Profile of Senseo1990

Well that highly depends on how they implement it: If there were only two ranges (0-50% short range, 50-100% long range) you wouldnt need to "hug" the enemy tank to gain maximal penetration.

Brings a lot of interesting balance possibilities and unit-role redesigns...Panthers having to kite t34/76s to retain their armour advantage (but having to get close and flank SU85s)...pz4s being an equal match to t34/76s at short range...stugs being so much greater at long range compared to pz4s...ISU152s and IS2s being efficient at longer ranges. A lot of potentially great stuff.

If range-dependant tank combat played that much of a role some kind graphical indicator wether your tank is engaging at long or short range would be amazing though. Green crosshair cursor when attacking at short range, red one when attacking a unit that is far away for example.

German: "Die Bruecke" (The Bridge) - the newer version

Never... ever... watch the new Version of this movie. While it tries to be a serious remake of the classic it feels like an awful parody.

+1

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?

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.