From a Designer’s Perspective — Ideals vs. Reality (1): Early Imbalanced Updates and Why They Fell Apart
It’s widely acknowledged that what fits this game best is actually the infantry tank concept. In Foxhole, a tank without infantry support can easily be destroyed by infantry alone. If we look back at the early days, both the Silverhand - Mk. IV and the HC-7 “Ballista” essentially fell into this category.
Historically, infantry tanks were defined by extremely heavy frontal armor, capable of resisting most contemporary anti-tank guns. The Matilda II, for example, had 78mm of frontal armor — the thickest of its time — forcing Rommel to deploy the 88mm anti-aircraft gun in an anti-tank role. It was a product of French and British traditional military doctrine. At the time of its appearance, that doctrine made sense.
The designers’ idea for the Silverhand - Mk. IV was probably similar: a breakthrough assault tank meant to crush defensive fortifications. With its early 40mm HE shells and 68mm AP (which originally also had only 40m range), it formed a kind of iron wall. The HC-7 “Ballista” went even further — it was a specialized vehicle built purely for demolishing structures.
Now let’s talk about the weaknesses of infantry tanks. Their core logic was “armor first, speed second.” They were designed to advance alongside infantry through fortified lines. But in Foxhole, tanks don’t really reflect that philosophy. They are still relatively fast — honestly, maybe they should move at CV speed. British designers believed the tank’s primary mission was to protect infantry. Yet in-game, when tanks are hit, drivers panic-reverse and crush the infantry behind them. Then you hear drivers say “they deserved it.” At the very least, in early balance passes, they should have had higher bounce rates and thicker armor (or maybe allow on-vehicle repairs), so that tanks actually function like tanks. New players naturally assume that’s how they work. They hide behind them, or they drive them without support and get killed by infantry — then they come to Reddit asking why.
Heavy armor makes sense at low speed. That was the original design philosophy. Firepower was often weaker; these were early-stage experimental vehicles. Meanwhile, the Germans pursued Blitzkrieg — high-speed maneuver warfare. That’s where vehicles like the 85K-b “Falchion” (and Colonial light tank variants) come in — high-speed maneuver tanks, with clear T-34 inspiration. But the Silverhand - Mk. IV was not a StuG III. Otherwise, Wardens would also have something like the H-10 “Pelekys.” Infantry tanks, by contrast, suffered from low mobility. They couldn’t perform rapid penetration or deep operations, and in open terrain they were vulnerable to being flanked. France fell early in the war, yet the British continued developing this doctrine, culminating in the heavily armored Churchill infantry tank — even fielding a 250mm mortar variant designed for beach assaults. At the same time, the British pursued a parallel doctrine of cruiser tanks. Does that remind you of the Outlaw?
Later, the Silverhand - Mk. IV and Noble Widow MK. XIV failed much like the Battle of France. But this created a strange phenomenon: Wardens were losing wars, yet the Silverhand - Mk. IV was nerfed. Normally, the losing faction should receive buffs. I personally saw a Warden player lose his Noble Widow MK. XIV in one war. In the next conquest, he had switched factions — back when cross-faction text chat was possible — and I saw him mocking us: “Haha, we blew up so many of your tanks.”
That’s where the complaints toward the developers began. In the community where I’m from, people resent the developers. Some claim neutrality and switch to whichever faction is stronger. Loyalists feel deeply disappointed, though they are also the loudest voices calling for reform.
Posted Feb 19, 2026, 3:47 PM UTC