Not only that, but you have to actually coordinate between tanks designed for different roles. I mean, honestly, you don't have to do the "Secret Arad Death Maneuver" (a.k.a. park and shoot) in late war tanks, but that's how people use them. On BDJ, SMART teams actually work together to do more than just park and shoot. Maneuvering counts for a lot.
But one thing that changes in the later war maps is that the tanks are far more homogenous in design and role. Not so with early war tanks. Different tank doctrines exist in the early war that change over time (certainly on the Eastern Front, anyway). These require not only smarter tank use, but also coordinated efforts.
Especially on a combined arms map like Berezina, you wouldn't be able to expect your cavalry tanks to do park 'n' shoot against enemy medium tanks. Likewise, your slower infantry tanks would be able to take a beating, but would be ill-suited towards exploiting a breach.
Anyway, I think the early war approach requires people to think differently and makes the two sides much more distinct. With the later war maps, it's easy to sort of fall into a "T-34-85 = Pz IV h; IS-2 = Tiger I" mentality. Granted, the tanks are a lot more nuanced than all that, but even so, late war has vehicles that are much closer in design to each other than early war stuff.
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
