Why isn't game realistic?

[PANZERKÜNST]

^

[Drive2xs]

Just a pro russain game made by russains which used to be fun odd results. Now it's a bunch of OP BS.

[Nadlug]

Originalmente postado por D_loaded:

Originalmente postado por Nadlug:

Realism can only go so far. If the game was totaly realistic the Tiger H1 and E would be praticly unbetable to the vast majority of vehciles that would encounter it.

T-34 teams would have 3 times as many players as their opponents at least.

Americans would have to slog through the countryside with Long barrel Panzer 4's picking them off one by one from extreme range

I wish it was like that

It would be interesting to see as a gimmick if a team of entrenched Tigers, Panthers, and Jadgpanthers could hold off a T-34 swarm. Just looking at historical battle between german and russian tanks, even though most of the time germany was lost the loss of vehicles on the russian side dispite their overwhelmig numbers is staggering.

Im looking at some estimates for the battle of Kursk and its around 6 Russian tanks for every german tank. With the germans fielding 2928 tanks and 9966 guns and mortars, versus 5128 tanks 25,013 guns and mortars on the russian side. Estimated total losses (ground vehicle wise) 323 for germany, up to 1956 for russia.

The aircraft and Infantry sides of the offensive are pretty much comparable.

[Tankfriend]

Originalmente postado por Takt Torhüter:

What I dont find fun is that they have the audacity to make the quality of steel plating on the tiger equal to that of what Kruschev and Yuri found in garbage and melted down in their crockpot with tin and rubber.

The quality of German armour is possibly overrated. For example, Guderian in his book "Panzer Leader" has a paragraph on the Germans taking a look at the T-34 in 1941, and he's mentioning in that context how the Germans had a disadvantage in steel alloys due to material shortages turning up.

The Soviets also did tests on German equipment and were, apparently, not generally impressed by it. Of course some of their testing methods are rather dubious (like shooting the same plate over and over; though that was common practice at the time not just for them), but it's still the only stuff we have. And when armour plates crack at first hit, it does speak for itself.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/

[Schnittertm]

Originalmente postado por Takt Torhüter:

^

You want realistic?

Download DCS:World and try to get the free TF-51 (civilian version of the P-51) into the air, that should occupy you for quite some time.

[Schnittertm]

Originalmente postado por Tankfriend:

Originalmente postado por Takt Torhüter:

What I dont find fun is that they have the audacity to make the quality of steel plating on the tiger equal to that of what Kruschev and Yuri found in garbage and melted down in their crockpot with tin and rubber.

The quality of German armour is possibly overrated. For example, Guderian in his book "Panzer Leader" has a paragraph on the Germans taking a look at the T-34 in 1941, and he's mentioning in that context how the Germans had a disadvantage in steel alloys due to material shortages turning up.

The Soviets also did tests on German equipment and were, apparently, not generally impressed by it. Of course some of their testing methods are rather dubious (like shooting the same plate over and over; though that was common practice at the time not just for them), but it's still the only stuff we have. And when armour plates crack at first hit, it does speak for itself.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/

It might be that, though I don't think that on general the steel used for German tanks was that bad.

However, right now it seems that the Tiger II is the only tank that gets a negative modifier for its armor because of 'bad steel quality', whereas a lot of T-34's should also get that, maybe even more so than the Tiger II's. They did have a harder plating, but that was often created uneven and was even more prone to cracking and spalling when hit by the high velocity 75mm and 88mm guns. The main part that made the T-34 hard to crack wasn't the quality of its steel, but the layout of its armor and that wasn't much of a help anymore once the KwK36, KwK42 and KwK 40 in its L43 and L48 variants appeared.

Overmatch also is something that apparently is supposed to be in the game, but if it is, I'm never really seeing it. Any angled surface is very bouncy in this game.

There is also something else not modeled, an armor plate being hit several times, which would weaken it, especially if hit by overmatching shells. Then again, tanks hit by shells that don't overmatch the armor have been know to survive a lot of hits. There are Tiger's hit over 200 times without penetration. Sure, they are far and few between, but on average I think most Tiger's weren't penetrated as easily.

Also, there are 'myth busting' reports on the T-34 out on the internet, too:

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

And if you look at the loses of T-34's in the war due to combat, breakdown and missing spare parts, then the USSR lost almost as much T-34's as the entire Wehrmacht lost in AFV's.

In the game the tables are hugely reversed, as each tank is supposed to be at its best quality and with the added mobility granted by just one person commanding it and having a supreme view of the battlefield on the scale that no tank commander back then had, the T-34 is elevated to a level of battlefield success that it couldn't replicate in real life. If even only the early T-34's had been half as powerful as represented in the game, Germany would have lost the war by mid-1942 due to being overrun by the Russian tank force and losing all their AFV's.

I'm also cautious of single quotes by people concerning steel quality and such, even if they come from a very prominent source such as Guderian, as he certainly wasn't a specialist in the field of steel quality, he certainly wasn't an engineer that worked on steel formulas and hardening techniques day in, day out and often if a layman like that is told something he might misunderstand or misrepresent certain information he has gotten from experts in the field. It happens often enough in the media, either unknowingly or sometimes even deliberately in the form of quote mining and misrepresenting those quotes.

He was right about one thing, though, that the T-34's armor layout was superior to the German tanks, yet the German tanks were built to be operated more comfortably (Turret basket, radio, enough space for crew members, layout of workstations, commanders cupola, etc.). They finally struck a quite nice balance of that in the Panther tanks, though certain mechanic parts were still overengineered or underpowered/to weak to hold up to the rigors of armored combat in rough terrain.

[Grey Lensman]

Originalmente postado por Gotgo:

Because there is a line in a 'realistic' game where it becomes unfun. Gaijin just likes to pick and choose what they decide should be real and what shouldn't.

Like the CEO and his brother who enjoy trolling bombers/fighters in Arcade GF you mean?. But not one single player wanted it.

[Salvo Wolf]

Interesting article...

Favorite Quote from it "The T-34 looked good on paper but in the battlefield its ‘soft’ flaws led to huge losses. Meanwhile Western tanks like the M4 Sherman and Pz IV may have lacked sloped armor or wide tracks but they were better combat systems overall."

anyway, your URL link was having issues so here it is for people who didnt get it http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

[Schnittertm]

Originalmente postado por Salvo Wolf:

Interesting article...

Favorite Quote from it "The T-34 looked good on paper but in the battlefield its ‘soft’ flaws led to huge losses. Meanwhile Western tanks like the M4 Sherman and Pz IV may have lacked sloped armor or wide tracks but they were better combat systems overall."

anyway, your URL link was having issues so here it is for people who didnt get it http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

Yeah, I noticed that I didn't set one of the brackets right, corrected it. Thanks for the reminder, though.

[V11CU96]

The only thing that needs more realism is your expectations.
More realism in games doesnt usually = more fun for gamers or more profit for developers,
If WT was a pure hardecore combat sim, it would have a faction of its current player base.
and it would not have so much new content updates for free.

Imo WTs 'realism vs fun' balance is just fine. it offers 3 modes of realsim what more do you want? AB and RB are very different to play, but both are alot of fun in different ways, just depends on my mood.

Russia is OP? cant speak for GF, but in air battles I have no problem murdering most Yak9s, Its the Spits & FW190s that scare me the most!

[XAP7AS]

Originalmente postado por Takt Torhüter:

^

the arcade mode is already realistic ,way more realistic than tanks with health bars (aka WoT)

if you want to play realistic go simulator mode ,not arcade

[Tankfriend]

Originalmente postado por Schnittertm:

Overmatch also is something that apparently is supposed to be in the game, but if it is, I'm never really seeing it. Any angled surface is very bouncy in this game.

Supposedly, armour overmatch in the game only happens when your projectile has at least 7 (!) times the caliber as the thickness of armour that it hits. Which means that it simply doesn't happen for all practical intents and purposes, because even a full-caliber 152mm shell would only overmatch up to ~22mm of armour.

And that's complete rubbish. Real overmatch doesn't mean guaranteed penetration (just improved penetration power / less effective armour thickness). And it's also not limited by an arbitrary threshold, but always occurs when your projectile caliber is higher than the armour thickness it hits.

There is also something else not modeled, an armor plate being hit several times, which would weaken it, especially if hit by overmatching shells.

This I honestly see as a part of "realism" that should be left out for the sake of gameplay. Most players not in the know would probably see it as bugs, cheats or something else because they have no idea what's happening. It's also bad in so far as that you can no longer rely on your tanks, which would probably force people to play even more defensively / campy.

I'm also cautious of single quotes by people concerning steel quality and such, even if they come from a very prominent source such as Guderian, as he certainly wasn't a specialist in the field of steel quality, he certainly wasn't an engineer that worked on steel formulas and hardening techniques day in, day out and often if a layman like that is told something he might misunderstand or misrepresent certain information he has gotten from experts in the field. It happens often enough in the media, either unknowingly or sometimes even deliberately in the form of quote mining and misrepresenting those quotes.

Of course it has to be taken with a grain of salt, like any source material / witness account ever. It's not a reliable proof of anything all by itself, afterall. But what it does is casting doubt on the almost mythical notion of "Krupp steel" which seems so prevalent.
From that point, you can add other materials like those Soviet firing tests to back it up.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Guys what the hell most of you talking about? Some guys think realistic game = real war equipment with accurate quantity. Its not like that. Half of this game is broken. Match making is broken. A Tiger 2 didnt fought against a T-54. Now thats unrealistic. Maps are unrealistic. You think real tank battles happens like that? Objectives are unrealistic. What OP means with realism that kind of stuff. Real penetration, real shell damage statistics. When you look at the details you'll see that Russian BIAS is real thing. This is a russian game after all. Dont expect much. It takes way less skill to play a russian tank than a german or usa tank.

[V11CU96]

An ultra realstic World War 2 game would invlove doing absolutley nothing but waiting for something to happen 99% of the time, and when it finally does happen - there a 50% chance that 'something' is you getting killed without any warning. No respawn.

Careful what you wish for.

[NAF-5th.Legion-Waffen.Div]

Originalmente postado por Wild Salmon:

Originalmente postado por Nadlug:

Realism can only go so far. If the game was totaly realistic the Tiger H1 and E would be praticly unbetable to the vast majority of vehciles that would encounter it.

T-34 teams would have 3 times as many players as their opponents at least.

Americans would have to slog through the countryside with Long barrel Panzer 4's picking them off one by one from extreme range

Actually Brad Pitt killed a tiger in an m4 and that was a realistic movie.

lol this!!!.....Fury is not a realistic movie in any way!

[Bovril Brigadier]

If this game was Realistic the most common round fired would be HE as the most dangerous thing on the field to any real tanker is an AT Gun. Considering AT Guns are easier to conceal and nearly always fire off the first shot you can be guaranteed there will be a lot of smoking wrecks. Then tanks would go absolutely nowhere near roads for fear of AT mines and avoid towns altogether for fear of AT armed Infantry. In fact Tanks would mostly consist of everyone hundled together in the middle of a field like a group of penguins as they'd be too scared to go anywhere else.