russian tanks are the BEST

[Forgery's devil]

change ma mind

[kamikazi21358]

seven

[Dozz]

Okay, i now change your mind, See, done

[Cipher]

They're good but not the best, most are just target practice for me. Mainly T-34s at 3.7 they do have good mobility and are generally balanced from what i seen but easy to kill once you learn how to aim (and have adjustment of fire)

[Doctor Eggman]

They're not the best, its that the British are such damn poor performers and people don't evacuate the tank after it gets penetrated.

[kamikazi21358]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Hatsune Miku:

They're not the best, its that the British are such damn poor performers and people don't evacuate the tank after it gets penetrated.

It’s also a shame we don’t get the special ability to outnumber the other team over 3 to 1 and charge by the hundreds.

[Doctor Eggman]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kamikazi21358:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Hatsune Miku:

They're not the best, its that the British are such damn poor performers and people don't evacuate the tank after it gets penetrated.

It’s also a shame we don’t get the special ability to outnumber the other team over 3 to 1 and charge by the hundreds.

I'd actually enjoy the gameplay being like that, but Gaijin is incompetant and wouldn't be able to make such a mode. Attack - Defence is a mode in various other team based games, and NATO vs USSR would work perfectly with it, but Gaijin doesn't know how to copy paste.

I've already suggested "territory control" before but that's been forgotten to time too.

Essentially my idea is to have the map split into zones. Utilize the full sized maps rather than the tiny 2x2km boxes we have right now. Give NATO team the defensive side with limited respawns and higher repair costs (use a modifier for each side, so USSR tanks cost 0.3x to repair, NATO tanks cost 1x to repair) and the USSR side a larger spawn pool, but with the position that it has to fight an aggressive battle to claim territory from the NATO players, so it would go like this.

NATO sides have to spawn far within their own territory, but they control around 75% of the map, because they own a large amount of territory they can choose what location to spawn on within their side of the map.

USSR begins with a small pool of "territory", but they have to spawn in a singular portion of the map, BUT it has adequate protection with natural cover. (hills, cliffs etc)

The goal of the USSR is to claim territory from NATO sides which involves them having at least 2 tanks in specific "areas" of the map (which means that you can't just suicide in alone and claim the zones), each area claimed allows USSR tanks to spawn there, which allows them to "push" as the attacking side. (Which makes it balanced as each piece of land reclaimed, means less distance for the Soviets to drive)

The defenders being able to choose their spawn will allow them to conquer or tackle specific territories that the USSR tries to conquer, and perhaps reclaim them if they're bold enough; however as their role is defensive they cannot spawn forward spawns, unlike the tanks of the USSR.

Essentially, in territory control, the spawn wont be two points just plonked on the map, it will be a map wide "zone" that the user can select where they want to be positioned, for the USSR it will consider all the territories that they have captured, for NATO, it will be their "side" of the map. (so assuming NATO was on the left, the entire left border of the map would be their spawn)

The victor would be whoever held the most territory at the end of the time limit*, with USSR having to claim at least 60% of the square area of the map to claim victory. *(say 25-30 minutes).

Edit: Too confusing for new players. B)

[Forgery's devil]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Hatsune Miku:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kamikazi21358:

It’s also a shame we don’t get the special ability to outnumber the other team over 3 to 1 and charge by the hundreds.

I'd actually enjoy the gameplay being like that, but Gaijin is incompetant and wouldn't be able to make such a mode. Attack - Defence is a mode in various other team based games, and NATO vs USSR would work perfectly with it, but Gaijin doesn't know how to copy paste.

I've already suggested "territory control" before but that's been forgotten to time too.

Essentially my idea is to have the map split into zones. Utilize the full sized maps rather than the tiny 2x2km boxes we have right now. Give NATO team the defensive side with limited respawns and higher repair costs (use a modifier for each side, so USSR tanks cost 0.3x to repair, NATO tanks cost 1x to repair) and the USSR side a larger spawn pool, but with the position that it has to fight an aggressive battle to claim territory from the NATO players, so it would go like this.

NATO sides have to spawn far within their own territory, but they control around 75% of the map, because they own a large amount of territory they can choose what location to spawn on within their side of the map.

USSR begins with a small pool of "territory", but they have to spawn in a singular portion of the map, BUT it has adequate protection with natural cover. (hills, cliffs etc)

The goal of the USSR is to claim territory from NATO sides which involves them having at least 2 tanks in specific "areas" of the map (which means that you can't just suicide in alone and claim the zones), each area claimed allows USSR tanks to spawn there, which allows them to "push" as the attacking side. (Which makes it balanced as each piece of land reclaimed, means less distance for the Soviets to drive)

The defenders being able to choose their spawn will allow them to conquer or tackle specific territories that the USSR tries to conquer, and perhaps reclaim them if they're bold enough; however as their role is defensive they cannot spawn forward spawns, unlike the tanks of the USSR.

Essentially, in territory control, the spawn wont be two points just plonked on the map, it will be a map wide "zone" that the user can select where they want to be positioned, for the USSR it will consider all the territories that they have captured, for NATO, it will be their "side" of the map. (so assuming NATO was on the left, the entire left border of the map would be their spawn)

The victor would be whoever held the most territory at the end of the time limit*, with USSR having to claim at least 60% of the square area of the map to claim victory. *(say 25-30 minutes).

Edit: Too confusing for new players. B)

would be great if they do add nato vs ussr mode

[Disgruntled Cuttlefish]

Russian tanks? Nothing some AGM-65s can't resolve.

[Happyguy22]

17-pounders would like a word.

[B.D.Godde]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Happyguy22:

17-pounders would like a word.

the best tank ever, the Achilles would like to educate russian tanks on how to feel true pain

[kamikazi21358]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Happyguy22:

17-pounders would like a word.

To bad the T-34 with a 17pdr was actually never built, that would have been the most epic premium ever. Would instantly buy that.

[Happyguy22]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kamikazi21358:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Happyguy22:

17-pounders would like a word.

To bad the T-34 with a 17pdr was actually never built, that would have been the most epic premium ever. Would instantly buy that.

the question is, would it be worth it? The main advantage of the British tanks with it is they reload fast, but tend to be hull down tanks - it's more dangerous to expose the hull than it is to show the turret. The T-34 meanwhile is more of a tank for offensive in game. Getting caught out of position in the T-34 is more dangerous than say a Centurion Mk1 or Sherman Firefly due to the crew layout and it needs to be close to make sure it can accurately land a shot.


Also, I'd say the Comet is basically the T-34 of Britain, being fast and having a really strong frontal armour.


Though I'd love to see one. It'd be damn good. It's like if the US would give the British a Abrams hull and for the UK to mount the L30A1. A Infantry mans worst nightmare HESH is only useful on Concrete and against infantry. we were going to have a smoothbore but MoD was like "no mate we need a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ aircraft carrier so we can wank off the usa so we can put out F-35's on their ♥♥♥♥♥♥ carriers" smh we need better tanks and out own aircraft you tossers we need a new tsr, give tsr-3 rant over[/spoilers]

[kamikazi21358]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Happyguy22:

~

Russian tanks are my favourite, for me at least, it would totally be worth it. Which combined with this, the 17pdr is one of my favourite guns, second only to the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70, when it comes to guns of this caliber, as I love the powerful solid-shot APCBC with 189mm of penetration (and I loved it when it was 170 some or whatever). Plus, although I haven’t really even used it much, it gets APDS capabilities, so that is a plus.

[Happyguy22]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από kamikazi21358:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Happyguy22:

~

Russian tanks are my favourite, for me at least, it would totally be worth it. Which combined with this, the 17pdr is one of my favourite guns, second only to the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70, when it comes to guns of this caliber, as I love the powerful solid-shot APCBC with 189mm of penetration (and I loved it when it was 170 some or whatever). Plus, although I haven’t really even used it much, it gets APDS capabilities, so that is a plus.

The APDS is what is really special. Pretty sure the APDS was the 17-pdr gets is the first one to show up on high caliber guns.

To be frank, the 6pdr should have it as well. There was a reddit post on it, and I found a potential source for its use in the Churchill https://imgur.com/a/ipejQ

I want to be able to snipe using my Churchill, good and proper.
Enough of my tangent though, I'll just leave it at that.

[kamikazi21358]

The problem about 6pdr APDS, is you have to be careful for which tanks get it. For example, I hope we get a “Crusader Mk.III/Late” version, where it looks like a late War variant with APDS, because in this case it might actually effect BR. Same with Churchills, they’re at the BRs they’re at specifically because they’re excellent with armour, but terrible with mobility and poor with firepower. APDS would change that, and probably make the Churchill a little bit too strong. As most of these tanks in question are lower BRs.