Quote:
Originally Posted by Crni vuk
no shit sherlock.
But realism isnt always equal to fun. And I do support every kind of realism. But I dont want to get stuck in a map just cause I destroyed the enemy tank in the midle of a crossroad or bridge. Make more open maps and I dont care. But some if not half of the maps are designed with bottlenecks. And here I am ready to trade somewhat realism with gameplay. Also tanks do already block with their wrecks, not very effectively but sometimes enough to buy you some time.
Also eventually destroyed vehicles would be either recovered or removed if needed anyway. So its not completely unrealistic that you can move it. Just assume you had someone doing it or towing the wreck away.
|
Total realism can be fun. Personally I'm in favor of making the guns completely realistic. ie a PaK 43 should have 200+ Penetration at +2km. Now arguably this makes Germany imba because they had the best guns of WW2, but that's why you make Shermans T-34s dirt cheap. They should be like 1/5 of the cost of a Tiger.
Why do this do you ask?
Well as it is the tactics for MoW are pretty much universal, and it doesn't really matter what faction you use, the tactics you employ will be pretty similar. However under my idea the game becomes incredibly diverse tactically. In WWII each country had it's own strategic, operational and tactical doctrine to fit their assets and equipment.
So this means that each country will have it's own unique set of tactics to match it's assets. Thus making the game much more challenging to master, or at least to master all 5 factions. I suggest things be made completely realistic and historically accurate, then unit costs can be tweaked to make everything balanced.