Why is there only 1 commander now with IL2 loiter. The JU87D is most powerful loiter in the game. And it's available in several docs (Blitzm Lightning war, Jaeger Infantry). The IL2 loiter should be at least in 2 commanders.
I agree that the IL-2 was replaced with a useless IL-2 strafe, effectively removing the ability from the game.
I wouldn't change the skin, but you could slap merge into them perhaps... That may be interesting....
Side note, what about some field reinforcement JUST for partisans? Something akin to pathfinder beacon that only reinforces airborne for the spartisans?
That would allow them to stay behind enemy lines a bugger shit up.
Also in campaign they could create blinds that let em set up ambushes... That would be a huge bonus to them as well...
Even with a merge, a skin replacement is needed. The partisans did not fight in their civilian or uninsigned uniforms in the regular army, but received a standard uniform.
Why not make it so that the Partisans can be reorganized into a regular infantry unit when they retreat to the base? When the partisans met with the regular troops, they were usually poured into the regular rifle units. My idea is that the partisans get the Conscripts skin, change the veterancy ability, maybe even a 5-man squad, but for example with two DP-27 or MG-42/34.
Maybe replace it with M1 ATG without the AP rounds it could be a great boost to T1 builds and the commander.
Interestingly, 400 57mm M1 guns were sent to the USSR. But there are no photographs or reports of use.
For a Lend-Lease, a 40mm Bofors would be suitable.
If I'm not mistaken these were crew modifications, nothing official, and probably discouraged. The Germans had a tendency to add to the T-34's they captured, adding side skirts from salvaged metal and commander copula's from damaged Panzer III's and IV's.
All T-34 tanks with various options for additional armor were factory-made. This modification is from factory # 112. There were other options for additional armor from factory # 112:
Penalty units were only 1.24% of the total strength of the Red Army, so why are penal units the main unit and not a doctrinal one? Why is Germany Penalty units not in the game at all with a similar percentage of competitors? A - accuracy.
Soviets and Ostheer are 1943-1944 based on unit selection and uniforms. For example the T-34-76 Model of 1943 is still their mainstay tank, but doctrines offer T-34-85 Model of 1944 and IS-2 Model of 1944, however the SU-100 is absent. Ostheer are using early-war uniforms and civilian coats in winter maps (to showcase the shortage of uniforms), and also have SdKfz 222's, Model G Panzer IV's, Model A Panthers, and Tiger I's.
USF and OKW are firmly late 1944 to early 1945, being explicitly based on the forces present for the Ardennes Counteroffensive, whilst the British Forces are based on the 1945 judging by the inclusion of the the Comet Tank which did not see action until the final months of the war; although it can also be noted that the Mk III helmet is suspiciously absent from UKF.
I'm with you on that, I do think the team should avoid outright inventing things that did not exist. On the other hand it's probably too late for that because we already have Stun and Incendiary Stielhandgranate's which are both absolute fiction.
The game is completely inconsistent. If the Red Army is here in 1941-1943, why is the KV-1 a doctrinal tank? If 1944-1945 then why is the IS-2 and T-34-85 doctrinal? The conscripts have a 1943 uniform and an RPG-43 AT grenade made in 1943, why do they have a Molotov cocktail? Why PPSh-41 is doctrinal. This game is just a mixture of everything and everyone.
I don't necessarily agree with the term historical accuracy, as it carries the connotation that everything needs to be exact. However, I do agree that the game is less and less historically authentic. I think many balance changes, while good, are done in a way that gradually moves away from historical authenticity.
I am not necessarily upset at the balance team because they're still doing their best to keep the game alive, but I do wish some of the changes were a bit more nuanced and giving more attention to historical backing.
I really really dislike, for example, the addition of the Soviet M2HB in the next patch as it feels like a change for the sake of change, fulfilling basically the same role as DShK with a token buff to its arc. However, my biggest issue is that this also ignores the fact that the M2 .50cals the Soviets received were not infantry variants, but rather vehicle mounted varieties on tanks and halftracks. Instead, the Lend-Lease doctrine could have gotten something far more unique, interesting, and authentic, such as a DShK-armed Universal Carrier. If the balance team insists on sticking to the arbitrary requirement of 'no cross-faction vehicles,' (which IMO is a terrible precedent to set for any potential future updates) I'd rather have the doctrine's DShK remain as-is instead of swapping it out for a 'Lend-Lease .50' that isn't actually faithful to history.
"Balance comes before history" should never be an argument for ahistorical changes because there are always alternative methods that can satisfy BOTH historical authenticity AND gameplay balance.
Yes. The Browning M2 supplied to the USSR was either a tank version. Or AA version like this.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
