Are you in love with me? ... let me tell you that it was Warhawks who started talking about realism, regardless of the game (read the hawks post), he deviated from the topic, and here people should come to talk about the game.
the only link i made between game and realism was that in both cases strategy and tactics are more important than the pure cost of a unit or weapon.
And that applies so far to all strategy games i play so far.
With luck the jeep would have a 2% chance to destroy the tiger (which has a small machine gun), being optimistic ..... Result of the encounter: Destroyed Jeep, usually
In the game
The jeep will depend on its ability to evade the tiger cannon shot, if it succeeds, the tiger will be destroyed, because the jeep would look for the blind spot of the tiger to shoot the projectiles, and in addition the turret of the tiger turns very slow to have it in sight, if I'm not wrong the jeep in motion has a minimum of 60% chance to avoid the tiger cannon shot ... result of the encounter: the tiger tank is destroyed
Like any good 12 year old boy, I see that the reality of which you speak so much, is very well applied in bk mod
Too bad, in game guns (tanks and AT guns) do not suffer accuracy penalties against moving tanks as well. Schrecks/zooks suffer further 50% accuracy penalty. That way moving tanks arround all the time would become a more potent tactic (eg flanking). After the war the russians gave up with their very heavy tanks. They continued shortly after but during cold war they considered speed and mobility and low profile as "armor". Speed itself was a considered active armor. Thats why the t80 could reach astonishing 80 kph and more. That only changed when automated targeting systems got implemented.
But generally i would love to see that guns having it harder to hit moving targets, even against moving tanks.
Viper wrote:true......but also this does not mean that cheap units should easily dominate expensive stuff.........
In 1944 it happend to be that a greyhound from a recon unit ambushed a kt, followed up and closed in to 25 meters and destroyed the kt or rather its engine. Just saying.
Or IS 2 tanks getting killed by panzerfausts and cheap hetzer tanks.
And i dont see how cheap units "easily" dominate expensive stuff unless this cheap unit is a type specifically designed to take out the expensive type (eg anti tank weapons vs tanks). But if you put the same type of unit against another one that costs more, the winner is usually the expensive one. Every other outcome is usually regarded to superior player skill from the guy using the cheap unit.
bk mod suffers in many ways from this issue since many years (in addition to problematic artillery)....and more expensive units are usually on the axis side, thats why i think playing axis is harder. and this does not have anything to do with doctrine design or core game balance. but it is more an issue of the gameplay mechanism in the mod.
There were many more occassions where super expensive shit gets killed by cheap stuff when using the right tactics. Even today million dollar tanks get killed by cheap rpgs and moltov cocktails.
Brits have no cheap stuff at all which they can use as meatshields. They are the real fucked guys when it comes to arty parties and suffer most from heavy losses to arty. You cant avoid to invest over 400 MP if you want to get any kind of unit, Axis dont need to spend much if artillery becomes too dense and dangerous for expensive units.
Axis also have lots of cheap expendable and easily deployable stuff. They do have expensive stuff everywhere, but they also have some of the cheapest and most cost effective units in the entire game. And that is what makes them actually good. Having a choice to go either cheap or expensive. You can start with volks (clearly cheaper than rifles), over Hetzers and nice HT´s with brutal HE guns and 20 mm armed vehicles for low cost. Cheap Tank IV J´s and cheap arty. So there are expensive units available, yes, but tons of cheap stuff that you can use to support them.