Russians on Western Front? Really?

The M16 wasn't invented until 20 years later. Riflemen with M16's isn't anything to do with immersion, it is fantasy and even if you stretch the truth a stupid amount, it still doesn't make sense.

You obviously didnt understand it.

US and soviets fighting side by side is fantasy as well.

What I don't understand is all these people complaining about immersion and realism, why do they play the game where every unit has infinite ammo? Where tanks tank 3+ shots to kill or the fact that infantry take several bullets to die. How about the fact that infantry become suppressed by an MG - in real life you can still run at it if you are crazy enough. The majority of the game isn't realistic. Should the Americans get a nuke because they had them in real life and even used them. Should it be GG for Germans @ 30 minutes because Americans unlocked a nuke? If the game was realistic it would simply suck and would be so imbalanced it would be insane. Every game would end up the same, Germany losing. It is realistic after all.

Why would every battle end up with germany loosing? Did germany loose every battle in ww2? Interesting...

No Nukes were used in europe either. And again I havent read a single comment which stated that people want CoH2 to become perfectly realistic. Youre missing the point here

The M16 wasn't invented until 20 years later. Riflemen with M16's isn't anything to do with immersion, it is fantasy and even if you stretch the truth a stupid amount, it still doesn't make sense.

What I don't understand is all these people complaining about immersion and realism, why do they play the game where every unit has infinite ammo? Where tanks tank 3+ shots to kill or the fact that infantry take several bullets to die. How about the fact that infantry become suppressed by an MG - in real life you can still run at it if you are crazy enough. The majority of the game isn't realistic. Should the Americans get a nuke because they had them in real life and even used them. Should it be GG for Germans @ 30 minutes because Americans unlocked a nuke? If the game was realistic it would simply suck and would be so imbalanced it would be insane. Every game would end up the same, Germany losing. It is realistic after all.

Exactly. Huge portions of the game isnt realistic anyways. Campaign is... really wierd to say the least. And online play, the tactics and units used how they are being used surely isnt realistic. T34 ram? Tanks surviving multiple shells? Scout car riding snipers? (Which was fixed)

The M16 wasn't invented until 20 years later. Riflemen with M16's isn't anything to do with immersion, it is fantasy and even if you stretch the truth a stupid amount, it still doesn't make sense.

What I don't understand is all these people complaining about immersion and realism, why do they play the game where every unit has infinite ammo? Where tanks tank 3+ shots to kill or the fact that infantry take several bullets to die. How about the fact that infantry become suppressed by an MG - in real life you can still run at it if you are crazy enough. The majority of the game isn't realistic. Should the Americans get a nuke because they had them in real life and even used them. Should it be GG for Germans @ 30 minutes because Americans unlocked a nuke? If the game was realistic it would simply suck and would be so imbalanced it would be insane. Every game would end up the same, Germany losing. It is realistic after all.

This. I don't care if it's slightly unrealistic. Did I get mad at Titanic, Schindler's list or even inglorious basterds since some of the stuff actually didnt happen. No, because we know some of those people didn't exist or hitler didnt die from assassins. It didn't happen. And if it happens that you can't play the game since you see soviets and muricans side by side then you just have issues. This game isn't saying that Muricans and Soviets fought side by side, it just appears that it's in the multiplayer to add variety to the game. To make it fun. Because I paid 60 dollars to have fun not to play a 100 authentic war simulator.

It is all about gameplay. If you want real WW2, then go read a book or watch a documentary. For the rest of us, it is intriguing and is potential for lots of advanced tactics and amazing games. If you have a problem with it, then leave. Realism, or whatever you call it, never was here and never will be.

It is all about gameplay. If you want real WW2, then go read a book or watch a documentary. For the rest of us, it is intriguing and is potential for lots of advanced tactics and amazing games. If you have a problem with it, the leave. Realism, or whatever you call it, never was here and never will be.

This.

You obviously didnt understand it.

US and soviets fighting side by side is fantasy as well.



Why would every battle end up with germany loosing? Did germany loose every battle in ww2? Interesting...

No Nukes were used in europe either. And again I havent read a single comment which stated that people want CoH2 to become perfectly realistic. Youre missing the point here

Germany lost the war. Multiplayer games are not a reproduction of historical events, thus the only conclusion you can draw is that Germany would lose, because they lost the war. If you are saying they wouldn't lose, please point me in the direction that shows historical information proving that the specific battle was won by Germany.

Nukes were not used in Europe, but America had access to them and had the means to deploy them in Europe. Germany had very few ostwinds ever built and yet you can have many of them existing in the game at once.

Can you prove that an American and a Russian solder never ever fired a shot or threw a punch at a German or other axis soldier while together or in close proximity (same city / street / building or whatever). The first result on google for the definition of fight is " To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons." Can you say with 100% accuracy that this never happened? Because if it happened once, then America fought with Soviets.

If you cant tell the difference between 2 nations who were in the same war and in the same city together fighting a common enemy and a weapon created 20 years in the future being used in WW2, I would suggest you need to seek help.

I'm not missing the point at all. People are saying they don't want Americans to fight with Soviets because it isn't realistic or authentic. If they have an issue with this why do they not have an issue with every single other unrealistic in the game. Why is this specific thing such a problem?

Also please post your player card.

Joseph Beyrle is an exception. MVGame

Google it...MVGame

So no more bullshit that americans didnt fought alongside soviets MVGame

P.S.:i hope i put enough MVGames in this post MVGame

LOL!!! so you think just because panzer elite has the word "elite" in it and panzer lehr was an elite unit its the same?? hahaha.

How the FUCK do you know panzer elite is not 1st SS-Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler?

Why not name it Panzer Lehr if it is Panzer Lehr? Because its fantasy... How the fuck can you say its realistic and its the same unit if it has a complete different name? Thats like saying the US faction is not the US faction but a volenteer unit fighting for soviet union, its just named US army (Lololollol)

thanks for a good laugh

I'm explaining to you how they did come up with the name.
For the second line, you have pretty much answered yourself. That is if you aren't living under a rock and realize that whatever SS related is banned in a big chunk of our globe.

About the other stuff, why won't you ask relic themselves instead of going bananas over nomenclature?

Germany lost the war. Multiplayer games are not a reproduction of historical events, thus the only conclusion you can draw is that Germany would lose, because they lost the war. If you are saying they wouldn't lose, please point me in the direction that shows historical information proving that the specific battle was won by Germany.

The events you see ingame aren´t battles, like the Battle for Stalingrad, but rather local events within those battles. Actually it happened quite a lot that a village had to be attacked by Allied forces several times. Germans achieved local victories. For example the Battle for Villers Bocage was first won by the Germans.

Nukes were not used in Europe, but America had access to them and had the means to deploy them in Europe. Germany had very few ostwinds ever built and yet you can have many of them existing in the game at once.

Yet some of those must have fought. That could have happened. Americans fighting with Russians on a big scale didn´t.

Can you prove that an American and a Russian solder never ever fired a shot or threw a punch at a German or other axis soldier while together or in close proximity (same city / street / building or whatever). The first result on google for the definition of fight is " To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons." Can you say with 100% accuracy that this never happened? Because if it happened once, then America fought with Soviets.

It never happened, as teh Americans stopped at the Elbe river. That´s actually why so many Germans at the end of the war tried to cross the river, to not get caught by the Soviets on the other side. There never ever was a large battle with Russians and US troops fighting the Germans together. Again this was due to the interest line - Elbe River.

Germany lost the war. Multiplayer games are not a reproduction of historical events, thus the only conclusion you can draw is that Germany would lose, because they lost the war. If you are saying they wouldn't lose, please point me in the direction that shows historical information proving that the specific battle was won by Germany.

You dont play the whole war in a match but part of a battle. Plenty of battles were won by the Wehrmacht

Nukes were not used in Europe, but America had access to them and had the means to deploy them in Europe.

Thats why you cant use them in CoH2

Germany had very few ostwinds ever built and yet you can have many of them existing in the game at once.

So? Did I ever say that CoH2 is realistic in every aspect and should be?

If you cant tell the difference between 2 nations who were in the same war and in the same city together fighting a common enemy and a weapon created 20 years in the future being used in WW2, I would suggest you need to seek help.

its not my fault that you didnt understand my statement.

Your main argument is "CoH2 is not realistic so unrealistic things can be added to the game."

With that argument you can add anything to the game BUT: You have to draw a line somewhere.
Where you draw that line differs from person to person and thats why some people are fine with having units like the ostwind in the game but not with ostwinds fighting in the pacific. Or others who are fine with mixed factions but not with ak47s for the soviets. Or others who cant stand the unrealistic gameplay at all and thus prefer Men of War.

The argument "But the game is unrealistic anyway" doesent work without any restrictions. And those restrictions are the center of this debate.

Can we please all agree that the game is surely unrealistic, but there is a line, a line that can fit Russians fighting with Americans? Sure, there were no major battles in which they fought side by side, but they surely met sometimes and maybe shot a few germans. The battles in which we get to play are super small, they are nothing major. In fact, they are as small as the engagements the Russians had with Americans.

You dont play the whole war in a match but part of a battle. Plenty of battles were won by the Wehrmacht

Which battle are we playing though. We are not playing battles that have actually happened and are historic. This isn't a problem but according to you it is an issue that Americans fight with Soviets because this hasn't happened (as you claim). You cannot prove that America and Russia never fought together.

Thats why you cant use them in CoH2

Because it would be imbalanced, that is why. It is like that because it wouldn't be fun to play if one faction had a clear advantage.

So? Did I ever say that CoH2 is realistic in every aspect and should be?

Why specifically this aspect and not others? Why is this more important that other parts of the game that are not accurate?

its not my fault that you didnt understand my statement.

Your main argument is "CoH2 is not realistic so unrealistic things can be added to the game."

With that argument you can add anything to the game BUT: You have to draw a line somewhere.
Where you draw that line differs from person to person and thats why some people are fine with having units like the ostwind in the game but not with ostwinds fighting in the pacific. Or others who are fine with mixed factions but not with ak47s for the soviets. Or others who cant stand the unrealistic gameplay at all and thus prefer Men of War.

The argument "But the game is unrealistic anyway" doesent work without any restrictions. And those restrictions are the center of this debate.

My argument is that things are the way they are for balance purposes. It is the way it is because its makes a better game. We are not playing a historical simulator. We are playing a game. Things are done to make it a more enjoyable and equal game. Where you draw the line is balance.

Once again, AK47's did not exist in WW2 (which is the period this game is set, multiplayer is 1944 / 45 if I am not mistaken). Russians and Americans did exist in WW2 and you still have not given me undeniable proof that they never ever fought together on any scale.

Can we please all agree that the game is surely unrealistic, but there is a line

Yes we can all agree on that. Where the line is thats the thing that we dont agree on since that is simply based on personal opinions.

For you that line is in a place that allows mixed factions.
For me it isnt.

That doesent mean that you are "right" or i am "wrong" or vice versa since there is no right or wrong in this discussion. I dont like that it because that specific event didnt happen.

Im fine however with other unrealistic parts of the game. And you are surely not okay with certain kinds of unrealistic possible additions either. Its all preference and wether Relic thinks that those preferences are important enough for a change simply depends on quantity I suppose i.e.: How many people would hate mixed factions.

Which battle are we playing though. We are not playing battles that have actually happened and are historic. This isn't a problem but according to you it is an issue that Americans fight with Soviets because this hasn't happened.

Yes the battles in this game happened. Obviously not exactly like we are playing them in multiplayer. But Im not looking for exact reenactments but plausible things.

Because it would be imbalanced, that is why. It is like that because it wouldn't be fun to play if one faction had a clear advantage.

I can think of ways to implement nukes in a balanced way. This has nothing to do with balance but historical accuracy.

Why specifically this aspect and not others? Why is this more important that other parts of the game that are not accurate?

Because its worse in my opinion than other inaccurate aspects in my opinion.
To go with the movie analogy again: Most of the WW2 movies are fine for me despite not being perfectly historically accurate. I like saving private ryan but I would hate if the japanese airforce would help the germans in the last battle. Why? Because that would cross a certain line for me.

My argument is that things are the way they are for balance purposes. It is the way it is because its makes a better game. We are not playing a historical simulator. We are playing a game. Things are done to make it a more enjoyable and equal game. Where you draw the line is balance.

Thats the first time Im reading the term balance in this topic but okay so that was your "argument" all along:

To specify: "Everything is possible as long as it improves gameplay and balance" is your argument?

Once again, AK47's did not exist in WW2 (which is the period this game is set, multiplayer is 1944 / 45 if I am not mistaken). Russians and Americans did exist in WW2 and you still have not given me undeniable proof that they never ever fought together on any scale.

To specify: "Everything is possible as long as it improves gameplay and balance and as long as it existed in some form in the time period of the game" is your argument? Could you please specify the exact time period of the game?

And online play, the tactics and units used how they are being used surely isnt realistic. T34 ram? Tanks surviving multiple shells?

That were realistic, use google for that. Soviet used raming tactics.Tanks survived multiple shells.Depends what about shell we are talking,anyway this part is realistic.

That were realistic, use google for that. Soviet used raming tactics.Tanks survived multiple shells.Depends what about shell we are talking,anyway this part is realistic.

The game severely overexaggerates it, is what i mean. Tanks surviving multiple hits to the back and retreat alive? Every game t34 's resort to ramming heavy tanks... When i first played campaign before anything else, i was really surprised that EVERY SINGLE CONSCRIPT HAD A TAN UNIFORM and that one soldier was complaining about not having a gun... it should be the other way around. Soviets had plenty of guns, clothes were the problem. Boots, gear... many, many conscripts had to bring their own clothes. The USSR was not able to supply every soldier with matching uniforms.

The game severely overexaggerates it, is what i mean. Tanks surviving multiple hits to the back and retreat alive? Every game t34 's resort to ramming heavy tanks... When i first played campaign before anything else, i was really surprised that EVERY SINGLE CONSCRIPT HAD A TAN UNIFORM and that one soldier was complaining about not having a gun... it should be the other way around. Soviets had plenty of guns, clothes were the problem. Boots, gear... many, many conscripts had to bring their own clothes. The USSR was not able to supply every soldier with matching uniforms.

Im not talking about conscripts.Im talking about tanks.Just go to google...And you shall find answers about raming and tanks who survining shells.

Hint for raming: Battle of Kursk. Soviets were raming german's heavy tanks in that battle.

Im not talking about conscripts.Im talking about tanks.Just go to google...And you shall find answers about raming and tanks who survining shells.

Hint for raming: Battle of Kursk. Soviets were raming german's heavy tanks in that battle.

As i said, the game OVEREXAGGERATES IT. At Kursk, the soviets had a lack of Tank Destroyers, and sometimes had to resort to other tactics. Because this game has to stay a game, tanks cannot be disabled in one shot, even if that is how most tanks met their end in reality.

As i said, the game OVEREXAGGERATES IT. At Kursk, the soviets had a lack of Tank Destroyers, and sometimes had to resort to other tactics. Because this game has to stay a game, tanks cannot be disabled in one shot, even if that is how most tanks met their end in reality.

In this situation german tank was disabled.Cmon, just use google.

And not in battle of Kursk

I am pretty sure at this point, you do not know what overexaggerate means.