The historical sight should be 5.0 magnification not what we have in game which is 2.5 .
The gun shoots fast yes it does but that also makes it impossible to track the shot with the commander like we need to do with the tigers at long range .
That is where the 5.0 magnification comes in .
Being that currently the game only goes through 1943, we ended up with the early Ausf A with the TZF12 gun sight. The TZF12a 5x didn’t start coming out until December 43. We actually meant to model the D and expand from theret as we progressed later into 44 and 45, but there was a miscommunication in our production pipeline and they modelled the A instead. Being that the A was produced from August until late November 43 with the TZF12, and not wanting to delay any longer for an artwork rework from the A back to the D, that’s what you got. We will include the TZF12a in the future as a load out or “perk” option with the A or when we do the 1944 G model.
So let me get this straight Allies get with the FF a 1944 tank while Axis get to tool around with a 1943 tank. Didn’t you just say the game only goes till 1943 ? Yes you sure did the FF didnt make an appearance till January 1944 .
So the Panther should have it 5.0 magnification sight as it was already on the battlefield a month before the FF made landfall in France .
The Hellcat makes sense as it was July 1934 to october 1944 production line. But the FF is another fantasy the Allies get as our game as you said it yourself only goes till 1943 .
In other words its what another few years before we see an upgrade on the Panther , while we fight the FF that shouldn’t even be in game per the game timeline .
That is great and you guys wonder why people leave the game and use the ugly B word .
“1943 onwards”
Did you just seriously link the years where it says 1944 is planned and the FF is a 1944 tank aka planned means not in game , thanks for making my point .
Goes through 1943 means from January 1943 to December 1943 , January 1944 would mean 1944 and the FF didn’t see the battlefield till 1944 so it should be disqualified from the spawn list as you so pointed out that 1944 is planned and not in game per you wwiiol wiki link.
So more tiers with more ∗∗∗∗ for hyperspecificity is planned. If you want to go by dates the T0 would be even worse for axis since the 4D and 3B didnt come out til after may 10
You keep forgetting that Axis didnt win vs France and the Brits cause of superior Armor on the main land but of superior communications, you want that modeled for the Allies ?
Fact still remains that Allies roll around with a 1944 tank in 1943 while the Germas cant get the gun sight it should have . Either we do 1944 or we dont its that simple .
@dre21 Seriously. I hope stepping back to look at a bigger picture will calm you down so we don’t have to worry about you and heart/stroke problems…
1) If you want to claim that a Firefly is anywhere near the capability of the Panther (or the Tiger I for that matter), OR 2) that a 30 day descrepancy between the Firefly’s historical Jan 44 vs a slightly early 1943 debut to be able to give the British SOMETHING (“sort of” their own) with which to go up against the Tiger I (and now the Panther) is in any way shape or form”unfair” or “biased” torwards the Allies in any way, I think that maybe you should seek professional help.
Now maybe if we’d dropped the Pershing, Comet, or Centurion in with the Panther instead of the M18 and Valentine, I could be far more sympathetic to your position…
3) The object isnt to engineer or model one side consistently winning or losing at any given point during the war (which is what I interperet as your expectation by this outburst), but rather to build the most technologically accurate (by performance) representative and balanced WWII playground that we can so that BOTH sides feel at least relatively equal, enough so for the possibility of their side to be able to win. It is our opinion that engineering one side or the other to always win or lose, intentionally or by accident, would have far more negative consequences on game longevity than our current trajectory as flawed or historically “stretched” as it may be.
@catcoder2
“1943 onwards”
Fixed that for you.
Lol , no what i want is you guys stay true to your claim , you said 1943 , FF is 1944 so it shouldn’t even be in game PERIOD full stop . Either we do 1944 for both or we do none its that simple .
For some ∗∗∗ reason you people that come up with the equipment list have no issues bending the rules when it comes to the Allied side but when it comes to Axis it needs to be strict by the year introduction.
To get the correct sight is not to much to ask , and what you wrote as your initial response is a joke and any Axis player will read it as such . Stuff like that costs you guys subscriptions .
You claim equal , better camo better gun sight and gun tbat kills 1 shot while ( plenty of videos from players where m10 have shootouts with Tigers , S76 surviving multiple hits just to one shot Tigers , ∗∗∗∗ i got a video Panther vs m18 where i have a shootout with it me in elevated position. My favorite to this day is still my 4g vs M10 from an elevated position for him to when he finally did hit me take out my gunner while he survived AP and HE hits in the double digits . So please spare me your Axis superior spiel. I could care less who wins the map , never cared but i would like to see my 75mm stug round punch through the sherman turret side shot which usually it doesnt and unless i hit a certain spot its a shootout scenario .
If you call it an outburst it pretty much tells me you give a rats ∗∗∗ what a paying customer has to say .
What you dont like is that i called you out on what you posted and pointed out the faults in your post that is why you deflect it now on me .
Leave the FF in i dont give a hoot , but give the Panther its right gun sight , either like i said we do 1944 for both or we dont . That is the point .
Come allied and youll see they have lots of complaints about bias towards axis. Again, directly by the date would lead to matilda in T0 but no axis armor powerful enough to counter it
Please tell me which axis Armor is poweful enough vs the Matilda in tier 0 , there is none stug3b and the 4d their gun is low velocity, the 3f and the 38t that is a nope and the Panzerjäger1 good luck any inf around its already dead. Even our tier 1 3h needs to be less then 500 meters away from it and then side shot to be successful, if the 1st hit doesnt do the trick 3h is toast . When we asked for the pak38 in limited numbers Allied player protested and pointed to production date , sound familiar 1944 and FF . Even that the pak 38 was produced early it just didnt see action cause france gave up and the brits left dunkirk.
I dont want to ise the word bias im jist trying to piint out to Hatch what gets perceived as bias , and saying we do 1943 but not 1944 and then have a Allied tank that is 1944 gives that impression.
If anything progress Ammo , have mulitple load outs available , so it makes sense but not that it throws off balance .
I got nothing against balance , but either we do things the right way or not . Like i said 1944 for both or we dont .
Ah. No. I explained to you exactly what happened during the modeling of the A vs. the D version and that instead of waiting another month to redo the artwork for a D model, we went with the historically accurate Aug-Nov ‘43 A variant.
To which you went off the rails about a Firefly that is in no way comparable to the Panther (or Tiger I) that earlier got put into the game a month early by someone prior to my being here, that really matters for squat in the overall scheme of things… Then you post a bunch of anecdotal examples trying to argue that ANY one of the Allied tank destroyers are somehow equivalent to the Tiger OR the Panther that ISN’T even applicable anymore because the HE bug behind those anomalies has been fixed since then.
“What you dont like is that i called you out on what you posted and pointed out the faults in your post that is why you deflect it now on me.”
Whatever… I stand by my first post 1000%. I even gave you examples of where it WOULD have mattered had we modeled those and brought them in early….
Heck. IF we had made the community wait another month on the D instead of going with the “early A” (even though the majority of A’s built from Aug to Nov of 43 kept their TZF12 2.5x sight throughout the duration of the war) we wouldn’t even be having this ridiculous discussion.
Thanks for the heads up. Should we ever make the same mistake again, just to be as safe as possible from possible criticism, we’ll just hold em back from release as long as the art rework takes (even with historical precedent) so as to prevent folks like you popping your tops and making mountains out of molehills. Got it.
You think telling us we get the D model would have been a better outcome ? Still the fact is Allies got a 1944 tank vs which would be even worse the Axis the early version of Panther .
Fact, Axis roll around in a 1943 tank Allied get a 1944 tank but we dont go past 1943 as you said .
Please tell me you play this game under a different name cause if you dont i dont even know why i argue with someone that doesnt play the game and doesnt see the effects on a day to day basis in the Armor vs Armor game .
The FF is only a topic cause of the gun sight nothing more nothing less. Again advanced in technology while Axis are stuck in 1943 . But apparently you dont want to except that fact .
But as you said the upgraded sight for the Panther didnt come out till December 1943 but for the Allies why would we make a big fuss about 1 month as it saw action in January of 1944 . 1 month on both pieces of equipment and one got the shorter end of the stick .
Only a 30 day descrepancy as you stated .
Sir, this is a tool for reporting bugs
@lovewing Thanks. My apologies for the extra spilt fuel.
Forest and trees. Both sides have had their say. Bottom line, Firefly, is in no way shape or form equivalent to a Panther of any model and as previously mentioned, within 30 days of historical deploy window depending on sources. Point being, the Axis end out on top regardless of TZF12 or TZF12a gun sight. There is no logic that changes that fact. This topic is therefore closed.