Whats the appeal?

[gila]

Originally Posted by Imp

Not questioning it Gila I like both but because I hadn't played it for a while realised they really do play very differently.
MBT in my view is generally far easier as the extra accuracy makes things far simpler & getting local superiority is far easier meaning battles are much quicker. The biggest pain is ATGMs once they become accurate. Setting up overwatch for example requires thought in WWII or it can fail.
WWII armour is hard work take the current battle which is a fairly big tank affair on a Kursk as in wide open battlefield with visibility of 57.
I can see other tanks in the distance & would be slightly worried in MBT at least with presenting a flank shot but a fair bit of my armour struggles to shoot that far let alone hit anything so no problem.
I am trying to destroy the tanks I am engaged with by drawing fire & coordinating smoke so I some tanks can close to engagement range or get flank shots with the call times is hit & miss. I can see the reinforcements coming but unlike most eras in MBT I have several turns before they become a worry.
Conversely its taking me far more time to kill them than I would like so the extra time is sorely needed.

I don't doubt that you like both,but as Andy points out there are major differnces unless you are playing pre 80's era Mbt.
To me the jist of your tread is how tactics and are used,not the appeal of one or the other.
IMO any missles and helio's are a PITA,so veer away from 60's and beyond.