"БДШ" for T-34-85

[777mais777]

Unfortunetly, I dont understand more than 50% of what 777Mais777 is usually saying . I think he wants smoke. But the thing is, T-34 doesn't necessarily need it

Respected Fishhunterx, why you so think? (except: balance> history)

[Blackbishop]

[...]
Respected Fishhunterx, why you so think? (except: balance> history)

Adding smoke to the T-34/85 would make it OP, besides it is a capable tank, thus it doesn't need it. From that point of view, you don't even need to discuss anything else, if it breakes the balance>history equation it doesn't need any further discussion. T-34/85 is fine as it is, it doesn't need new stuff just for the sake of it or for becoming "perfect". We don't need to add anything else to scramble balance.

In other words, T-34/85 will never throw smoke screen for Eastern Front. The only way this could be implemented would be in the campaign, if the other devs think is OK.

[777mais777]

[...]
Respected Fishhunterx, why you so think? (except: balance> history)

Adding smoke to the T-34/85 would make it OP, besides it is a capable tank, thus it doesn't need it. From that point of view, you don't even need to discuss anything else, if it breakes the balance>history equation it doesn't need any further discussion. T-34/85 is fine as it is, it doesn't need new stuff just for the sake of it or for becoming "perfect". We don't need to add anything else to scramble balance.

In other words, T-34/85 will never throw smoke screen for Eastern Front. The only way this could be implemented would be in the campaign, if the other devs think is OK.

Your will-law.

[Pac-Fish]

Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either ). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no .

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason . They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank

[777mais777]

Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either ). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no .

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason . They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses.

[cephalos]

Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either ). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no .

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason . They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses.

LoL, I can't imagine "smaller losses" or "equipment preservation" in soviet style 

[Pac-Fish]

Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either ). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no .

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason . They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses.

LoL, I can't imagine "smaller losses" or "equipment preservation" in soviet style 

Just b/c the Soviets lost the most people during the war, doesn't mean they dont like to keep their outfits and the equipment shiny and new

[Tankbuster]

They just replaced it, I guess

[777mais777]

Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either ). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no .

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason . They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses.

LoL, I can't imagine "smaller losses" or "equipment preservation" in soviet style 

Just b/c the Soviets lost the most people during the war, doesn't mean they dont like to keep their outfits and the equipment shiny and new

Probably......We  weren't then...