Why take completely unhistorical approch to vehicles?

[Inuki]

Originally Posted by aop

I though Men of War was supposed to be somewhat realistic and historically correct but then I noticed the British have both Black Prince and Centurion and neither of them served on European continent or saw any action during World War 2.

They already have 17pdr armed Achilles, Sherman Firefly and Comet. Wasn't that enough? Did they really need a post-war tank and a prototype that never served?

What next? Give yeankees M48 Patton?

The battles you are playing are not a part of world war 2. Every skirmish game, Every multiplayer game, never actually happened historically.

I find this an outrage. When I join a multiplayer game I want everything to be 100% historically accurate. Joe biship from my 2nd squad didn't throw a hand grenade in a 4v4. What a load of old toss! Those jerry rogers didn't even have a panzer IV behind that house in real life!

-

Point is. What happens in the game is not an event in world war 2. It's not a battle that took place and even if it was. You are here to change what happened with your play style.

-

As a side note though. You can have a realistic rendition of Starcraft. There are different levels of realism too. Units with HP is not realistic which is what starcraft 2 uses. But imagine if all the physics worked like Men of War? Zerglings actually ripping marines arms off or climbing on top of tanks trying to destroy the hull. Carriers crashing to the ground into roaches smearing debris all over a building. This is more realistic even though the concept of the entire thing is completely surreal! Those tanks did exist though. Unlike anything in Starcraft. The units fit well in the game. Which is more realistic than inventing make belief tanks up and throwing them in the game. Which would also be fine as long as the tanks fit the era. The balance of the game is important.