SubSerpent,
you have a right on your opinion, but this does not mean that your opinion necessarily must be founded on solid facts and insight. Many points you said show you have not the needed knowledge to claim that you know what you are talking about. Some things you said are seriously messed up, and simply wrong. Your comparison to MSFS and america's army also illustrates that you see this software from a gamer's perspective - while eSim and me are saying time and again one should not do that. However, my simple recommendation is: don't buy it. It's your right not to do so. And it is the option that will serve best for you.
Several of the points you made are corrected and/or answered more competently in the interview I had with Ssnake (tbr).
BTW, many of the members of the developement team have been, or still are, tankers in active service. They know what they are dealing with. Possible that your imagination of what tank warfare is like (one shot = one kill, eh?!
), cannot rival that!
Also, the software was bought for tens of thousands of dollars by the military of eight Western countries so far, sometimes after years of testing and considerating. You seriously think they did that because it all is so gamish and unrealistic and messed up? One license for a 10-head-classroom costs 18000 dollars - that roughly equals 15 life shots with training rounds on the gunnery range, or five hours in the hardware-embedded high fidelity simulatorsy.
As a matter of fact AA was not created by the army for training purposes. It is a game, if you haven't noticed. It's whole puposes is propaganda: to make players wanting to join the military once they are old enough, and to influence the social climate and public opinion in favour of the military, by propagating a certain, special impression and image of the military (and ignoring less welcomed harsh facts that are also part of a soldier'S life). The money for it's development came from funds related to the military's public relation management.
You can tell us about your intention not to buy SBP, and why, that is okay. You can also critizise my review, as long as you keep it fair and based on facts, not hear-say or your own imagination of how the software should have been in terms of "realism", in your opinion. But beyond that kind of statments keep it more civil and adult, please. Only my moderator function stops me to answer some of your points - and the way you bring them over - in a more aggressive way.