Vehicle Weight

[Korsakov829]

Slightly yes. But in the games case you can move it several kilometers on full speed before running out of fuel.

[Crni vuk]

thing is just, if you make it very hard it could block some routes like bridges entirely which would not be all to suportive for the gameplay eventualy, except you find ways how to push those vehicles away.

[Korsakov829]

It would add to the realisim a bit if you couldn't though.

[kane1]

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

It would add to the realisim a bit if you couldn't though.

Your right about that, but for gameplay if you couldn't move the destoryed vehicles out of the way the battle field would get too clogged up, like "The Last Stand" where the tanks come in wave after wave.

[Korsakov829]

I have an idea. Why don't we see to it this is modded, and try it out?

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

It would add to the realisim a bit if you couldn't though.

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.

[FM_Von_Manstein]

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.

[Crni vuk]

just that how it is already now you face situations where you cant do anything with the Tiger II and Jagdtiger beeing almost invincible.

Realistic weapons would be great. As long they fitt the gameplay. The maps dont suport the size nor tactical engagements that realistic weapons and ranges would require. Like the artillery for example as with the size we have an artillery never would be used not to mention just with one single gun. Yet without huge formations and other rather tactical possibilites it would be extremly difficult for the allies.

Even if the Shermans would have the cost of infantry units if they die like flies they are exactly that worth. Flies. Because the size of a map just alows so much flanking. And tactical superiority cant be shown on the level of which MoW plays because the real strength of the US army was not simply the superiorty in numbers alone. For example air superiority together with a strong economy and most important the mobility. During either 43 or 44 the Wehrmacht still had some 14 000 horses in use for the guns and equipment while the US army was at some point completely motorized, German infantry still had to cross terain in large numbers on foot while the typical GI could at least most of the time fall back on trucks, halftracks and other vehicles for transport even tanks if the situation called for it. This meant a fast deployment of troops in short time for example. Situations like the tactical encirclement in Foy cant be portrayed in a game that has maybe 100 troops on the screen at the same time. Making German equipment more expensive might be a start. But I am not sure if it would solve everything. You have to give the allies somehow a chance to attack the Germans head on or its a loost battle for them most of the time considering the layout of most maps. Well you have to give the allies at least a chance to "stand" that is. And if all of your tanks can be already penetrated ALL THE TIME literaly from every courner in the map ... then you will have no chance.

[Korsakov829]

Shermans aren't worth a thing unless your going up a machine gun emplacement or against no tanks. The 50mm easily destroys it from the side. My 12 tank kill streak proves it.