The Panzer IV G seeing that some had a better gun and thicker armor than the Pz IV F2 and was most produced was a very good vehicle to add. The 'waste of time' was having the rare F2 version in game to begin with. If the "G" is a 'waste of time' then one would wonder why TW wasted its time adding a T34/85 when the 34/76 was sufficient.
Maybe I'm thinking of the Panzer IV H that was recently added. I agree that adding the F2 was a waste of time when they could've just added the G from the start and left it at that. Regardless, given how the game operated, adding the G and/or H models was relatively unnecessary in terms of differences in in-game performance. The gun isn't so dramatically better that it can beat an angled T-34 of either variety, and the armor isn't so dramatically better that it can survive that much longer. Pretty much a mid-war tank fight is a mid-war tank fight in this game, regardless of which tank you're driving.
Now, with AB, that's different, but I'm talking stock RO. The G/H models may have had real meaningful differences in real life, but in terms of gameplay, it basically means you survive one extra shot -- maybe. Most of the time you're still dead in 2 hits. So in that sense, they spent all that time adding these things and not a whole hell of a lot changed.
Adding early war vehicles would be a 'waste of time' seeing that this game currently focuses on the mid to late war period (Do we even have any official barbarossa maps?)
That's actually my point. We DON'T have any early war maps, and the game already focuses on the mid/late-war. So why add more of the same? Adding early war tanks would BROADEN the game considerably and would drastically change how tank warfare plays out. Cavalry tanks and light tanks would have to be used VERY differently from medium tanks. You can't just drive, park, and shoot with a light tank. Maneuvering is far more important. Likewise, the early war tanks played drastically different roles from the mid- and late-war tanks.
Before tank doctrine changed to the more medium-tank oriented force, the Soviet doctrine was closer to the British doctrine of slow-moving, heavy-hitting infantry tanks designed to be supported closely by infantry and built for taking out entrenched targets, and fast-moving cavalry tanks or cruiser tanks designed to exploit the breaches in the lines created by the heavier infantry tanks. That's quite different from the German doctrine which was more oriented around medium tanks (albeit medium tanks performing split duties such as the Panzer III/Panzer IV split in roles).
This means you have asymmetrical forces on the field, which requires players to fight differently and use different tactics than just drive, park, shoot, blow up, rinse, repeat. So, again, that means the gameplay BROADENS, rather than stays the same just with a shiny new model with slightly tweaked stats (which result in a negligible difference in actual gameplay).
Think of it this way. Let's say we had the choice of giving the Russians a new infantry weapon. Your choices are:
A. A lend-lease British Mills grenade or American "pinepple" grenade.
B. A Nagant revolver
or
C. A Maxim HMG.
I'd pick C above all the others. why? Because it'd change how the game is played far more than A or B. With A, you're really just reskinning the F1 grenade. Oh, sure, you can argue that the pineapple grenade had more of a fragmentary effect and thus was more deadly in terms of lethal wounds according to these six textbooks. But in the end, it's really just another grenade that'll operate exactly like the current one, and whose differences in performance will go unnoticed in terms of actual gameplay. The differences are all on paper, not in practice.
With B, there'd be a difference (IE: slower reload, perhaps a harder-hitting round), but without weapon jams being modeled, the only reason people would pick it is for novelty's sake, and they'd soon end up switching back to the Tokarev. Regardless, even if the pistol was strikingly different in performance (and had enough advantages to warrant its use), people rarely use pistols anyway.
With C, the Russians would have an actual belt-fed heavy MG that'd require careful placement, but which (once emplaced) could be extremely effective in a defensive role. Moreso than the DP-28, assuming the operator stays alive long enough to put it to use.
These are the kinds of considerations that ought to go into deciding what to add next. Will it change the gameplay in any noticeable way? Will it broaden the game or just give us more of the same with fancy new graphics? While the differences in performance look good on paper, will it actually amount to any real difference when people play? Or is it just being added to satsify folks who want every version of a given item, no matter how insignificant the differences are?
Anyway HT varients would be a nice add to the game. Looking forward to the Pak 40 251/22
I agree that a halftrack with a mounted pak40 might change gameplay, but I don't think it'd change it enough to warrant adding that instead of something else that'd create a fundamentally different way of playing the game. The BT-7, for example, was a BIG change. Unfortunately, we currently have only one map where it gets used, but if it were added to other tnak maps, it'd lead to considerably different gameplay. Likewise with the upcoming KV-1B. Pit a force of KV-1Bs and BT-7s against a force of Pz IV F1s and Pz IIIs, and you'll have yourself a very interesting and different fight from what we usually see in the game.
