish.

I don't get all this hatred on this topic, is the possibility of the BP such a huge deal? Like we can have games with tons of panther, sturmtiger and big cats in multiplayer wich is tending very much with alternate history and things like soviet and UKF plus AEF fighting together but a prototype tank is the line?

Maybe in the campaign but why would it be in multiplayer? we already have equivalent of alternate history so I don't really get it. And nothing forces you to use it aswell.

I'd say it's a step from plausible into absurdity

Italy runs until 45, the hardware existed and could have been shipped and driven up to the front lines. In exactly the same way that people could have launched a naval invasion by driving material that wasn't there hisotrically to a place of their choosing.

Maybe but the Maus ticks the same boxes you had made for the BP in previous reply. Altough I think the german navy would have a hard time shipping it to italy.

BP should stay for multiplayer, but not used in the campaign.
The campaign should be authentic. If I am supposed to be the marshal of this theater, I should have the same tools that they had. The multiplayer was always more far fetched, there is also neither a time frame nor any context attached to a multiplayer battle, so I don't care as much if a tank appears that missed combat only just. It should be believable that this battle could have happened, nothing more.

Overall I don't get the choice of the BP though. Does it really add THAT much to gameplay? Some unicorn units like the German Sturmtiger or USF Pershing at least have a very recognizable and distinct role. So breaking the immersion can at least serve a gameplay role. Does the BP really have that? There are other options that could fill that spot.

From a game point of view, the Black Prince is also not needed in the game. That is, it is a clone of the Tiger for Britain. Then you need a Tiger Clone for Italy and only plywood P43 Bis is suitable for this role. Britain and Italy have powerful AT SPGs.
Show Spoiler

I don't get all this hatred on this topic, is the possibility of the BP such a huge deal?

Because a lot of people simply don't want such prototypes in the game. Also it would be a huge troll-moment from lelic when they first state that they care about historical accuracy but then go on to implement a tank that was never used

Furthermore many see it as a cheap way of balancing the game (that is not even needed) or even fear that the BP will be a OP unit that will be the gateway for more heavy tanks like Tiger II and Pershing (or even more prototype tanks like Maus or T28) which many do not want because they don't fit the setting (after all relic promised us Italy and not CoH2 2.0) and also many do not want the so called "heavy tank" meta / spam to return and instead would prefer having to fight with mediums and light tanks more often

Because a lot of people simply don't want such prototypes in the game. Also it would be a huge troll-moment from lelic when they first state that they care about historical accuracy but then go on to implement a tank that was never used

Furthermore many see it as a cheap way of balancing the game (that is not even needed) or even fear that the BP will be a OP unit that will be the gateway for more heavy tanks like Tiger II and Pershing (or even more prototype tanks like Maus or T28) which many do not want because they don't fit the setting (after all relic promised us Italy and not CoH2 2.0) and also many do not wan't the so called "heavy tank" meta to return and instead would prefer having to fight with mediums and light tanks more often

The Black Prince is a direct road to the World of Tanks. Today is the Black Prince, tomorrow we will demand plywood P43 Bis, after tomorrow give us T-44, IS-3, ZSU-37, OSA-76, King Tiger with a 105-mm cannon, E series tanks.

From a game point of view, the Black Prince is also not needed in the game. That is, it is a clone of the Tiger for Britain. Then you need a Tiger Clone for Italy and only plywood P43 Bis is suitable for this role. Britain and Italy have powerful AT SPGs.

Technically you don't need a heavy for each faction. I like heaving heavy tanks as an option, since the tactic varies wildly from spamming 2 mediums instead. Having that choice is good. If the BP were the only heavy in the British arsenal, by god let them have it in skirmish battles. But there are other options already. I think it might be a sign of getting all the weird unicorn units again. Which is not necessarily bad, as long as it serves a gameplay purpose. Everyone wants to play with some cool and weird stuff from time to time, spamming P3s and P4s all day will get boring. But I'd like it to be at least believable. Maus and Ratte are not. Black Prince? Not the worst offender really, but not great either. We could just have the Comet or something to fill that niche, and given this context just seems like an odd choice from Relic. Why throw out authenticity when there is no benefit of that?

Would be difficult to make the Italy campaign authentic since Axis were able to hold off only thanks of USF wrong decision making at some crucial moments on the early campaign. If the US didn't wait like sitting duck once landed they would have storm 2/3 of Italy before the Axis being able to reinforce their positions.

But I agree with you on the distinction between campaign and skirmish.

Maybe yes, but in the end compromising for gameplay is fine. As I said above, if the BP was the only heavy vehicle in its role/class that the British had and it was really not THAT far from being used in WW2 and potentially Italy, then let there be a Black Prince. But there is no need to, the British already had other tanks that were at least used in Europe.

Because a lot of people simply don't want such prototypes in the game. Also it would be a huge troll-moment from lelic when they first state that they care about historical accuracy but then go on to implement a tank that was never used

Furthermore many see it as a cheap way of balancing the game (that is not even needed) or even fear that the BP will be a OP unit that will be the gateway for more heavy tanks like Tiger II and Pershing (or even more prototype tanks like Maus or T28) which many do not want because they don't fit the setting (after all relic promised us Italy and not CoH2 2.0) and also many do not want the so called "heavy tank" meta / spam to return and instead would prefer having to fight with mediums and light tanks more often

I see your argument but in my opinion, coh was never a historicaly accurate game, yes they want to tend with more historical accuracy but actually implementing a prototype tank WW2 game isnt that much IN MY OPINION a huge deal. Like as some said the series isnt historically acurate and will never be, it is not the objetive imo. Altought this is my opinion and I get yours. And I'm more convinced with the lazy balance issue than the historycal one.

If u want accurate history major in university, read books or watch documentaries but games will never be historically accurate, like if you want one you have to be driven to specific missions and no liberty at all and even with that that it still not historically accurate, tbh i can't find one game close to historical accuracy.

Thta's why I ndon't mind the BP BUT the balance argument fits me well tho.

I see your argument but in my opinion, coh was never a historicaly accurate game, yes they want to tend with more historical accuracy but actually implementing a prototype tank WW2 game isnt that much IN MY OPINION a huge deal. Like as some said the series isnt historically acurate and will never be, it is not the objetive imo. Altought this is my opinion and I get yours. And I'm more convinced with the lazy balance issue than the historycal one.

If u want accurate history major in university, read books or watch documentaries but games will never be historically accurate, like if you want one you have to be driven to specific missions and no liberty at all and even with that that it still not historically accurate, tbh i can't find one game close to historical accuracy.

Thta's why I ndon't mind the BP BUT the balance argument fits me well tho.

CoH is not a 100% historically accurate series, but this is generally just for gameplay reasons, which is entirely understandable. Dispensation should be made for the benefit of gameplay/balance, which is why MGs firing at point blank range don't instantaneously kill infantry squads, and why range in general is severely reduced from what is "realistic".

The difference is that they have thus far stuck to using weapons/vehicles/etc that actually fought during the war, there's no balance argument for adding fantasy vehicles like the BP when somewhat analogous vehicles WERE used that could be used in its place.

I don't think there's been any argument for the inclusion of the BP other than "I think it is cool", which I really don't think has the same weight as "It is entirely and unexplainably anachronistic and shouldn't really be in the game"

The argument against the BP isnt that it wasn't used in Italy, or in certain battles in which it is shown to feature in the game... but that it literally was never once used in combat during the entire war.

You could well argue that the AK-47 wouldn't really be too much of a problem to be in the game, since it started development in 1945. How far post-war would you like to go before you finally would agree that something is too far out of scope?

CoH is not a 100% historically accurate series, but this is generally just for gameplay reasons, which is entirely understandable. Dispensation should be made for the benefit of gameplay/balance, which is why MGs firing at point blank range don't instantaneously kill infantry squads, and why range in general is severely reduced from what is "realistic".

The difference is that they have thus far stuck to using weapons/vehicles/etc that actually fought during the war, there's no balance argument for adding fantasy vehicles like the BP when somewhat analogous vehicles WERE used that could be used in its place.

I don't think there's been any argument for the inclusion of the BP other than "I think it is cool", which I really don't think has the same weight as "It is entirely and unexplainably anachronistic and shouldn't really be in the game"

The argument against the BP isnt that it wasn't used in Italy, or in certain battles in which it is shown to feature in the game... but that it literally was never once used in combat during the entire war.

You could well argue that the AK-47 wouldn't really be too much of a problem to be in the game, since it started development in 1945. How far post-war would you like to go before you finally would agree that something is too far out of scope?

SO is soviet UKF and AEF fighting on the same ground, it's fantasy, but could have happened altought I GET YOUR POINT , I just dont buy it that's all. We can just have different opinions man in the end it is just a game.

Maybe yes, but in the end compromising for gameplay is fine. As I said above, if the BP was the only heavy vehicle in its role/class that the British had and it was really not THAT far from being used in WW2 and potentially Italy, then let there be a Black Prince. But there is no need to, the British already had other tanks that were at least used in Europe.

I think this is where remembering the context the BP shows up in matters.

It's part of the single player campaign so far, and a game with a vastly larger roster of units than the previous 2 games had.

I would be pretty shocked if those other vehicles (comet, corc, firefly) are not also in the game - as the top tier unit in other types of company.

When you have a half dozen companies, and you want them all to feel and play as unique and distinct, you need to scrape the barrel a little more than before. If they used the BP and there isn't a comet in some other company, I'll gladly join the voices of criticism about that decision. But I think it's going to be one of a bunch of end-of-tree units that we see, rather than just the pick for UKF end game vehicle.

SO is soviet UKF and AEF fighting on the same ground, it's fantasy, but could have happened altought I GET YOUR POINT , I just dont buy it that's all. We can just have different opinions man in the end it is just a game.

SOV and UKF fighting together is a dispensation made for gameplay, though. It's not "correct", but there's no real gameplay justification to preventing any combination of allied forces vs any combination of axis forces, y'know?

Same for arbitrarily locking certain factions to certain "themed" maps. It doesn't improve the game in any way to do this. I really just don't consider that sort of thing in any way analogous to fantasy vehicles.

I think this is where remembering the context the BP shows up in matters.

It's part of the single player campaign so far, and a game with a vastly larger roster of units than the previous 2 games had.

I would be pretty shocked if those other vehicles (comet, corc, firefly) are not also in the game - as the top tier unit in other types of company.

When you have a half dozen companies, and you want them all to feel and play as unique and distinct, you need to scrape the barrel a little more than before. If they used the BP and there isn't a comet in some other company, I'll gladly join the voices of criticism about that decision. But I think it's going to be one of a bunch of end-of-tree units that we see, rather than just the pick for UKF end game vehicle.

But even if this is the case: They ought to just use the Comet for both tech trees. They really shouldn't be using fantasy vehicles to fill rosters as you're suggesting... especially since we A: Don't know that the comet is in, and B: the Comet and BP could entirely justifiably have almost identical statlines. There's also, as has been mentioned, the 75mm Churchill.

Anyway, instead of using the BP they could instead simply use the Challenger, which WAS actually used in combat. I refuse to believe they're going to have three separate tech trees that all require an "unique" 17-pounder toting medium/heavy tank.

SOV and UKF fighting together is a dispensation made for gameplay, though. It's not "correct", but there's no real gameplay justification to preventing any combination of allied forces vs any combination of axis forces, y'know?

Same for arbitrarily locking certain factions to certain "themed" maps. It doesn't improve the game in any way to do this. I really just don't consider that sort of thing in any way analogous to fantasy vehicles.

as I said alright, this is just my opinion and so is yours, I don't want or believe I could convince anybody at this point, this is just my grain of salt for the sake of debate and different opinion. Like we can have differences in our ideas of the ideal game.

Well, if the Black Prince is not participating in the war is normal, then where the heck are the RD-44 (future RPD-44), SKS and AS-44 for the USSR?

Well, if the Black Prince is not participating in the war is normal, then where the heck are the RD-44 (future RPD-44), SKS and AS-44 for the USSR?

Pretty much the same argument, really.

Hell, in the SKS's case it actually WAS used in limited numbers for testing during WWII, so it would actually be more justifiable than the BP. (I'd still prefer none of these appear however.)

well the black is a piece of hardware that is based off the churchill when you see it in game it doesnt stick out that much in the game I FELL. That's why i dont mind, it is just a modified churchillnot like a totally new piece of tank, that's is why I dont mind. like an SKS doesnt look like a WW2 rifle nor an AS44. In the design it fits for me. BUT I get that you don't like that.