Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Suggestions => Red Army Suggestions => Topic started by: Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G. on March 18, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
-
Here you can write down new ideas for units
or reward units:
-
Female soviet sniper to replace Sniper Ace. Works pretty much the same but instead of having sticky bombs, she has an activated ability with cooldown that makes her detection range increase a lot, making her very good at counter-sniping.
-
Female soviet sniper to replace Sniper Ace. Works pretty much the same but instead of having sticky bombs, she has an activated ability with cooldown that makes her detection range increase a lot, making her very good at counter-sniping.
Well, well..
-
Why do you want woman in the war?
And for one reason, it cant be done.
for the reason of the sound files, we got only male voices there.
-
Why does a sniper need to talk :) ? The only sound anyone needs to hear is the chamber locking and the bullet flying.
-
Why do you want woman in the war?
And for one reason, it cant be done.
for the reason of the sound files, we got only male voices there.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find some dialogue out of a Russian War movie. The model is more of a problem. And why? Guns, tanks,....all that is missing is boobs. But seriously, it wouldn't hurt to represent females when they actual did serve in combat roles during the war. Plus some of them were pretty. Roza Yegorovna Shanina, 54 confirmed kills:
(http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/58541.jpg)
-
She has a deathly stare....And your anology was inappropriate and immature but would get its point out there to most males.
-
She has a deathly stare....And your anology was inappropriate and immature but would get its point out there to most males.
It was a joke...Relax...
Why does a sniper need to talk ? The only sound anyone needs to hear is the chamber locking and the bullet flying.
How is your post any less immature and disrespectful?
-
CoH in its current state is a massive sausage fest. Female Soviet snipers would be pretty awesome to have as a reward unit.
-
CoH in its current state is a massive sausage fest. Female Soviet snipers would be pretty awesome to have as a reward unit.
I have felt this way for awhile now, and I have now started to fully appreciate the use of females characters in Supreme Commander, and to a lesser extent CnC. It doesn't even have to be uber sexy sniper with Maria Sharapova wearing a Ushanka as the portrait picture...wait a sec...
-
for sure the russiant had female snipers yea.
But i think editing the soundfiles makes some trouble,
just thinking about T-34 saying they are sherman tanks ;)
This is what i mean.
And a sniper without a voice is redicilous.
-
I would like to see a BA 64 replacement for the t90.
This was ment to be a unit suggestion topic ? not a unit discussion, offtopic
-
That was quite rude and I agree about the first part and the beginning of the bottom part..... But I was saying that a sniper doesn't require full speech because a sniper is meant to be stealthy I was not saying " Don't LET her speak" It was just a simple temporary solution to the problem, How could saying A sniper sound doesnt require full speech be more offensive than Soldat's "Hormonal wants +tanks+guns= :) " statement ? I know it was intended to be a joke, I was just pointing out this is not the place or time for Jokes like that.
-
That was quite rude and I agree about the first part and the beginning of the bottom part..... But I was saying that a sniper doesn't require full speech because a sniper is meant to be stealthy I was not saying " Don't LET her speak" It was just a simple temporary solution to the problem, How could saying A sniper sound doesnt require full speech be more offensive than Soldat's "Hormonal wants +tanks+guns= :) " statement ? I know it was intended to be a joke, I was just pointing out this is not the place or time for Jokes like that.
Every unit requires speech. Period. Futhermore, my statement was not offensive in th least, this is a computer game mod for Christ's sake. Don't loose sight of that.
-
It was not offensive, but also not needed, It is the past so I choose to stop arguing about it, however I am unfamiliar with modding so I am unsure of the requirements in each Unit, I would be happy with the game, sound or not(I often play it muted), various genders or not.
-
KV1 to replace T34.
-
I like KV8S instead to Replace T-34 ;)
Soldat could guess what It has on it haha :)
-
Buildable dshk instead off Soviet machine gun dugout
Dshk MG - machine gun dugout
The Dshk should act as an antiair Defense similar to the "BOFOS"
Permanent replacement.
-
I like KV8S instead to Replace T-34 ;)
Soldat could guess what It has on it haha :)
"Burn them in their steel coffins"
-Sgt.Reznov
-
How about KV-1 to replace SU-85 but the SU gun upgrade would be replaced to a turret MG -> flamethrower upgrade(KV-8).
There would be no KV-85 but KV-8 would be very powerfull anyway.
-
everyone of you just throws the same tanks again and again in for discussion, thats why i decided to list all nice ideas in one post now. So noone have to post them anymore.
first of all i got some tanks which where brought in by paciat,
in general 2 light vehicles:
BA64 - armored car
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Ba64_nn.jpg/300px-Ba64_nn.jpg)
armoured car, either to replace one of the soviet light tanks
or even to put it in the support HQ of the soviets.
(replacing the pak or the ZIS-5.)
BT-7
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/T-26/4/T_26_and_BT_7.jpg)
Have changed the picture - old one hadnt worked. Rommel
Light very fast tank to replace one of the soviets early game
tanks to have some hit and run fights.
KV-1 (also thinking about the kv-85)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SCFHDEh9UTI/AAAAAAAALBc/mRAmEKxri_s/s400/1.jpg)
havier than the t-34, but surely a good reward unit for it.
also thinking about armour.
KV-8
(http://www.modellbau-universe.de/uploadfiles/original/pst_72015.jpg)
The perfect new urban fighter of the soviets. 100% useable
as a reward unit for the KV-2. must have?
SU-122 mobile artillery
(http://military.sakura.ne.jp/army/ur/su-122.jpg)
A artillery unit useable in variable ways.
My suggestions are replacing the -
1) KV-2 because its the most similiar unit thinking about how it would act like. Would also fit the style of urban fighting.
2) ISU-152 since this vehicle can also be used as a breakthrough unit to replace the "taking forever to reload bigboy beastslayer which is in some eyes OP and in others just useless". A lot would like this for sure.
3) IS-2 non doctrinal SU-122?
sounds strange. but howw, maybe this would be a fresh idea. But yet i cant image by myself how this unit would work as a non doctrinal one. Saying - dangerous idea though..
BM-13 rocket launcher:
(http://1001info.net/images/BM-31-12%20on%20ZiS-6.jpg)
Havier rockets, compareable to the katyusha.
Also there where multi turret design considered, but they
are hard to include and also some of us doesnt seem to like
them. Nevertheless, very interesting vehicles.
-
that looks pretty solid there.
-
all these options for reward vehicles are historically accurate, as well as interesting vehicles.
BA10 to Replace T70
The Ba10 was a Soviet Armoured Car based on the Chassis of the GAZ AAA Truck. it mounted the same 45mm Gun as the T70, and was much faster. they were produced up to 1941, and served until the end of the war. some had their turrets removed and were used as ersatz APCs.
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-300/tanks/russiantanks/ba_10_russian_armoured_car-03939.jpg (http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-300/tanks/russiantanks/ba_10_russian_armoured_car-03939.jpg)
KV1s to Replace ISII.
The KV1 was the first Soviet Heavy tank, entering Service in 1940. it gave the Germans a shock when they first encountered it, one example holding up an entire German Corps for two days! it can be upgraded to a KV8 Flame Tank.
http://www.wargaming.net/tanks/IMAGES/KV-1s.JPG (http://www.wargaming.net/tanks/IMAGES/KV-1s.JPG)
SU76 to Replace SU85
the SU76 was the first Soviet Self Propelled Gun, based on the T70 Chassis. it mounted a 76.2mm ZiS-3 AT Gun, and it was the second most produced Soviet armoured vehicle of World War II, after the T-34 tank. nicknamed the 'Suka' (Bitch) it was used as a light self Propelled Gun, and could fire indirect artillery Bombardments.
http://users.atw.hu/priskos/Alakulatok-Hadseregek/Pancelosvadaszok/Szovjet/su76/Chi-PVA-SU76-XinHui.jpg (http://users.atw.hu/priskos/Alakulatok-Hadseregek/Pancelosvadaszok/Szovjet/su76/Chi-PVA-SU76-XinHui.jpg)
-
+1 to Das Taub Love it :) but perhaps KV-8 as KV-1 upgrade
-
+1 to Das Taub Love it :) but perhaps KV-8 as KV-1 upgrade
Agreed with the KV-8 substitution, but everything else looks good. Nice suggestion, Das Taub.
-
Replace the t-34 with the KV-1 and when upgraded, the Kv-1 becomes the KV-85. The Kv tanks would be more armored, but have a slower speed and the turret turns slower.
Replace the T-90 with a BA-64 armored car. The Ba-64 is more armored than the T-90 and is capable of faster speeds.
-
Replace the t-34 with the KV-1 and when upgraded, the Kv-1 becomes the KV-85. The Kv tanks would be more armored, but have a slower speed and the turret turns slower.
Replace the T-90 with a BA-64 armored car. The Ba-64 is more armored than the T-90 and is capable of faster speeds.
T-34 shouldnt be replaced. It would be like replacing a Tommy or a Panzer Grenadier squad. SU should be replaced with a KV tank with a flamer (not gun) upgrade... becouse everyone wants a flame tank. (not another 85mm gun)
T-90 has Stuart armor! so BA-64 would had to have M-10 armor...
but I cant blame anyone for not knowing armor types. I never use it myself.
Check out this topic for some EF unit stats:
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=2295.0 (http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=2295.0)
Anyways, BA-64 is a good idea. :) Even better if tank hall wasnt needed to build it.
-
Yes T-34 shouldnot be replaced, I vote for KV-8 should replace KV-2 (Fits in with Urban doctrine.)
-
What do you guys think about it: BT5 tank with rocket artillery.
This would be a nice reaward unit.
http://henk.fox3000.com/Bt/rbt5/01.jpg (http://henk.fox3000.com/Bt/rbt5/01.jpg)
http://henk.fox3000.com/Bt/rbt5/03.jpg (http://henk.fox3000.com/Bt/rbt5/03.jpg)
-
The RBT-5 looks like a cool tank, but what do you want it to replace? and 2x rockets seems like a kind of a joke, allthrough it could be a little bonus and "Creative feature"
-
agreed looks great and also like something new.
do you got any facts about it?
maybe how often it got build or something like that.
yet we dont know much about the tank.
(http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/3-rockets.jpg)
looks like a RA-3 vehicle :D - but great ;)
-
lol looks a bit like a fake :D
-
agreed looks great and also like something new.
do you got any facts about it?
maybe how often it got build or something like that.
yet we dont know much about the tank.
Not found any more materials, what also we know about it. Hmm, maybe replacig the T70 tank, and the two rocket when explode, its equal to the artillery shells each one. It would cost 100 munition or something, upgrading the tank like the walking stuka.
"BT tank chassis were also used as the basis for engineering support vehicles and mobility testbeds. A bridgelayer variant had a T-38 turret and launched a bridge across small gaps. Standard tanks were fitted as fascine carriers. The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
The KBT-7 was a thoroughly modern armoured command vehicle that was in the prototype stage when World War II broke out. The design was not pursued during the war." I found this on the wikipedia.
-
Nothing been said about T-40 amphibious tank. Just like Schwimmwagen it would move fast on water. Just like T-90 could fire at aircrafts. Weaker armor.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/T40_13.jpg)
-
Yes T-34 shouldnot be replaced, I vote for KV-8 should replace KV-2 (Fits in with Urban doctrine.)
They are reward units dood. You can choose a to replace them or not. It's not a big deal.
-
if you want a replacement vehicle for the T34, then look no farther than it's predecessor, the T28 medium tank. the T28 was an example of the 'land battleship' concept prevalent in soviet military thinking at the time. it had a main turret with a short 76.2mm gun (equivalent to the Panzer IVs Stubby gun) with a co-Axel 7.62mm DT machine gun, and two smaller secondary turrets, each armed with two 7.62mm DT machine guns.
The Soviets had 411 T-28 tanks available during operation Barbarossa. Most T-28s were lost during the first two months of the invasion, though Some took part in the 1941 winter defence of Leningrad and Moscow.
the T28 would be a Super Panzer IV Stubby, with thicker armour (80 mm front, 40 mm side and rear) and enough Machine guns to devastate attacking infantry. with three turrets, it could engage multiple targets with ease.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/T28_005.gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/T28_005.gif)
-
Nothing been said about T-40 amphibious tank. Just like Schwimmwagen it would move fast on water. Just like T-90 could fire at aircrafts. Weaker armor.
Like that idea. It'd be great for maps like drekplats.
...if you want a replacement vehicle for the T34, then look no farther than it's predecessor, the T28 medium tank...
It sounds like a heavily anti infantry tank. Would probably be good at killing those dmn PE troops.
-
We've been over the T-28 deal before, I loved it but it always loses -.-
-
The IS-3, it was used in small numbers at the end of the war. It would be a good replacement for the ISU-155
-
From what I've heard it wasn't used in the war on any official account.
-
From what I've read it served along side IS-2's in the final assault on Germany. They didnt have that many of them though. Its main service was post-war.
-
That's why it's not already featured than.
-
SU57...
-
Soviet war records are sketchy at best so you don't really know...its not like the M26 had any true contribution...all the actions recorded and there were 5-6 only tank engagements in total...wow I know....
Also, soviets lost count of how many T34s they produced, the numbers ranging from 55k to 75k+...what's 20 thousand T34s hey?..pocket change...
It is widely accepted that 300 IS3s were rushed in for the Berlin parade so Stalin could show off (and they had they desired effect!!). Some were said to have faught against the Japs in Manchuria in 1945...
They also produced about 900 T-44s yet little is known and some believe only about 3 were used as a special unit in combat for testing (which sounds kinda strange to produce 1000 tanks in ww2 and keep them in reserve when all the efforts were to produce as many as possible and send them to the front...)
-
IS-3 didn't take part in Berlin, the first IS-3 didn't even leave the factory until May 1945 and by then the War was basically over. Only credible report of IS-3's in action was during the defeat of the Japanese Kwantung Army in August 1945.
However, it is one Tank I would like to see in game, although I can already hear the Axis players rage quitting.
-
However, it is one Tank I would like to see in game, although I can already hear the Axis players rage quitting.
Same here, somehow i would like to see it ingame as well. Something which would solve the problematic role of the ISU atm.
Really, its worth of thinking about it, even if it doesnt really fit historically. But you could always bring up the argument that it actually fight during the 2nd ww.
Finally a real heavy tank for the soviets.. somewhere placed between Tiger and KT.. awesomeness?
-
Personally, I'd like to see the ISU adopt its real-life role as a mobile Howitzer with a limited AT ability, and leave pure AT to a Tank like the IS-3 which would be on par with a King Tiger.
-
Personally, I'd like to see the ISU adopt its real-life role as a mobile Howitzer with a limited AT ability, and leave pure AT to a Tank like the IS-3 which would be on par with a King Tiger.
KV-2 is a "mobile Howitzer with a limited AT ability" and no army needs 2 of these.
Breakthru is the weakest doctrine (1.04) and Soviets need a better uber tank than an ISU-152. But IS-3 would be a IS-2 with more HP (boring).
I would make ISU cheaper, (800MP), a little faster, lower its HP, raise aera of gun effect.
Also I would took away its ambush ability (becouse its BIG) or add ambush to SU-85/100.
A passive ability (allways on) to stun any vechicle on hit for 2 seconds (becouse the shell is so big and loud) would be great too.
-
Breakthru is the weakest doctrine (1.04) and Soviets need a better uber tank than an ISU-152. But IS-3 would be a IS-2 with more HP (boring).
I would make ISU cheaper, (800MP), a little faster, lower its HP, raise aera of gun effect.
Also I would took away its ambush ability (becouse its BIG) or add ambush to SU-85/100.
A passive ability (allways on) to stun any vechicle on hit for 2 seconds (becouse the shell is so big and loud) would be great too.
+1 ISU needs slight change
Ad Soviet doctrines IMO Propaganda is even weaker because of God of War which is not used often and if yes then it often do more damage to player+allies then to enemy. Btw have someone made a statistics about Soviet doctrines and CP cost? Because they are most expensive of all factions. The average CP cost for doctrine is 13.25 for standard CoH and Soviet doctrines costs 17,15,17 CP...
-
Personally, I'd like to see the ISU adopt its real-life role as a mobile Howitzer with a limited AT ability, and leave pure AT to a Tank like the IS-3 which would be on par with a King Tiger.
xD this is right what i think and what i would like to see as well. The ISU would be a cool mixture of both, a howizer & a (weakened) AT tank. I think this would fit very well, bringing some feeling in and it would actually create the new class of tanks which it was 65 years ago as well.
& nice to see finally a team member parttaking on the forums.
Breakthru is the weakest doctrine (1.04) and Soviets need a better uber tank than an ISU-152. But IS-3 would be a IS-2 with more HP (boring).
What is the panther and the KT than? Its also a similiar looking vehicle just heavier and more armour. But for gods sake, this is not any boring at all for almost everybody here.
-
Personally, I'd like to see the ISU adopt its real-life role as a mobile Howitzer with a limited AT ability, and leave pure AT to a Tank like the IS-3 which would be on par with a King Tiger.
KV-2 is a "mobile Howitzer with a limited AT ability" and no army needs 2 of these.
KV-2 has next to no AT ability... it's basically a StuH on steroids. I'm talking about making the ISU into a mobile howitzer/Limited Tank Destroyer. It would fire off HE 152mm rounds as normal, but it would also have a 'Long Shot' ability (a single 152mm Howie shot like that from a regular Arty piece) or a BR-540 Anti-Tank Shot (Zveroboy) ability.
Breakthru is the weakest doctrine (1.04) and Soviets need a better uber tank than an ISU-152. But IS-3 would be a IS-2 with more HP (boring).
IS-3 was a beast, it differed from the IS-2 quite a bit... I fail to see what would be so 'boring' about it. Do you find the T-34/85 boring too?
-
Breakthru is the weakest doctrine (1.04) and Soviets need a better uber tank than an ISU-152. But IS-3 would be a IS-2 with more HP (boring).
IS-3 was a beast, it differed from the IS-2 quite a bit... I fail to see what would be so 'boring' about it. Do you find the T-34/85 boring too?
T-34/85 is an upgrade - better gun (dmg, acc) armor type (sherman->churchill) and HP. If T-34/76 were only buildable and T-34/85 were only call-ins I would call T-34/85 boring.
IS-2 has the best Allied armor type available (Pershing).
IS-3 was as fast as IS-2 so the only thing you can change is HP and armor type to Jagdpanther (best armor type in the game) and make it a 1 time call-in that affects HP income (Like a KingTiger becouse both tanks were RARE and if Soviets would want IS-3 as early as the KT, their production would suffer too).
It would be a IS-2 gun with a IS-2 engine and suspension so it would be a bit "boring" but ISU-152 needs a stats change or a swap unit badly. Also IS-3 looks cool.
Thats why IS-3 is a good idea.
-
IS-2 has the best Allied armor type available (Pershing).
IS-3 was as fast as IS-2 so the only thing you can change is HP and armor type to Jagdpanther (best armor type in the game) and make it a 1 time call-in that affects HP income (Like a KingTiger becouse both tanks were RARE and if Soviets would want IS-3 as early as the KT, their production would suffer too).
Prefect Paciat. You got that right ;)
About staying power it should probably be placed somewhere between the Jagdpanther and the KT. Its should have quite less hp than the KT since its still superior but its armour type should be the one of the Jagd, because the hull design of the front was just amazing (the turned V-hull).
Also IS-3 looks cool.
Thats why IS-3 is a good idea.
haha.. but yea, thats kinda right. Would bring some feeling in and would actually be a good replacement for the isu.
From the historical side about its use in the 2nd world war:
The IS-3 came too late to see action in World War II. Though some older sources claim that the tank saw action at the end of the war in Europe, there are no official reports to confirm this. It is now generally accepted that the tank saw no action against the Germans, although one regiment may have been deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria.
-
However, it is one Tank I would like to see in game, although I can already hear the Axis players rage quitting.
I'm with you on that...IS3 looks very cool and I'd love to see it ingame!
I remember it took several years to get a decent scale model of it but when i got one by Tamiya it was an OMG moment :P
In game terms it would have had the same gun and hitpoints as an IS2 but boost 'Jagdpanther type armour' and slightly more speed
-
IS-3 didn't take part in Berlin, the first IS-3 didn't even leave the factory until May 1945 and by then the War was basically over. Only credible report of IS-3's in action was during the defeat of the Japanese Kwantung Army in August 1945.
However, it is one Tank I would like to see in game, although I can already hear the Axis players rage quitting.
yea, i guess your right about that... but people rage quit on everything.
-
"What?!, Russians get a new unit, oh man they were OP already!"*stomps away*
Yes they do.
-
uh, the 152 was always used as a tank killer. it didnt even need AP to knock out enemy tanks it just used HE.
though i would like to see a long range high elevation arty shot ability, ans maybe you could add an ap round ability (one shot, 35 ammo, high dmg/ chance of breaking components.)
-
uh, the 152 was always used as a tank killer.
Actually this isnt true.
Mainly it was a heavy assault gun and besides that it was a howizer and a heavy tank hunter.
But its true that sometimes the HE rounds were capable of destroying the engine, yea - but usually they werent.
The AP rounds - even if they often didnt actually pierce the armour of a Tiger/panther they caused so much damage because of the powerfull design of the round & its sheer weight. It was done for piercing something, unlike the HE to explode. Thats why you can compare it to a huge punch into the front of the tiger. Powerfull, even if it doesnt comes through the often thick armour because it was simply too big.
So making it a assault gun is a great idea, with the AP round ability which could actually damage the engine. Done.
IS-3 would replace the role of the heavy tank destroyer than. And this tank would actually really be a tank destroyer, unlike the ISU.
-
Of course a 152mm shell would rip the turret off a tank irl, where we're all subject to the cruel reality of newtons laws, but we're talking about in the game ;)
HE shells are generally useless against Tanks because they are supposed to be purely for anti-personal and anti-building duty.
An AT shot ability should be activated first (cost 100/150 Munis?), so each ISU called in doesn't get get some awesome AT ability straight away. Once activated, it should have a longish cooldown like the rest of the Sovs abilities.
-
An AT shot ability should be activated first (cost 100/150 Munis?), so each ISU called in doesn't get get some awesome AT ability straight away. Once activated, it should have a longish cooldown like the rest of the Sovs abilities.
AT-ability is a great idea, but it should be a single massive damaging shot which hits it target 100%. Another idea would be a activation of AT rounds which works for about some seconds.
But it shouldnt cost so much ammo and useable for a very long time.
1) - this makes the tank agian just non-flexibile
2) - if you wont need the AT ability any more you still have too use it..
To put it in a nutshell, i would suggest a single AP shot which actually costs less ammo, but hits always its target and damages the engine.
This would show the AT ability of this tank in a really impresive way ;) - just like irl, and that even balanced.
-V-
-
ISUs(both 152/122) were designated assault guns not tank destroyers. However, like the stug, they doubled as TDs simply because the thick armour,low profile and powerful gun which makes them excellent at ambushing tanks.
The 152 didn't use AP shells simply because it didn't need to. The tank would engage in direct fire targets up to 1000m where the impact and explosion of the shell would cause catastrophic damage to tanks even if it didn't penetrate, regardless of their armour. Infact as an 155 arty shell it could land next to the target tank and still do massive damage and disable it.
-
In game though Widow, we can't just give the ISU some HE death bringing doom shells, conquering everything it comes across, man and machine alike.
It did use pure AT shells at a point (although they were very rare), but certainly not all the time like we have in game right now... its current AT role right now should be buffed and reserved (the Soviets can already build SU-85's and SU-100's ffs) to a special ability, in the mean time the ISU should be given inaccurate HE primitives, with a long shot Howie ability. This will make the ISU a multi-purpose Tank and much more valuable than it is right now in its pure AT role.
-
In game... at best...it could work like a KT...aka good all rounder but not as tough...Firing more devastating AP/HE shells than a KT, but at the slower rate to compensate
-
Two cents' worth: I've seen ideas of a wheeled machine gun unit, like a Maxim or a DshKM on an AT gun chassis. Is that still on the table as a reward unit - perhaps replacing the ZiS-2 or the Tank Hunters?
-
Well Zis & Tank hunters are AT, not Anti Infantry,if to replace anything I'd say the Dugouts in Propoganda doctrine.
-
Hell no! I like my dugouts ;D
It's the only possible way of suppressing enemy infantry other than DP-28s(Which even then is risky) and barrages!
-
No, not the MG dugouts, what am I thinking of.........hmm the Shacks that are garrisonable is what I meant.
-
Two cents' worth: I've seen ideas of a wheeled machine gun unit, like a Maxim or a DshKM on an AT gun chassis. Is that still on the table as a reward unit - perhaps replacing the ZiS-2 or the Tank Hunters?
Building a MG model on an AT gun chassis would look crap.
We have a DShK tripod that only needs animated. It will probably be added to dugouts in the future, and as a reward unit if you're lucky.
-
Too bad I'm very unlucky.
-
Oh, I see. The Outpost?
Well, the only REASON I would like them to be removed is if the Soviets can HQ buildings. Otherwise you'd be in trouble if you're like me and use the *Blow up chokepoints and only let the enemies in one way, but defend that one way WITH YOUR LIFE*
-
I made a suggestion for the Ostheer to have the ability to have a buildable HQ, which I thought would be unique and cool.
I could see the Russians having that same ability too.
-
Maybe the outpost.... I can't remember, I'll have to go play it and see.
-
the Outpost cannot create troops. When in my idea, the buildable HQ would actually be able to create troops, like the American and Wehrmachct forward HQs.
-
a SU57 as a reward unit to replace the zis AT gun, a mobile version like the marder, with a 57mm gun on a M3 halftruck.
-
One thing I never got, id how a 57mm can kick the spit out of a Pzr IV?
-
One thing I never got, id how a 57mm can kick the spit out of a Pzr IV?
It (Zis-2)had long barrel which enabled higher velocity. A smaller shell going very fast.
ALso i would sugest the Zis 30 over some made up halftrack. The ZIS30 was a Koslomoldets armorwed tractor with a Zis2 stuck on it.
-
Mk. III Valentine. British Made Tank supplied to the red army.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Valentine_II_in_Kubinka.jpg/800px-Valentine_II_in_Kubinka.jpg)
Has a 6-Pdr. Gun that is effective against tanks such as: StuG IV, Marder III, Panzer IV IST, Hetzer [Side Armour] and the StuH 42/Hummel.
Acts as a fast moving tank, with a Upgrades including the new 75mm Gun [ The Mk XI] Making it effective with more powerful tanks like the Panzer IV and Hetzer's frontal armour.
Cost: 600MP. 7 Pop Cap. 60 Fuel.
Ability: Fire HE Round [10 Fuel] Fire's a HE Round, effective against infantry.
Upgrade Cost: Side Armour: 20 Fuel.
Bren Gunner: Makes a bren gunner act as a Infantry support weapon GPMG on the Tank. 10 MP: 30 Fuel.
MK. XI: 60 Fuel. 2 Pop Cap.
Polish Soviet Army Troops [Reward - Replace Strelky ]
(http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rkimble/Mirweb/Miralbum/MirResidents/GarberFamily/SoldierMoshe.jpg)
Armed with a Mosin-Nagat, move fast and have Frantical Morale, but won't run at troops like Conscripts. Veterans of the 1939 Invasion. Can be upgraded with a KIS SMG or Wz. 30 MG, or, even the Wz. 35 Anti-Tank Rifle.
Comes in a squad of 5.
Cost: 120 MP: 0 Fuel. 6 PopCap.
Ability: SUPPRESSING FIRE! [KIS] Suppress a enemy for a short time. 20 MP.
AP ROUND!: [Wz. 35] Fire's a AP Round, that automatic destroys a part of a vehicle. 50 Fuel.
DIG IN! [Wz. 30] Dig's in the unit, making it less valuable to damage.
CHARGE! [Any]: Lead's a Calvary like charge, making the unit unable to fire, but move quickly without suppression. [30 MP]
Upgrade cost:
Wz. 35: 10 Fuel. 75 Munition.
Wz. 30: 10 Fuel. 75 Munition.
KIS: 5 Fuel. 70 Munition.
Hand Grenades: 15 Fuel. 50 MP.
-
Fairly sure that lend lease vehicles from american, brits etc are a no go
-
Lend-Lease from the Allies is acceptable, in fact our Katyusha is carried on an American lorry. We just want to avoid using familiar units if we can.
-
Soviets were the largest users of the the Valentine Tank. They were the Commonwealth's main export to the Soviet Union under the Lend-lease Act, with 2,394 of the British models being sent and 1,388 of the Canadian Pacific built models. That's from a total of 7300...more than half in soviet hands! With a total number of 3800 tanks...it was more numerous than many of the tank types produced by the Germans through the war!
It was also very successful and popular with the Soviet army, much like the Sherman.
What concerns its reliability and durability lets refer to one example: at the beginning of Melitopol Offensive Operation (October 24, 1943) the 19th Tank Corps had 101 T-34-76 and 63 Valentine tanks. During a battles the Corps lost 78 of T-34's and 17 Valentines tanks while all tanks used with more or less equal intensity
Personally, its one tank I'd love to see in EF. It was a slow well armoured infantry tank taht was quite poor vs infantry due to the main gin being 2pdr-6pdr depending on the model
-
The Valentine, wasn't the only tank in Soviet service. Many soviet tanks were taken off British Ideas. Example: T-90 was based heavily off the Carden-Loyd Tankette [That i'd also like to see] and the Vickers Light tank,
EDIT: Also, a upgrade for the partisans giving them the PPD-40 SMG?
-
Hi comrades,
I've been following the forums for a long time without intervening, mostly by lack of having something to say (beyond "great mod", of course), but I feel like someone is being unfairly forgotten here : where has Naval Infantry gone ?
There was once a topic about the opportunity of having them as a reward unit, replacing either Guards or Partisans (IMO, they should replace Guards), and someone even showed a terrific screenshot featuring a fully-skinned Black Sea Marine, in his distinctive black uniform with ammo belts. But since then (more than two months ago, I think), they've gone into oblivion, and this thread seems almost only about tanks.
So the aim of this modest contribution is just to remind people of their existence, because I think they would definitely fit in great on maps like Leningrad or Sevastopol, and there seems to be already a great skin ready for them, so I guess I wouldn't be too much work to implement them in any upcoming patch.
Thanks for reading me !
-
Most of the reward units in vCoH are currently vehicles, having Marine troops as a reward unit would bring something new to the whole reward scheme :) So I agree with the idea of bringing marines into the game as replacing the Guards.
-
The soveits had a navy?!?
-
Well, yes, and a large one : North Sea Fleet, Baltic Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Ocean Fleet. Although the surface ships themselves proved quite useless (with the exception of Baltic Fleet, whose naval artillery was key in the defence of Leningrad), the submarines did quite well ; actually, the most deadly naval catastrophe of all times was the sinking of the ship Wilhelm Gustoff by the soviet submarine S-13 in 1945, when almost 9400 people got killed (
mostly refugees).
Anyway, Naval Infantry played a role in many land battles : Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Moscow (I think so)... There's kind of a dispute amongst historians about wether or not they were good fighters, but propaganda was quite enthusiastic about them, and most important : they had a hell of a style and a beautiful uniform !
EDIT : There, I found this one skin I was talking about :
(http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1606/marines2w.jpg)
There is some clipping around the ammo belts, but all in all, they look awesome.
-
I think this is avery good Idea, PE get luftwaffe ground forces, US get Airborne why not give soviets Marines.
-
well the soviets do have partisans and gaurds and tank riders but those skins do look cool.
-
If Marines will replace (swap) gaurds they shouldnt be so tough. Theyre blue uniforms can be seen from dstance.
They need an ability or a weapon to make theyre offensive stats better while their HP will be lowered.
Strelky allready have sprint LMGs and SMGs, command squads fire-up is used.
Camo in blue uniforms sounds dumb.
They could move faster thru water :D and have better defensive stats in it but thats not a big buff.
Anybody has an idea what will make Soviet Marines unique?
-
- Actually, their uniform was black but never mind -
Well, maybe we could look at the archetype and see what to do with it : in soviet propaganda, they're usually associated with defense to the death and man against tank. How about anti-tank Molotov Cocktails (destroying engine, maybe), and a passive ability similar to the Wehrmacht Terror Doctrine "Zeal" : the more losses in the squad, the more resilient the survivors become ?
They could be armed with rifles, either Mosin-Nagan, or SVT-40, maybe the second being an upgrade, and have grenades.
This would eventually make a rather versatile defensive unit, keen on self-sacrifice. How about that ?
EDIT : Just to support my words, a soviet propaganda poster featuring marines :
(http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/1572/forthemotherland1943.jpg) (http://img532.imageshack.us/i/forthemotherland1943.jpg/)
-
I like it :)
-
Marines look cool! It'd be good to call them in as Off-Map Units. Maybe arm them with ASV-36's? IF reward unit, Replace the guard, but don't make it.
' UBER ******* EPIC '
-
I found this inside the easter front mod why not added in the next patch?
-
What mod is that from ?
-
Is that the infamous black sea marines?
Where in heavens name did you pull that screenshot from?
-
- Actually, their uniform was black but never mind -
Well, maybe we could look at the archetype and see what to do with it : in soviet propaganda, they're usually associated with defense to the death and man against tank. How about anti-tank Molotov Cocktails (destroying engine, maybe), and a passive ability similar to the Wehrmacht Terror Doctrine "Zeal" : the more losses in the squad, the more resilient the survivors become ?
They could be armed with rifles, either Mosin-Nagan, or SVT-40, maybe the second being an upgrade, and have grenades.
This would eventually make a rather versatile defensive unit, keen on self-sacrifice. How about that ?
EDIT : Just to support my words, a soviet propaganda poster featuring marines :
(http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/1572/forthemotherland1943.jpg) (http://img532.imageshack.us/i/forthemotherland1943.jpg/)
sounds good, but wouldn't such units be a tad OP? (dreading the thought of Naval Infantry spam which cannot be suppressed and armed with high-powered SVT-40s, Fire-Up!, grenades and Molotovs)...if that's the case, then they'll be like a stronger KCH-type unit for the Soviets :o :o
-
I think the above screenshot is drawn from the World Builder, there is a skin there for Marines too, they are wearing field uniform, which is more realistic, but really less beautiful, alas. I prefer the black one.
I wasn't talking about adding all these abilities to the standard Guard, but about a full replacement : no fire-up, no resistance to suppression... SVT-40 should definitely be an upgrade, with Mosin-Nagant being the basic equipment. Maybe once given the semi-automatic rifle, they could be able to shoot slowing-down volleys, like Panzergrenadiers with G-43 ? Just throwing up the idea, though.
They wouldn't match the KCH, by lack of automatic weapons and offensive abilities, but would be tough defensive units, fitting well with the propaganda doctrine (luckily enough, since the deeds of Naval Infantry were really an important part of war propaganda).
-
the picture is from eastern front,i found this unit using corsix mod studio to add mr.scruff jagdtiger.
-
If we get Black Sea Marines, i think they should be equipped with something that people don't know to much about, the Fedorov Avtomat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat)
It would be their version of the StG and it would give them something that isn't a semi-auto Rifle (SVT-38/40) nor a over-powered faliure (AVS-36). It wouldn't be as powerful, nor as fast but it might be a nice idea. It might even be their Armory upgrade, where they start with PPD-40s and later get upgraded with these Avtomats. If we replace the Guards with them then they should be the Guards opposites and be close to mid-range combat Specialists.
-
If we get Black Sea Marines, i think they should be equipped with something that people don't know to much about, the Fedorov Avtomat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat)
It would be their version of the StG and it would give them something that isn't a semi-auto Rifle (SVT-38/40) nor a over-powered faliure (AVS-36). It wouldn't be as powerful, nor as fast but it might be a nice idea. It might even be their Armory upgrade, where they start with PPD-40s and later get upgraded with these Avtomats. If we replace the Guards with them then they should be the Guards opposites and be close to mid-range combat Specialists.
10 times more AVS-36 (33,000 - 34,500) were build than StG (3200). Also StG were produced in 1915 - 1924 while AVS-36 in 1936-45.
6 men with AVS-36 would have similar firepower to 4 FG-42 - good at all ranges.
Black sea marines wouldnt have granades, they would have lower HP (80) and suppresion resistance than Gaurds.
Also I very much like a ColonelMolotov idea of them having a passive ability like zeal from terror doctrine. They would be unsuppressable when they would loose 4 out of 6 men.
-
Thanks. I read that production of these "exotic" weapons such as the AVS-36 or the Fedorov Avtomat was stopped by 1941... plus, I think I read somewhere on the old Eastern Front ModDB page, that creating a new weapon model is really a lot of hard work.
How about going unusual and having a short-range defensive unit, particularly well-suited for warfare in dense battle environments ? Zeal - AT Molotov Cocktails - PPSh ?
-
They should be powerful inf- but only limited to 3 the whole game.
-
Thanks. I read that production of these "exotic" weapons such as the AVS-36 or the Fedorov Avtomat was stopped by 1941... plus, I think I read somewhere on the old Eastern Front ModDB page, that creating a new weapon model is really a lot of hard work.
How about going unusual and having a short-range defensive unit, particularly well-suited for warfare in dense battle environments ? Zeal - AT Molotov Cocktails - PPSh ?
AVS-36 would be a SVT-40 with a bigger clip and some stats changed. All animations (difficult part) could be unchanged.
"short-range defensive unit, particularly well-suited for warfare in dense battle environments" - that sounds too much like partisants.
Sorry about misleading. AVS-36 was in service till 1945. Soviets stopped its production in 1938.
-
Still not a fan of these rare weapons compared to good ol' Mosin-Nagan or PPSh, but that's not the main point anyway...
Limiting them to 3 seems a little odd, given that they were quite common on the battlefield, and Guards are not limited in number. Also, without retreat, every pinned squad can be considered lost, and limiting them to 3 for the whole game seems a little harsh.
Returning to the very core of the question : are we talking about an off-map reinforcement ? A buildable unit ? Short, or long-ranged ? Offensive, or defensive ?
I personaly stand for an off-map unit, with assorted long-range weapons, and tough defensive soldiers.
-
How about they become a reward unit replacement for guards?
-
You mean, with exactly the same abilities, but just a different skin ?
-
You mean, with exactly the same abilities, but just a different skin ?
Basicly, with maybe some special features the guards don't have, but then they wouldn't have all of the guards' abillities.
-
In january/february we talked about soviet airborne troops, but no one seem to look forward for them.
Soviet were the first, with Italians, to develop the concept of airborne troops.In WW2 they use them to reinforce partisans in Belarus and Ukraine with their experience and weapons. Due to the lack of research about airborne assault ( thanks to stalin and his purges... ) most of the soviet big air operations fail, but paratroopers who were infiltrate behind nazi's lines were very efficient and deadly!
What about a reward unit for partisans? It could be a smaller squad, but composed of elite troops, with full PPSH and satchel charge ( or demo charge ). They would be able to infiltrate the battlefield just like partisans and fallschirmjager.
-
Hello, What do you think about the Soviet T-35 as an analogue of "Tiger II"? It can be added to the tank as a branch of the mobile fortress for 8-10 team points. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35)
Sorry for the clumsy language.
-
I don't think the T35 would come as close as the Tiger II... Even IS2 Tanks feared coming up n' personal with a Tiger II... They're hard. Last British Leval is a example of the Tiger II... Commando's fail at it, M7's can't let a lock on it, and Churchill's are damaging, but can't go 1-2-1 [haven't trided ARVE] and it';s near inpossible to hit them with a 25 Pdr or 17Pdr. So really, i'd say if we included the IS3 as a reward unit that'd be more suitable, Probs T35 as replacement for the KV.
-
I don't know if this taken was brought up before but perhaps the T-44 tank could be a good reward unit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44),
It had the same gun as the T-34/85 and better armor. If we would replace something with it i would say the T-34/85, LL Sherman, or the IS-2
If it replaces the T-34/85 upgrade- It would have slightly less range, but more armor for Breakthrough Ops.
LL Sherman replacement- it would be more powerful gun wise and armor wise, but would come after the Mechs, perhaps cost 1 more CP and at minimum an increase of 100 manpower to the cost.
IS-2 replacement- Less armor and less power, but slightly longer range, faster speed, lower cost and pop. They are still accesed in the same way (by getting both tank upgrades as i believe the new patch will make that the requirement), but have a much more versitile role then the giant behemoths and can defeat Panthers by flanking and supporting their T-34 cousins.
As for the IS-3, it never saw combat anywhere on the Eastern Front, but were present at the Victory Parade. They didn't reach the Front quite fast enough (they were present on the attack against the Japanese in Manchuria, but the Japs ain't involved in this mod so we ain't adding it)
Now the T-35 is something that will be slightly too hard to include into this kind of game, too big, too slow, and too easy to blow to chunks. Its more like a weak King Tiger and im damn sure that nobody wants something that a PE player can destroy with 1 Marder or 2 PGs w/ PzSchrecks. Hell, all i need is 3 PGs and those AT-nades cause thats all i need to kill that box on treads.
-
heh, dunno if this'd work, but could we have a 'Reward Doctrine Ablity'?
I'm thinking Yak-9 to replace the IL-2, basiccly Anti-Infantry instead of Anti-Tank xD.
-
Must I say it? T-28 !, T-28 ! :D T-28 FTW !
-
T44 look like a very good idea for unit reward!! I think it should replace LL sherman in breakthrough doctrine, not the IS2 which is a heavy tank.
IS3 is a good idea too, I think it should replace the ISU152, but would be, like KT, available once. Also who care about historical accuracy? Pershing have seen combat by the end of the war, and you can use it in Normandy!
T-35 and T-28 arent good unit reward: they were crap tank, and were only used in the first stage of the war.
-
Stinger, the Pershing as you said saw combat (however limited) on the Western Front. The IS-3 saw NO combat on the Eastern Front whatsoever. It was to late by about a few days to participate on the attack on the Reichstag. The Pershing did see combat against Panthers and Tigers as well as against German infantry. So while it had a limited role it was there. The IS-3 wasn't so you can't include it whatsoever. It wouldn't represent the Whole Eastern front anyway (unlike the IS-2 which was very important on it). So yea....
-
Pershing was engaged in 1945, and never saw combat in Normandy, and you can use it, because its fun to have a good tank in america side!
IS3 have never seen combat in european front as you said, but again "who care about historical accuracy?". It's a great tank which can beat even Tiger 2. That's why it would be fun to have it!
-
But here's one big problem. Pershing was used on WWII (from what i remeber, 13 were sent to Europe, and one was took down by 88). IS-3 WASN'T.
-
Well if the IS-3 isn't used what will the soviets have ? the IS-2 can be killed easily . the Americans have the Pershing , the Germans both the Tiger 1 & 2 , the Brits have Churchills and the Firefly(the Firefly has the best gun in game IMO ) so I think for the sake of it the Soviets should get the IS-3.
But what do the devs think of this ?
-
I've seen the Pershing that was the only one to cross the bridge at Niegmegan (sp?), I think.
It could've been another bridge in another city, but it was in Market Garden.
-
i think that was the M26 Super Pershing.. Not sure, was only used in OMG... And still, used twice, once knocking out a Tiger II and once with a Panther.
-
i think that was the M26 Super Pershing.. Not sure, was only used in OMG... And still, used twice, once knocking out a Tiger II and once with a Panther.
Nah, that tank looked "normal" to me, but it was one of the first 20 to arrive in Europe and must've been lucky enough to dodge all the panzershrecks and Flak 88's.
Edit: Just looked it up, the "Super" Pershing was the basicly the same as the "normal" Pershing. Wikki says it sucked, but it couldn'tve of if it survived being destroyed trying to get across the Rhine. And it says the Pershings only arrived for the Bulge.
-
What do you think of the Soviet flamethrower tank? For example, OT-34 OT-34-85, КВ-8?
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_OT-34_flamethrower_tank.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_OT-34_flamethrower_tank.html)
http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?EST-35101 (http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?EST-35101)
-
What do you think of the Soviet flamethrower tank? For example, OT-34 OT-34-85, КВ-8?
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_OT-34_flamethrower_tank.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_OT-34_flamethrower_tank.html)
http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?EST-35101 (http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?EST-35101)
...wasn't it discussed already in another thread??
-
I agree with Soldie , everyone Ignore WerWolf!
-
I'd now Personally like to see a Ablity for the Tank Hunters to 'Unleash a Anti-tank Dog', A Dog with a AT Mine Straped to it, Works like a Goliath,. But costs Manpower (Like 800MP), But VERY Effective (Unlike in rl, where they charged Soviet Tanks, Gameply Reasons ftw?) No need to show it blowing up, just walk to a tank then a Massive Explosion, To save Moaning from Animal Lovers.
-
Can't animate dogs.
-
I'd now Personally like to see a Ablity for the Tank Hunters to 'Unleash a Anti-tank Dog', A Dog with a AT Mine Straped to it, Works like a Goliath,. But costs Manpower (Like 800MP), But VERY Effective (Unlike in rl, where they charged Soviet Tanks, Gameply Reasons ftw?) No need to show it blowing up, just walk to a tank then a Massive Explosion, To save Moaning from Animal Lovers.
not gonna happen. was discussed before. animating them would make devs go insane. just a waste of time and there are more important things on the agenda (other reward units, campaign, ostheer, balancing,...). and as you mentioned in real life they just run under soviet tanks as they were trained to... ::)
-
We can take this guy and make him a dog, he looks good for the job ;D
-
We can take this guy and make him a dog, he looks good for the job ;D
Rofl'd and badly. But why did everyone bury the Marine idea replacing guards? I think it sounds great!
-
@Lolman112 idea:
Some things for the soviets:
Machinegun team: 3 guy's
2 just rifles
1 DP-28 gunner (only deployable with bipod, so only while lying on the ground or in buildings)
Attachable Comissars:
1 Comissar who can be attached to a unit of infantry.
It can execute someone and let the others fight better (dont know if such already is)
The sovjet-army used the scorcered earth tactic earlier than the germans. The germans have copied it. But it isn't fun to have 2 the same things.
I'll have many idea's for the Ostheer. Ask later if you want them.
Post Merge: August 27, 2010, 09:32:33 PM
@GameMan's idea:
Hi!
I think there should be new units to red army like:
Russian motors - like german BMV
Russian HMG - from films. Russians must have a hmg, because in other way they are quite weak in defending.
TRUCK!!!! - on bigger maps Russians can't move fast or smth like that, and they aremy is usally made by infantry. In this case, before Russians will get to enemy, a lot of time passes. Pls add these trucks, it would really help!
Propaganda truck - truck wich would give us morale etc.
Upgrades to units:
Tank hunters - dog. During the Holy War Russians trained dogs to go under the tank, because usually they were able to find some food there. During the battle, they were running to enemy tanks, and then, blowed up(poor dogs ;/). It's not a joke, It's fact. It would be a nice upgrade to tunk hunters. Dog for 50 ammunition. It would work as goliat. For me, geat idea.
Replace:
T-90 - what is it? It's so unknown tank, that it should be removed and replaced with for examble BT tank or any other Russian light tank.
That's all folks!
Thx for listening ;].
-
This is a suggestion thread, post your replays at the correct thread.
-
1.
During entire war, Soviet Army improvise with defence & attack technics & tactics. To help withstand for hard deadly blitzkrieg tank attacks, and then, crush german defence lines, russian engineers repair & throw to the frontlines Throphy Nazi tanks, infantry carriers, Selfpropelled artillery.
Pz II, III, IV, V, VI. StuG III, IV.
In 1944-45, Russian Strike Army, tank company have armed with Tiger & Panther heavy tanks.
In hard war years 1942-1943, can be whole tank platoons, in case for heavy loses have bee rearmed with german tanks/
My suggestion - Wy not, if Soviet Red Army having reward - trophy Panther & Tiger tanks? (Propaganda strategy)
Trophy Panther
(http://slfed.narod.ru/Photo/Panter.jpg (http://slfed.narod.ru/Photo/Panter.jpg))
Tiger
(http://waffen.ucoz.ru/_nw/40/79472917.jpg (http://waffen.ucoz.ru/_nw/40/79472917.jpg))
Stug IV
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/axiscaptured/SPG/StuG/StuK40_L48_pic1.jpg (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/axiscaptured/SPG/StuG/StuK40_L48_pic1.jpg))
2.
Russian strategy during Great War for the Motherland, have a critical tactical tradition. In hard frontline times, during hard battles,Staff of the red army send to the last stand comrades help of the mechanised during 1942, or in 1943 Tank corpses.
That wil be helpfull & realistic. Marshall Rybalko Рыбалко П.С., twise Hero of the Soviet Union. Iron comandarm.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/4/40/Pavel_Rybalko.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/4/40/Pavel_Rybalko.jpg))
Command with 5th / June 1942, 3th/ october 1942 & 3th guard from may 1943 tank armies.
Battle for Dnepr, Kursk mass tank battle, Charkov (1943), Kiev, Jitomir, Proskurov, Lvov, Dresden, Praha, Berlin.
During Lvov- Sandomirsk operation, Rybalko Tank Army save live of the Lvov city from destruction.
Marshall Konev with Rybalko tanks can capturing Berlin, but global strategy "cards" of the general staff will already draw...
Why not, SA will have tank platoon help from Rybalko veteran tank army? (Tank strategy)
Post Merge: September 04, 2010, 08:27:55 AM
3. Another point.
What if. Russian tank hall & support structure (especially tank hall) in the beginning can take for the frontline begin war technology:
- KV
- T-34
SU-85/76
Than, via reward points player can make improvement for the tanks & SAU
- KV-2/KV-85
- Т-34-76
- IS-1
- SU-100
- SU-122 (http://www.kursk1943.mil.ru/kursk/tw/afv/s_spg_su122.jpg (http://www.kursk1943.mil.ru/kursk/tw/afv/s_spg_su122.jpg))
+ heavy defence buildings like MG bunker, Tank turrets & others
(http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_20.jpg (http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_20.jpg))
(http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_5.jpg (http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_5.jpg))
(http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_17.jpg (http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_17.jpg))
(http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_23.jpg (http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-sov-turret-pb_23.jpg))
(http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-t34-turret-pb-0_1.jpg (http://www.vn-parabellum.com/images/fort-t34-turret-pb-0_1.jpg))
In the final stage, reward can improve tank hall for last stage war machines.
- IS-2/3
- T-34-85
- SU-100 + SU-152
4.
Anti-tank guns (especially ZIS-2), using Armour-piercing discarding sabot can penetrate heavy armouring targets.
(ZIS-2/ 500m - penetrate 147mm, 1,5km - 100mm)
Good for AT-guns take special ability "Use APDS Ammo".
-
Suggestion lines:
Infantry Division
- Heavy defence fortifitions
- Black coats (Black davils)
- Heavy battalion artillery installations & mortar inst.
- Heavy Mobile seige artillery call outs
Strike/Tank army
- Unique tank science (IS-3, KV-2)
- Throphy tanks call outs
- Heavy SU units produse (ISU-122, ISU-152)
- Heavy tanks reinforcements
NKVD
- Propaganda with loudspeaker
- NKVD infantry & mechanased units
- Sniper veteran call out
- BM-31-12
What about that lines?
-
You realise the Soviet Union has been released for some time and you're asking for total redesign?
Stick to the unit suggestions mate.
-
You realise the Soviet Union has been released for some time and you're asking for total redesign?
Stick to the unit suggestions mate.
+1
Cramming in as many random units as possible just because they existed in ww2 is a baaaaaad idea. There is something called 'redundant' when you have multiple units that look different but all have the same role. Also, what's the point of a faction if it has everything every other faction gets and where a doctrine doesn't offer genuine change over the other two in gameplay
-
You realise the Soviet Union has been released for some time and you're asking for total redesign?
Stick to the unit suggestions mate.
It is good "near hstorical" correction.
-
It is good "near hstorical" correction.
Not really, its just your opinion of what the faction should look like. Surprise surprise, everyone has one...
But, we're not redesigning them...we've already done that once and this is how they'll stay apart from reward units. So please stick to that as its the purpose of this thread, reward units.
Cheers
-
One last thing , what do you mean by reward units ? Doctrine call ins ? New units ? I need specification !
-
How about you try Reading the topic?
-
How about you try Reading the topic?
Priceless ;D
-
I have read the first page and a few pages, but I need an exact meaning of reward units :P
-
reward unit = unit included in the game as bonus, it replaces an unit with similar stats(brits doesn't count ;)).
That's the only information you might need to know :). For anything else, wait until the reward units be released to find it out.
-
Things like the T17, gwagon and kang are all examples of reward units.
-
It was excelent, if reward units will be:
- A-19 heavy Corps Artillery (122mm)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/122_mm_gun_M193137_(A-19)_1.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/122_mm_gun_M193137_(A-19)_1.jpg)
- or 152 caterpiller Heavy Seige Artillery
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/152_mm_gun_M1935_(Br-2)_at_Museum_of_Heroic_Defense_and_Liberation_of_Sevastopol_on_Sapun-gora.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/152_mm_gun_M1935_(Br-2)_at_Museum_of_Heroic_Defense_and_Liberation_of_Sevastopol_on_Sapun-gora.jpg)
- IS-3 heavy tank, for balance of Tiger-B only for Breakthrough tactics
-
Is-3 was never seen in Europe.
I vote for KV-85. Good armour, considerable firepower. Great replacement for IS-2.
-
Is-3 was never seen in Europe.
I vote for KV-85. Good armour, considerable firepower. Great replacement for IS-2.
OK But it's no mass prodused machine & soon this tank will replaced by the IS-1.
Can be possible for IS-1, or t-44 (T-44-85, T-44-100, T-44-122)
1800 - were built.
m10 & M18 were built 5000/2500, but to the Europe front, if i remember correct, was send only 150-180 of all models Tank - destroyers.
Battalion & company organisation do not allow deliver more. Athers will fight on the other theaters.
-
Keep the T-34, it doesnt need to be replaced but i like the idea for the KV-1 and have an upgrade to the KV-85 and make the KV-1/85 as a new unit. Add it for the Urban warfare strategy or something.?
I might go out on a limb and suggest some Lend-Lease vehicles like a M3 Grant/Lee tank, have it like an expendable unit??
Hope these ideas dont sound too far fetched.
-
@Sturmovik
- Heavy battalion artillery installations? -> firebase.... ::)
- Heavy Mobile seige artillery call outs? -> they already have the katyusha
- Unique tank science (IS-3, KV-2)? -> kv2 is ingame, is-3 never saw action on the eastern front
- Heavy SU units produse (ISU-122, ISU-152)? -> isu 152 is ingame
- Heavy tanks reinforcements? -> IS-2 seems heavy enough for me
- NKVD infantry? -> ingame (penal squad)
- Sniper veteran call out? -> ingame (sniper ace)
- BM-31-12? -> ingame
so most of your suggestions are already in the game...
-
so most of your suggestions are already in the game...
My thread is not about this ... i already have an answer.
I saying about replanning & renaming reward themes & regrouping the reward points ... but no one will do this ...
-
Because there's no point.
-
I don't know if any were already said but here are some of my suggestion:
1)T-26/T-46 for T-70(a bit slower but with a stronger gun)
2)BT-2/BT-5/BT-7 for T-90(faster but a weaker gun)
3)T-28 for SU-85(not as good against tanks but better against infantry, and since i heard there is a problem with animating more than one turret the 2 MG turrets don't move)
4)T-44 for IS2(a very fast tank, cheaper and equivalent to Panther or a bit better)
5)T-34/57 for T-34/76(faster firing and deals more damage but it costs more than standard T-34/76; can still be upgraded to 34/85)
6)KV-2/107 or KV-2/85 for KV-2(a powerful anti tank gun, fires as slow as the regular KV-2 but it's deadly for enemy tanks)
7)KV-85 for IS2(fires faster, has almost the same armor and costs a bit less)
-
I don't know if any were already said but here are some of my suggestion:
1)T-26/T-46 for T-70(a bit slower but with a stronger gun)
2)BT-2/BT-5/BT-7 for T-90(faster but a weaker gun)
3)T-28 for SU-85(not as good against tanks but better against infantry, and since i heard there is a problem with animating more than one turret the 2 MG turrets don't move)
4)T-44 for IS2(a very fast tank, cheaper and equivalent to Panther or a bit better)
5)T-34/57 for T-34/76(faster firing and deals more damage but it costs more than standard T-34/76; can still be upgraded to 34/85)
6)KV-2/107 or KV-2/85 for KV-2(a powerful anti tank gun, fires as slow as the regular KV-2 but it's deadly for enemy tanks)
7)KV-85 for IS2(fires faster, has almost the same armor and costs a bit less)
Some of these were interesting.
-
3)T-28 for SU-85(not as good against tanks but better against infantry, and since i heard there is a problem with animating more than one turret the 2 MG turrets don't move)
All three moving turrets have been done for T-28 in the Anti-Jap mod. Therefore it seems very possible
http://www.moddb.com/mods/anti-japenese-mod (http://www.moddb.com/mods/anti-japenese-mod)
-
When you suggest reward-units, you'll have to take into account that not every vehicle is able to replace every other vehicle.
The Brit's Kangaroo is a good negative-example for this. They created a thing which totally differs from the original vehicle it replaces and overthrew the whole balance and especially gameplay of CoH.
Therefore you can't replace a AA-tank (T-90) with a fast tank (BT-series) similiar to the T-70.
Also, including things like the T-44 which weren't used in WW2-combat is a bit ... meh. ::)
I hope you accept my criticism. :)
-
When you suggest reward-units, you'll have to take into account that not every vehicle is able to replace every other vehicle.
The Brit's Kangaroo is a good negative-example for this. They created a thing which totally differs from the original vehicle it replaces and overthrew the whole balance and especially gameplay of CoH.
Therefore you can't replace a AA-tank (T-90) with a fast tank (BT-series) similiar to the T-70.
Also, including things like the T-44 which weren't used in WW2-combat is a bit ... meh. ::)
I hope you accept my criticism. :)
I accept your criticism but this denies almost every reward unit for the Soviets! ::)
So if you don't want a change in role like i suggested than it should be T-60 to replace T-70; they are almost the same thing, but i don't think the devs will replace with something so lil' like a change of turret right?
Also why not a change of roles if they will act similar and the devs already did that(Sherman 105/Sherman Crocodile); i mean reduce the speed of the BT Series so they aren't so fast, give them a fast firing cannon(similar to Puma) and you have a faster but weaker T-90!
In the end i would like you to ask you something: Is there any reward unit i suggested that you liked? ;D
And if there isn't any what would your reward units be, for what and how would they compare to the original unit?*But please don't put the previous version of each tank so it has the same role with the original, i mean that's good for balance but what good is it if you have the same unit with same stats and different model? ;)
-
I love how he recommended T-44 , but last I remember that came out too late to be used.... :D
+1 for the Kv-85 though.
-
Actually i believe that the T-44 did find some service in WW2 but only on the Eastern Front (Soviet attack on Manchuko). It didn't serve in combat, but was there on the Western Front (just like i believe the T-90 was just a prototype and didn't see any real combat, please correct me if I'm wrong)
I was actually thinking of the T-44 being a replacement for the T-34/85 haaving better armor and faster speed, but with a higher cost, lower LOS and gun range, slower reload speed and a higher pop, perhaps some other changes. Any thoughts??
-
Actually i believe that the T-44 did find some service in WW2 but only on the Eastern Front (Soviet attack on Manchuko). It didn't serve in combat, but was there on the Western Front (just like i believe the T-90 was just a prototype and didn't see any real combat, please correct me if I'm wrong)
I was actually thinking of the T-44 being a replacement for the T-34/85 haaving better armor and faster speed, but with a higher cost, lower LOS and gun range, slower reload speed and a higher pop, perhaps some other changes. Any thoughts??
I don't know about the T-90/T-44 thing but replacement for T-34/85 is a bit too much, i mean late in game when soviets start making tanks like mad having both a fast medium and a strong heavy is too OP, that's why i suggested to replace the IS-2!But that's just me! :P
-
-KV-1 as replacement for Sherman from Breakthrough strategy. Churchill-like tank, with nice armor and average gun;
-SU-76 as replacement for Zis AT gun. Unit similar to PE Marder, but more fragile, slower, built from upgraded Support Barracks, but requires Tank Hall present. Armory upgrade increase rate of fire and/or gives munitions with increased penetration for short duration;
-SU-85/100 replaced with T-34 with flamethrower (Croc Churchill style), armory upgrade increases rate of fire/range of flamethrower or arms it with 85mm gun (like "old" T-34), manpower/fuel/population cost increased or limited to 2-3 tanks per commander;
My little thoughts
-
Since this is my first post on EF, I'd like to say thank you to all of those who have made this a very high-quality mod. 8)
-KV-1 as replacement for Sherman from Breakthrough strategy. Churchill-like tank, with nice armor and average gun;
I do agree that the Sherman should go, but putting a heavy tank as the first vehicle in a doctrine is a bad idea IMO. Forcing a player to save 4 CPs on the first level of a doctrine is not a good idea, and I think a KV-1 should cost at least 3CP.
I like the suggestion of the Valentine from earlier in the thread for this slot. You still get that lend-lease feel of the Sherman, but it's more unique. If it cost, say, 3CP and 450MP, or 2CP and 550MP, that might be about right depending on how effective it is made in game. A Valentine call-in could allow the soviet player to have an early-ish to mid-game tank to stave off early armor while using his fuel to tech the tank hall to heavy tanks. Seems like it would mesh well with Breakthrough that way. I was browsing the Valentine Wikipedia page and found this interesting snippet on the Valentine VIII:
A III upgraded with the QF 6-pounder gun. In order to fit it, the coaxial machinegun and the loader crew member had to be removed. The side armour was reduced again. Crews came up with a novel way of using a machinegun from inside the hull by fitting a solenoid-fired Browning MG into a 6-pdr shell-case. When needed, this was inserted into the 6-pdr breech and the solenoid cable connected, allowing the gunner to aim it using the main gun elevating gear, traverse and telescope.
I don't know if any of the soviets tried anything like this, but in-game it would be cool to have the ability to fire either the 6-pdr, or to switch to an MG (with appropriate set-up times when switching between the two). Seems possible from a code standpoint considering the Panzer Ace campaign allows you to switch between HE and AP rounds for the Tiger.
For actual reward units, I'm a fan of the KV-85 as a replacement for the IS-2 (actually, it was more the IS-2 that replaced the KV-85, no?). I know that not that many of these were made, but they've got just as much of a right to be in the game as a Pershing IMO. Or the option of starting off as KV-1 and then upgrading to KV-85s is a secondary possibility that I think could work depending on how upgrades to a reward unit would fit into the armory.
I was also thinking that a OT-133 or similar would be a pretty cool reward unit to replace the T-90. It's going to take me a while to read through everything here so I don't know if that's been suggested before or not. Anyway, I thought it might be cool since I can't think of another faction that has a light flame tank. ;)
-
...
-SU-76 as replacement for Zis AT gun. Unit similar to PE Marder, but more fragile, slower, built from upgraded Support Barracks, but requires Tank Hall present. Armory upgrade increase rate of fire and/or gives munitions with increased penetration for short duration;
...
If the unit will be crap I don't think you need to wait for Tank Hall. I like this idea(thinking to avoid the strawmen bug for AT), but not the part of the Tank Hall. It should be able to be at the same time that ZiS-2, otherwise what use will have?
Seems possible from a code standpoint considering the Panzer Ace campaign allows you to switch between HE and AP rounds for the Tiger.
Devs already tried to implement it to another unit and didn't worked.
-
Seems possible from a code standpoint considering the Panzer Ace campaign allows you to switch between HE and AP rounds for the Tiger.
Devs already tried to implement it to another unit and didn't worked.
That's a shame. Oh well, after a brief bit of research on the internet, it seems that particular Mk. of the Valentine didn't make it to Russia anyway. It wouldn't be particularly overpowered to give it a cannon and MG anyway. That would make it a bit like an M-8 but with better armor.
-
...
-SU-76 as replacement for Zis AT gun. Unit similar to PE Marder, but more fragile, slower, built from upgraded Support Barracks, but requires Tank Hall present. Armory upgrade increase rate of fire and/or gives munitions with increased penetration for short duration;
...
If the unit will be crap I don't think you need to wait for Tank Hall. I like this idea(thinking to avoid the strawmen bug for AT), but not the part of the Tank Hall. It should be able to be at the same time that ZiS-2, otherwise what use will have?
Well, some people would like to cry "OP", "imba" etc when soviets would have self propelled gun so early, no matter it would take beating from everything that shoots something more than blank rounds. Also, it would make SU-85/100 tank destroyers a bit useless. But if the idea of SU-76 is adopted, as far as I'm sure you Devs make it realistic divided by balanced :)
-
-KV-1 as replacement for Sherman from Breakthrough strategy. Churchill-like tank, with nice armor and average gun;
-SU-76 as replacement for Zis AT gun. Unit similar to PE Marder, but more fragile, slower, built from upgraded Support Barracks, but requires Tank Hall present. Armory upgrade increase rate of fire and/or gives munitions with increased penetration for short duration;
-SU-85/100 replaced with T-34 with flamethrower (Croc Churchill style), armory upgrade increases rate of fire/range of flamethrower or arms it with 85mm gun (like "old" T-34), manpower/fuel/population cost increased or limited to 2-3 tanks per commander;
My little thoughts
KV-1, i totally agree and like Xeones said it should be 3CP and stats/prices similar to Churchill, maybe a bit better gun!
SU-76 shouldn't need Tank Hall like blackbishop said and it should be a fast but fragile TD!
I don't quite get this one; here's what i understood: The T-34 replaces the SU-85, can fire it's cannon and use the flamethrower like Churchill Crocodile, then it has either an upgrade to make the flamethrower more efficient or to upgrade it to T-34/85 with flamethrower?If it's like so it's a pretty good idea but why does it need a limiting?Maybe a cost increase since it has cannon and flamethrower too but other than that i see no point in limiting it's numbers!But honestly im not that much into flamethrower tanks! ::)
-
blablabla
KV-1, i totally agree and like Xeones said it should be 3CP and stats/prices similar to Churchill, maybe a bit better gun!
SU-76 shouldn't need Tank Hall like blackbishop said and it should be a fast but fragile TD!
I don't quite get this one; here's what i understood: The T-34 replaces the SU-85, can fire it's cannon and use the flamethrower like Churchill Crocodile, then it has either an upgrade to make the flamethrower more efficient or to upgrade it to T-34/85 with flamethrower?If it's like so it's a pretty good idea but why does it need a limiting?Maybe a cost increase since it has cannon and flamethrower too but other than that i see no point in limiting it's numbers!But honestly im not that much into flamethrower tanks! ::)
For now, the only serious drawback of soviet armor is overall ineffectiveness against infantry, compared to Sherman with .50 or Panzer 4 with MG42. If, "croc T-34" (or OT-34) would be unlimited and only more expensive, then, last last serious drawback is gone. Second, OT-34 weren't that common, and, OT-34/85, with decent cannon against tanks and flamethrower to counter AT infantry, could be considered... OP
And what about idea of replacing current T34/76 (model 1943, with hexagonal turret), with older one, with side sloped turret (model 1941 IIRC)? Stats the same, just different model/skin. Also I'm thinking about option, that remaining T-34/76, when 85mm gun upgrade is bought, can be upgraded (for munition cost) with applique armor, like this one
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T34_2.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T34_2.jpg)
-
...
-SU-76 as replacement for Zis AT gun. Unit similar to PE Marder, but more fragile, slower, built from upgraded Support Barracks, but requires Tank Hall present. Armory upgrade increase rate of fire and/or gives munitions with increased penetration for short duration;
...
If the unit will be crap I don't think you need to wait for Tank Hall. I like this idea(thinking to avoid the strawmen bug for AT), but not the part of the Tank Hall. It should be able to be at the same time that ZiS-2, otherwise what use will have?
Well, some people would like to cry "OP", "imba" etc when soviets would have self propelled gun so early, no matter it would take beating from everything that shoots something more than blank rounds. Also, it would make SU-85/100 tank destroyers a bit useless. But if the idea of SU-76 is adopted, as far as I'm sure you Devs make it realistic divided by balanced :)
Remember that balance can be checked, a fly could kill a tank in CoH. If the idea fits, the balance come later. All in all I'm not part of the team that works on soviets or ostheer, so my opinion don't reflect any changes on soviets.
...
For now, the only serious drawback of soviet armor is overall ineffectiveness against infantry, compared to Sherman with .50 or Panzer 4 with MG42. If, "croc T-34" (or OT-34) would be unlimited and only more expensive, then, last last serious drawback is gone. Second, OT-34 weren't that common, and, OT-34/85, with decent cannon against tanks and flamethrower to counter AT infantry, could be considered... OP
...
T-34s are good against infantry, T90 have nice suppression values. I think the soviet armor is ok, if the soviets would have an unit like that you are using the wrong reasons.
Replacing the T34/76 from 1943 with a model from 1941 could be interesting. But I don't know if it worth the change.
-
KV-1, i totally agree and like Xeones said it should be 3CP and stats/prices similar to Churchill, maybe a bit better gun!
Actually, I said that it should be at least 3CP. If its at the beginning of the doctrinal tree, I'd say it would have to be 4CP. Now if Mechanics were first, and the KV-1 second, then I'd be fine with a KV-1 only costing 3CP. That way, it still effectively costs 4CP to tech to a KV-1, which would keep it from coming out too early for a heavy tank.
I'd still prefer one of the Valentines --probably the IX now that I've done a bit more research on them--since it would have a 6-pdr and a coaxial MG.
-
T-34s are good against infantry, T90 have nice suppression values. I think the soviet armor is ok, if the soviets would have an unit like that you are using the wrong reasons.
Replacing the T34/76 from 1943 with a model from 1941 could be interesting. But I don't know if it worth the change.
Yes, T90 is excellent at suppressing infantry, but in terms of killing speed its low. T90 + infantry wins, but, soviet armor, alone, is inferior to American/German counterparts, who have a mg (.50 or MG42), that can do some damage, especially at close range.
But, this is the so-called "IMHO".
Between 1943 and 41 only difference is turret, remaking entire tank is not necessary.
-
When you suggest reward-units, you'll have to take into account that not every vehicle is able to replace every other vehicle.
The Brit's Kangaroo is a good negative-example for this. They created a thing which totally differs from the original vehicle it replaces and overthrew the whole balance and especially gameplay of CoH.
EF Kangaroo is balanced. It just needed some nerfs that Relic didnt care to make. I still dont understand why ToV Roo is the cheapest of all troop carriers.
-
KV-1, i totally agree and like Xeones said it should be 3CP and stats/prices similar to Churchill, maybe a bit better gun!
Actually, I said that it should be at least 3CP. If its at the beginning of the doctrinal tree, I'd say it would have to be 4CP. Now if Mechanics were first, and the KV-1 second, then I'd be fine with a KV-1 only costing 3CP. That way, it still effectively costs 4CP to tech to a KV-1, which would keep it from coming out too early for a heavy tank.
I'd still prefer one of the Valentines --probably the IX now that I've done a bit more research on them--since it would have a 6-pdr and a coaxial MG.
Hmmm KV1 for breakthrough? Why not. But I would still prefer replace the IS2 with KV1 (with possible upgrade to 85mm in armory) and make IS2 only for breakthrough doctrine. And the LL sherman is so boring, why not instead a sort of bonus for armored unit?
Wordsmith had some really good idea to do that, plus "staline's speech" is really... useless ;D
And I love the idea of soviet marines "black jackets", but I wonder how add them to the game? Special defensive unit for Propaganda? Or replacement for guards?
T44 and IS3 would be a good idea though, but we need to create a model and animate it... :-X not possible for a while, and I want the Ostheer to be released in the faster way (I dont mean for the next month, but dev shouldnt wast their modding time in this kind of details).
-
Well, some units are just to fill the place. I.e. sherman L&L, brit's nests & mortar are just placeholders for the soviet units that should be there; as they aren't finished something appropriate should be used...
-
Hi fellas,
I'd really like to see naval infantry ingame, as was mentioned before, but somehow unfairly forgotten.
Those heroic men were very common during the defence of Leningrad, Sevastopol, etc in the first phase of Great Patriotic War (the purely defensive one). In fact, if Devs won't consider adding them as a reward unit, I'll be fairly dissappointed and shall settle down on replacing one of the infantry skin for theirs anyway.
Just trying to keep it warm 'bout those mariners.
-
I also would like to see the Black Demons.
-
I also would like to see the Black Demons.
If i remember correctly we have skins for them. If we make a sub for an exsisting unit it would probably Guards. Although i don't really see a purpose for this switch except aesthetics.
Although we can always switch their roles, Guards are long to mid range, so we can make the Soviet Marines more Close Range oriented by giving them some Fedorov Avtomats or perhaps the AVS-36 (both of which I see as an early attempt at an Assualt Rifle), so as not to reuse the same old PPSh/ PPS CQB system.
-
I also would like to see the Black Demons.
If i remember correctly we have skins for them. If we make a sub for an exsisting unit it would probably Guards. Although i don't really see a purpose for this switch except aesthetics.
Although we can always switch their roles, Guards are long to mid range, so we can make the Soviet Marines more Close Range oriented by giving them some Fedorov Avtomats or perhaps the AVS-36 (both of which I see as an early attempt at an Assualt Rifle), so as not to reuse the same old PPSh/ PPS CQB system.
Why necessarily guards?
Black coats could be an awesome replacement for tank hunters, but:
1. having AT grenades instead of ptrd and
2. give 'em molotovs against infantry,
3. cut the ambush ability, 'cause they are quite easy to notice in those adorable fancy clothings.
4. Make 'em slower, so they'd be useless against fast-moving light armour, but
5. add some health, so that they would become a dreadful defensive unit,
= effective against heavy tanks and infantry.
-
You cannot replace tank hunters with those marines because they will rely on their AT grenades with muni-based cost ability to fill the AT role... that doesn't sounds good.
Looks like you want a guard like unit to replace AT infantry. Sounds like the hotchkiss.
-
You cannot replace tank hunters with those marines because they will rely on their AT grenades with muni-based cost ability to fill the AT role... that doesn't sounds good.
Looks like you want a guard like unit to replace AT infantry. Sounds like the hotchkiss.
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.
-
You cannot replace tank hunters with those marines because they will rely on their AT grenades with muni-based cost ability to fill the AT role... that doesn't sounds good.
Looks like you want a guard like unit to replace AT infantry. Sounds like the hotchkiss.
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.
Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer. ::)
-
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.
You are wrong with that... if you replace a unit with the wrong one you'll unbalance the game.
-
Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer. ::)
Not funny! AT ALL !!!
Many heroic soviet men sacrificed their lives in that sacred war (virtually for soviet people it was not a fight for the freedom but for mere survival, for fascist pigs were not only anti-semit and anti-communist, but slavianofobic (hated the noble slavic people) as well, and considered SU population as untermenshen. Millions of soviet people of non jewish origin died or were executed in nazi concentration camps and even on the spot).
SU history books, as well as participants of the GPW I personaly know, tell that during the fierce fights over various soviet port-cities naval infantry not only took part, but was one of most motivated, heroic and thus effective part of soviet defence forces, that fought basically anything they had to, including armour. The only minus of naval infantry as a fighting force was their relatively small number.
And yes, officers too can throw AT grenades in real life.
Post Merge: November 16, 2010, 08:00:02 PM
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.
You are wrong with that... if you replace a unit with the wrong one you'll unbalance the game.
What is that particularly wrong about my suggestion, may you thoroughly explain, if you don't mind.
I'm proposing an anti-light armour unit to be replaced by anti-heavy armour one, adding also an ability to throw AP grenade (which molotov in this game is). Cool-down for molotovs could be increased comparatively to that of penal squads.
-
Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer. ::)
Not funny! AT ALL !!!
Sure its funny, no mather how many Soviets will die to prove me wrong. Marines are well trained, light infantry, not anti armor infantry. Its also funny that you dont understand that.
-
wow calme down its a topic about soviet reward unit not about noble soviet sacrificing their noble live to definitly liberate europe from nazis...
And anyway, every infantry are good vs tanks if in a proper environment... Plus dev stated many times that "realistic" things are irrelevant to the mod. If soviets marines are added, it will be in a balanced way!
-
wow calme down its a topic about soviet reward unit not about noble soviet sacrificing their noble live to definitly liberate europe from nazis...
And anyway, every infantry are good vs tanks if in a proper environment... Plus dev stated many times that "realistic" things are irrelevant to the mod. If soviets marines are added, it will be in a balanced way!
+FKIN-1
-
Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer. ::)
Not funny! AT ALL !!!
Sure its funny, no mather how many Soviets will die to prove me wrong. Marines are well trained, light infantry, not anti armor infantry. Its also funny that you dont understand that.
"Marines are well trained, light infantry,..." so are rangers, however in this game they are somewhat as meat tanks.
And about that "joke" of yours, I don't give a crap what is in-game, but darkening the memory of heroes of our (my) people makes you a little different from a lowly animal (say a swine).
Show some respect, and don't take it out of the game into real life, which you, apparently, know little about.
-
[...]
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.
You are wrong with that... if you replace a unit with the wrong one you'll unbalance the game.
What is that particularly wrong about my suggestion, may you thoroughly explain, if you don't mind.
I'm proposing an anti-light armour unit to be replaced by anti-heavy armour one, adding also an ability to throw AP grenade (which molotov in this game is). Cool-down for molotovs could be increased comparatively to that of penal squads.
Let's see, Tank Hunters are dedicated AT, if you replace that for a T2 guards squad, you no longer will have a reliable AT infantry. Just an Infantry squad with AT ability available, lets say every 2~3 minutes.
Marines fits as guard's replacements or even to Strelky more than TH one.
And you are wrong with this as well:
because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.
I don't want to replace tank hunters just to use marines. I would ask to replace something else. The fact that is a reward unit doesn't mean that you put it and that's all... if you like it good and if not don't use it; you need to look what are you replacing... it should has sense and for me it hasn't.
You can see an example of this case with Hotchiss to Pz IV or Stags & Roos to Cromwells.
Also there's no need to be patriotic and insult other users.
P.S. Btw rangers aren't AI infantry until you give them thompsons.
-
@blackbishop
Well, it's just an idea. After all, you've mentioned yourself that some of vanila RU are not matching your concept.
Besides I thought of AT grenades as of a global upgrade (instead of additional PTRD one).
Anyway, thanks for a discussion, and still hope you'll find a place for NI as a soviet reward unit. :)
-
@blackbishop
Well, it's just an idea. After all, you've mentioned yourself that some of vanila RU are not matching your concept.
Besides I thought of AT grenades as of a global upgrade (instead of additional PTRD one).
Anyway, thanks for a discussion, and still hope you'll find a place for NI as a soviet reward unit. :)
You can be sure about it ;).
-
funny that people keep confusing an unrealistic game like CoH with real life. Ever seen how an M8 kites Panzergrenadiers? I doubt that ever happened in RL. Anyone renember Psychopath? he was from rumania and keept ranting about rumanian troops....
Back on topic: I support the idea of Black sea marines, just make the guard skin different (as a reward unit)
-
First of all, I respect what happened in real life but it has absolutely no bearing on the gameplay.
You cannot change a reliable, long ranged light AT squad for a heavy anti-inf squad with AT nades. The most logical replacement is clearly guards but it may also be worth it to replace strelky as a similar unit to a gren squad out of the box, with nades (not AT) and the option for Avtomats after red banner is upgraded. This might work well for players who prefer a more elite, lower number main infantry rather than the sheer numbers we often see at the moment.
-
My ideas:
KV-85 as replacement for IS-2---> to one of doctrines as call-in
Marines could replace Partisans - because they fought mostly in urban areas, like Sevastopol or Leningrad.
-
I would also like to see paratroopers as a call-in for breakthrough.
Marines replacing partisans is a good idea; different style, armament, combat fashion... yep its a good idea! And I want to keep my guards alongside with them.
Btw, it would be more logical if guards start with mosin-nagant, and replace them with SVT40 when upgrade.
-
Btw, it would be more logical if guards start with mosin-nagant, and replace them with SVT40 when upgrade.
You have already the Riflemen that start with Mosin-Nagant (with the upgrade of PPh41 or DP28); Guards are an Elite infantry (look the cost and how many upgrade of the buildings you must do before you can deploy it) they need immediatly a good weapon.
It's like Iron Cross Knight, they can't start with Kar98.
;)
-
Marines replacing partisans is a good idea; different style, armament, combat fashion... yep its a good idea! And I want to keep my guards alongside with them.
Nice idea, but what about camouflage (obviously their look doesn't appeal too much to that ability) and booby-trapping checkpoints (which, without camo, appears to be more than problematic), and also the decision has to be made on what kind of weapons should they carry, for partizans' ones don't fit 'em very well.
-
If the soviet MG-Team wasn't shot down, I would have suggested that USSR Marines with a Maxim-MG (or whatever communist Russia had) replace the Mortar-Team, since in soviet propaganda those men where shown as some really bad-ass badasses.
However, I think they shouldn't replace Partisans, it would have some really bad influence on gameplay. Those Marines just doesn't fit in that role and therefore the whole doctrin-idea is gone. It's the same problem as when replacing tank-hunters (which are AT) with some guys throwing nades and destroying tanks = will look stupid, since they weren't AT-infantry at all.
(Sorry if I insulted your country, but after all I don't have to respect someone's who doesn't respect mine.)
-
@Aouch
If you disagree with him about that I suggest to use PM instead of making this thread a flame war.
-
(Sorry if I insulted your country, but after all I don't have to respect someone's who doesn't respect mine.)
Jesus, help me! You, people, are so annoying!! Let it go already!!!
However, I do agree on the partisans.
will look stupid, since they weren't AT-infantry at all
Not much more stupid than stashes of fuel and ammo, scattered across the battlefield, since there weren't any such things at all.
And, after all, I didn't call, nor was suggesting them as pure AT, my idea was about more or less all-around unit, replacing PTRD teams on the terms of the reward unit.
Relent...
-
Wow, a flame war. I thought we all were too mature for this... ::)
-
will look stupid, since they weren't AT-infantry at all
Not much more stupid than stashes of fuel and ammo, scattered across the battlefield, since there weren't any such things at all.
And, after all, I didn't call, nor was suggesting them as pure AT, my idea was about more or less all-around unit, replacing PTRD teams on the terms of the reward unit.
Relent...
Adding more Stupid things wont make the game less stupid.
COH game mechanics (gun ranges, gathering resources and costs) were allways stupid but the role of the unit on the field usually is as historically was. That (and ballance, and unit varaity too) made COH fun.
However, I think they shouldn't replace Partisans, it would have some really bad influence on gameplay. Those Marines just doesn't fit in that role and therefore the whole doctrin-idea is gone
Marines were used in defending cities like Sevastotol (like any other infantry in USRR pushed to the front line just becouse they were there) and they are too elite to show up on the map after just 35 fuel (Tank Hunters). But replacing Partisants would mean changing the urban tree (booby traps for Parisants)...
Thats why they can only replace Guards or T-90.
But having 2 similar units that can be build at the same time (if they were to replace the T-90 from the tank hall) is just wrong.
IMO USRR dosnt need Marines. Guards are Elite enough (more elite and cheaper than Rangers, have nades after no upgrades and benefit from CS global vet). How elite can the USRR constript army be?
If you want Marines than replace Guard skins with Marine skins (if they exist).
-
IMO USRR dosnt need Marines. Guards are Elite enough (more elite and cheaper than Rangers, have nades after no upgrades and benefit from CS global vet). How elite can the USRR constript army be?
If you want Marines than replace Guard skins with Marine skins (if they exist).
+1 ;D
-
...they are too elite to show up on the map after just 35 fuel (Tank Hunters). But replacing Partisants would mean changing the urban tree (booby traps for Parisants)...
I must admit it, you have a point there.
That's why they can only replace Guards or T-90.
But having 2 similar units that can be build at the same time (if they were to replace the T-90 from the tank hall) is just wrong.
Well, that's the kind of replacement, I would favour the least, 'cause the guards as a battle unit, are just as dear to my heart as I would want to see NI in the game. However, if that is going to be the choice, I'd prefer to have NI as a reward unit replacing guards, rather than not having them at all, for mere sake of aesthetics and, my personal deep admiration of the immortal exploit of their RL prototypes.
For the latter, I should say, I hope, the Devs don't share your views on including them as a part of the in-game soviet army.
-
Here are revamps/improvements of some ideas from this thread:
T-90 -> BA-64
BA-64 should have higher accuracy, but significantly lower suppression (no insta-pin). Also, his armor is so thin that it can be pierced by rifles. Can seize (do NOT capture) sectors.
Partisans -> “Black coats” (NAVY infantry)
Cannot emerge from buildings (only off-map). 6-man squad, armed mostly with SMGs and few rifles. Have very high suppression resistance, which becomes 100% at vet3. At vet2 receive skill “Charge!” [insert better name here], on activation it relieves suppression, makes them run fast and gives debuff to enemies in shot range (minus accuracy, minus movement speed). After acquiring “Booby traps” [can be renamed to “explosives supply”] receive ability “Grenade assault” [similar to those of Stormtroopers and KCH]. Have higher cost than Parts.
-
Im quite sure the t90 instant pin is a bug, they could however make it an ability for the t-90 for a amout of munition it will instant pin targets it fire against for a duration of time.
The t-70 could get a APCR round ability, this will make sure that both units become more usefull lategame and less booring to play with :D
yeah the ba64 is a obvious choice as a reward unit for the t-90
-
Im quite sure the t90 instant pin is a bug, they could however make it an ability for the t-90 for a amout of munition it will instant pin targets it fire against for a duration of time.
The present munition upkeep for armour is quite a scourge to soviet economy, so adding munition cost for abilities of armour, that already drains munition by the simple fact of it's existence, will not make it a lot more fun to play as a soviet, simply a lot more problematic.
-
The t-70 could get a APCR round ability...
It has a powerfull Stuart gun and a anti Shreck M-8 armor and its cheaper than a M-3.
Late war AP rounds just dont fit the Soviets - their simple weapon designs and their supply problems (ammo upkeep).
-
A decent detection radius too I might add.
I don't think a munitions based ability would work, but I see no harm in adding a cooldown based AP shell. A 1-2 min cooldown shot somwhere between a tank shell and 50mm puma cannon? Could make it a viable alternative to the vastly more useful T-90 if there were loads of light vehicle running around. Slight MP cost increase to go with it.
-
Could make it a viable alternative to the vastly more useful T-90 if there were loads of light vehicle running around. Slight MP cost increase to go with it.
For taking out light vehicles you can always use PTRD teams with upgrade, IMO those are a lot more effective in taking out hordes of armoured cars than anything else in the game (taking into account resources spent).
-
You would only use Soviet light vehicles if you skipped support barracks to rush them. In a competitive game anyway.
-
For taking out light vehicles you can always use PTRD teams with upgrade, IMO those are a lot more effective in taking out hordes of armoured cars than anything else in the game (taking into account resources spent).
The problem with PTRD is that they are raped by ACs unless you form a blob. When they reach vet 2 they get an armor type upgrade to airborne, witch makes them weaker! vs PE 20mm guns.
But 1.24 will probably buff armor penetration of Soviet mosins or setup time of PTRDs.
-
I've read all the posts on the topic before writing this ;D so...
I'm thinking about BA-10/BA-12 (you know it if you have played at Codename Pazers I & II).
Light recon vehicle, small cannon (initially with MG 12.7 mm and after with a 45 mm), thin armor (about 25 mm), quite fast.
It can be a quite good replace for T-70...I think :)
Please don't insult me if you don't think it's a good idea. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't find an Ba12, but I think that a Ba 64 would be really cool...
-
I can't find an Ba12, but I think that a Ba 64 would be really cool...
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA-10 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA-10)
-
A Ba10 would be good if more of the world knew about it.
-
Ba-64 would be a nice addition. I'm not sure about Ba-10 or other armored vehicle.
Also, it would be nice if soviet tanks (mainly T34 and SU-85/SU-100; or KV-1 if added ;) ) could have the possibility to upgrade their armor, as the crew add appliqué-armor (not sure of the name) to their fighting vehicle. Then the tank loose some speed, but become more resilient. It would be nice, as commonwealth has cupola commander and US can get a cupola MG.
-
Ba-64 would be a nice addition. I'm not sure about Ba-10 or other armored vehicle.
Clowncar :D
-
Target practice :D
-
I am interested in seeing a Zis-3 as a replacement for the At-gun, or for the heavy mortar team. If I am not mistaken, the Zis-3 was a common 76.2mm gun widely used by the Red Army as field artillery or as an anti-tank gun. Or both at the same time if some panzers found the artillery battery. I suppose it would be similar to the AT-gun, but less capable against tanks, but its rounds are more deadly against soft-emplacements or infantry. If used en-mass it can flatten formations, but is unwieldy and has same weaknesses as the AT-gun. I am sure the Germen Heer captured and re-purposed quite a few of these guns. Perhaps the gunnery upgrade would let it do weak bombardments? This is one of my favorite pieces from World War 2, and fits the soviets well, flexible yet brutally simple but not always the right solution.
-
The upgraded Zis-2 is supposed to be the Zis-3. It has the same model at the moment for some reason but the devs do already have a Zis-3 model.
-
@Godlikedennis: Huh, I thought the upgraded Zis-2 was just like an ammo upgrade, as I thought that the Zis-2 had better armor penetration than the Zis-3 seeing as how the Zis-2 is a purpose built AT-gun unlike its bigger cousin. Thanks for telling me though!
-
I'm french so sorry for the poor english
First post, so i have to congratulate the team fort this very good mode. A very professional work.
Now some suggestion, i hope they are not heard to many times. It can also be in relation with bug, so sorry if i'm not in the right section.
If possible, i would like to see some transport, like half-track (to make it easily, why not the american half-track justified by the "pre-bail"). Every faction have a transport, except the soviet. Maybe they can run faster with the specialisation, but the German can too with the Blitzkrieg spec (for infantry and tank), and have moreover a permanent transport. A small and fast vehicule like jeep or moto would be pretty nice too, a sort of recon unit.
Maybe it's a bug, but it would be nice to have the possibility to tranform a building into a casern, like with US or Wehrmart. It is still linked with the lack of mobility of this army (no transport !).
Thank you for reading.
-
@Godlikedennis: Huh, I thought the upgraded Zis-2 was just like an ammo upgrade, as I thought that the Zis-2 had better armor penetration than the Zis-3 seeing as how the Zis-2 is a purpose built AT-gun unlike its bigger cousin. Thanks for telling me though!
That was the original idea ;).
-
@Godlikedennis: Huh, I thought the upgraded Zis-2 was just like an ammo upgrade, as I thought that the Zis-2 had better armor penetration than the Zis-3 seeing as how the Zis-2 is a purpose built AT-gun unlike its bigger cousin. Thanks for telling me though!
That was the original idea ;).
An upgrade that makes the AT gun better vs soft targets?
I like it!!! :)
-
@Godlikedennis: Huh, I thought the upgraded Zis-2 was just like an ammo upgrade, as I thought that the Zis-2 had better armor penetration than the Zis-3 seeing as how the Zis-2 is a purpose built AT-gun unlike its bigger cousin. Thanks for telling me though!
That was the original idea ;).
An upgrade that makes the AT gun better vs soft targets?
I like it!!! :)
Really good idea indeed. Yet the ATgun upgrade is missing something. That would make a really great upgrade!
Regards
-
I'd rather have a better AT gun after the upgrade, than some all-purpose-but-equally-shitty field artillery piece.
What are you going to use it against? Infantry? ::)
-
I'm french so sorry for the poor english
First post, so i have to congratulate the team fort this very good mode. A very professional work.
Now some suggestion, i hope they are not heard to many times. It can also be in relation with bug, so sorry if i'm not in the right section.
If possible, i would like to see some transport, like half-track (to make it easily, why not the american half-track justified by the "pre-bail"). Every faction have a transport, except the soviet. Maybe they can run faster with the specialisation, but the German can too with the Blitzkrieg spec (for infantry and tank), and have moreover a permanent transport. A small and fast vehicule like jeep or moto would be pretty nice too, a sort of recon unit.
Maybe it's a bug, but it would be nice to have the possibility to tranform a building into a casern, like with US or Wehrmart. It is still linked with the lack of mobility of this army (no transport !).
Thank you for reading.
Hi!
These weakness are part of the faction design -like the lack of heavy infantry with AT weapon- so dev arent going to correct this. Plus soviet can build forward outpost to reinforce their troops (not buil new one though) and have access to T-34 riders.
-
Has there been much discussion on the 88mm Flak 43 gun being in the ostheer? It would be cool if it were in there as a doctrine choice like the Flak 36 but with better anti tank stats but no AA ability.
-
Has there been much discussion on the 88mm Flak 43 gun being in the ostheer? It would be cool if it were in there as a doctrine choice like the Flak 36 but with better anti tank stats but no AA ability.
I guess you mean the Pak 43. With which a lack of AA capability would be self-explanatory. Though Flak 43 would certainly also be nice ;)
-
Yeah I meant Pak 43 my bad ::)
-
I was thinking more about the Black Sea Marines. Why not make them like just a texture replacement? There'd be two versions possible, but one can only be used at a time, and there'd be one for Strelky and one for Guards. No stat changes, just texture and name.
-
No point in just skin changes. Download a skin for that. Reward units must be somehow different to the existing unit while maintaining the same or a similar role.
-
No point in just skin changes. Download a skin for that. Reward units must be somehow different to the existing unit while maintaining the same or a similar role.
No Black Sea Marine skin available is there?
-
i have a new idea for a russian reward unit, the tank matilda 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II) :D
the russians used them in ww2. they got them from the british.
-
i have a new idea for a russian reward unit, the tank matilda 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II) :D
the russians used them in ww2. they got them from the british.
Merged :).
-
hmmm.... nearly 1.000 of them was sent. Well, lend-lease provided also jeeps, M3 Grants, Valentines, Shermans and other stuff. I'd rather see some soviet-made armour like KV-1, KV-85, T-26, BT-5, SU-76 ( I could count more but what's the point ).
-
hmmm.... nearly 1.000 of them was sent. Well, lend-lease provided also jeeps, M3 Grants, Valentines, Shermans and other stuff. I'd rather see some soviet-made armour like KV-1, KV-85, T-26, BT-5, SU-76 ( I could count more but what's the point ).
+1
Sherman M4 from Breaktrough doctrine is already a Lend-lease unit. ;)
-
What do you think if the Russian have scout unit?
(http://www.sensesofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/images/04/33/zvezda.jpg)
just a random idea ::)
-
oh come on.... soviets are fine, they just need polishing in some points ( like L-L sherman or GoW). Rest is totally fine.
-
oh come on.... soviets are fine, they just need polishing in some points ( like L-L sherman or GoW). Rest is totally fine.
+1
-
We'll be adding some more soviet models in the near future, but we might take a different approach to how we'll introduce reward units for them ;) and its going to be good I promise you ;D
-
We'll be adding some more soviet models in the near future, but we might take a different approach to how we'll introduce reward units for them ;) and its going to be good I promise you ;D
Ok i'm going to take a stab at calling this, is it going to be reward packs like the RMC's?
If i'm wrong i wonder if something like that might be a good idea for the Soviets anyway e.g an early war reward pack including the BT-7/7A, KV-1 and T-26.
-
We'll be adding some more soviet models in the near future, but we might take a different approach to how we'll introduce reward units for them ;) and its going to be good I promise you ;D
Ok i'm going to take a stab at calling this, is it going to be reward packs like the RMC's?
If i'm wrong i wonder if something like that might be a good idea for the Soviets anyway e.g an early war reward pack including the BT-7/7A, KV-1 and T-26.
What's the point of a "reward pack" for soviets, since you can choose manually from whatever units will be added to make your very own personal dedicated "pack"?
-
We'll be adding some more soviet models in the near future, but we might take a different approach to how we'll introduce reward units for them ;) and its going to be good I promise you ;D
Ok i'm going to take a stab at calling this, is it going to be reward packs like the RMC's?
If i'm wrong i wonder if something like that might be a good idea for the Soviets anyway e.g an early war reward pack including the BT-7/7A, KV-1 and T-26.
What's the point of a "reward pack" for soviets, since you can choose manually from whatever units will be added to make your very own personal dedicated "pack"?
Well packs could restructure in a balanced way how the soviet army functioned. I mean one of the problems with including the KV-1 for example, has been where to put it without it simply duplicating another role. If you switched out several tanks at once though suddenly that isn't a problem and the KV-1 fits in nicely, as do several other new units. It would be like the difference between classic brits and RMC in terms of play style.
-
We'll be adding some more soviet models in the near future, but we might take a different approach to how we'll introduce reward units for them ;) and its going to be good I promise you ;D
Ok i'm going to take a stab at calling this, is it going to be reward packs like the RMC's?
If i'm wrong i wonder if something like that might be a good idea for the Soviets anyway e.g an early war reward pack including the BT-7/7A, KV-1 and T-26.
What's the point of a "reward pack" for soviets, since you can choose manually from whatever units will be added to make your very own personal dedicated "pack"?
Well packs could restructure in a balanced way how the soviet army functioned. I mean one of the problems with including the KV-1 for example, has been where to put it without it simply duplicating another role. If you switched out several tanks at once though suddenly that isn't a problem and the KV-1 fits in nicely, as do several other new units. It would be like the difference between classic brits and RMC in terms of play style.
I don't know what devs have in mind about soviet reward units (yet), but i would like something like RMC for them as well ;D.
-
The only tank KV-1 could replace as a reward unit is T-34, so I see no problem with that.
Besides, it's better, when the unit composition of your army is up to you.
Talking about the brits, it's widely accepted, that the vanilla ones basically sucked in terms of virtually everything, so changing them by a pack was the only real option to keep it balanced as desired IMO.
-
The only tank KV-1 could replace as a reward unit is T-34, so I see no problem with that.
Besides, It's better, when the unit composition of your army is up to you.
Talking about the brits, it's widely accepted, that vanilla ones basically sucked, so changing them wit a pack was the only real option IMO.
Yeah in the case of the RMC that's totally true but, you can still play as the vanilla brits if you like. The overall the idea wouldn't be to supersede the existing Soviet army merely give it a different way of playing.
As for the KV-1 replacing the T-34 i disagree, its far to heavy to replace the normal T-34 (although i could be convinced it should be a replacement to the T-34/85). Actually my suggestion would be to have it as a replacement to the IS-2 with an optional upgrade to make them the KV-85.
But what i was thinking of in general was something along the lines of this (as a purely hypothetical example):
T-70>T-26
T-34/76>BT-7 (with the option to field upgrade them to the BT-7A)
T34/85> T-34/76
IS-2> KV-1 (with upgrade to KV-85)
The Idea being that the Soviets trade off their normal anti-tank/quality advantage but get the benefit of cheaper more numerous tanks, thus altering the way they play.
-
Hey! I have actually got a suggestion, you, people, quite might favor! :P
Maybe (MAYBE) soviet faction does need a "reward faction" inside of it. The reason is, that, as we all know, soviets are, unlike any other faction, extremely flexible and versatile in terms of general gameplay & development, and as some of the players complained, this very well might be somewhat OP.
So splitting them in two different factions (like german Wehrmaht & Panzerelite) could be a good solution to that issue.
Although, I wouldn't know, how this could be wired up to the Ostheer, that will come out of the dark someday.
-
Hey! I have actually got a suggestion, you, people, quite might favor! :P
Maybe (MAYBE) soviet faction does need a "reward faction" inside of it. The reason is, that, as we all know, soviets are, unlike any other faction, extremely flexible and versatile in terms of general gameplay & development, and as some of the players complained, this very well might be somewhat OP.
So splitting them in two different factions (like german Wehrmaht & Panzerelite) could be a good solution to that issue.
Although, I wouldn't know, how this could be wired up to the Ostheer, that will come out of the dark someday.
Oh my goodness this is a awesome suggestion. Though its not an must have, this would be the last "kick" for the mod. (actually, the reward faction idea is awesome on its own, doing that for your own faction as well, would make the mod even better. Way better. even if its awesome right now. hope you got what i mean ;))
The soviets really got a huge varity of tanks.. also tank hunters.. and self prop guns. Playing world of tanks at the moment, im really missing some of them ;)
*thumps up IJoe*
best regards
-
Hey! I have actually got a suggestion, you, people, quite might favor! :P
Maybe (MAYBE) soviet faction does need a "reward faction" inside of it. The reason is, that, as we all know, soviets are, unlike any other faction, extremely flexible and versatile in terms of general gameplay & development, and as some of the players complained, this very well might be somewhat OP.
So splitting them in two different factions (like german Wehrmaht & Panzerelite) could be a good solution to that issue.
Although, I wouldn't know, how this could be wired up to the Ostheer, that will come out of the dark someday.
Hmm you know that's not a bad idea at all actually. You'd have to be very careful about how you divided them up and what theme you applied to each grouping but its a solid idea. :D
-
*thumps up IJoe*
"Thump IJoe up?" :o
Erh... Is that, like, a bitch-slapping? :-\
No, I'm pretty sure, you were talking 'bout "thumbs" ;D ;D ;D
-
*thumps up IJoe*
"Thump IJoe up?" :o
Erh... Is that, like, a bitch-slapping? :-\
No, I'm pretty sure, you were talking 'bout "thumbs" ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D
Yeap! Thumbs. No idea why i wrote it with p 8)
That spliting idea is awesome. Do you have any ideas about it yet?
Should proly be something like with wher and pe.. a more heavier and a lighter force.. but in gerneral both would be pretty heavy, because the KV is a must have than for the other faction ;D
-
*thumps up IJoe*
"Thump IJoe up?" :o
Erh... Is that, like, a bitch-slapping? :-\
No, I'm pretty sure, you were talking 'bout "thumbs" ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D
Yeap! Thumbs. No idea why i wrote it with p 8)
That spliting idea is awesome. Do you have any ideas about it yet?
Should proly be something like with wher and pe.. a more heavier and a lighter force.. but in gerneral both would be pretty heavy, because the KV is a must have than for the other faction ;D
Some specifics would be too early to suggest, since we don't have the complete list of units available, but yes, I was thinking about some "Motostrelkovaya divisiya" - Motorized ranger division, and "Bronetankovaya divisiya" - Armored tank division.
Roughly, the first would be heavily relying on artillery and some support armor, while the second would be about some light recon armored cars and heavy assault armor.
Surely, it's just a sketch, and does not even have a strong concept yet, so it needs further development with the help of the community, but, more importantly, it has to be approved by the development team as valid and plausible, so we wouldn't be just uselessly spamming the forum.
-
Hey! I have actually got a suggestion, you, people, quite might favor! :P
Maybe (MAYBE) soviet faction does need a "reward faction" inside of it. The reason is, that, as we all know, soviets are, unlike any other faction, extremely flexible and versatile in terms of general gameplay & development, and as some of the players complained, this very well might be somewhat OP.
So splitting them in two different factions (like german Wehrmaht & Panzerelite) could be a good solution to that issue.
Although, I wouldn't know, how this could be wired up to the Ostheer, that will come out of the dark someday.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Symbol_thumbs_up.svg/463px-Symbol_thumbs_up.svg.png)
This would be the most awesome ( except of soviets and OH, of course) thing that EF dev team could givbe to the world....
-
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4895/awesome13.jpg) (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/awesome13.jpg/)
-
Whatever works as long as I can get my Black Sea Marines.
-
What would we have though as both sides. The Soviets they gave uses almost everything the USSR had.
-
Reward unit suggestions:
1). Offer Replacement of T70 with BT5, BT7, or BT8 as a recce tank for the light tank support role. The high speed, 20 mm armor and oversized armament should satisfy most everybody when offered as a reward unit.
It would provide an early recce function, equal or superior to the T70 as a light AFV destroyer, and with its thin thin 20 mm skin have sufficient liabilities to keep the most rapid of kraut nerfers uninvolved in the discussion. Please remember any proposed TO&E unit must have an Achilles Heel.
2). Offer the KV85 as a reward replacement for ISU2 in the role of PZV counter. Its shorter length will give it more maneuverability than the ISU with the trade-off of lighter armor thickness. (Oh and with all respects to the EF skins artists it is not anywhere near as ugly as the ISU2).
3). Offer as a rewards replacement to the T34/76 a "Stalingrad T34/76".The rust colored skin would provide a change of pace. The gear-boxes on these tanks were so hard to change that a mallet was supplied at the factory to facilitate gear changes, (translate to reduced maneuverability). The redesign of this AFV should also include a reduced sighting capability which was a feature of all Soviet tanks with four man crews. (The tank commander had to help load as well as maintain battle awareness. And the top hatch design of the vehicle forced an aggressive commander to expose himself too much to enemy fire. consequently Soviet tanks mostly(?) went into combat buttoned-up. (note to the designer: a proportional penalty equivalent to the sight reduction of a Cromwell with and without a commander would do it. Tanks with a certain level of veterancy, a commanders cupola or a five man crew would not accrue the sight penalty. After the design works it could be reverse engineered into other 4 man crew AFVs in the TO&E in a future patch. A nerf but a realistic/historical one!).
4). Going back to reply #5, Offer a female Hero of the Soviet Union as a reward replacement to the Sniper Ace. A new skin, a new voice track, (the music changes often enough), more women playing EF, and oh yes for the vulnerability, a slight edge if your playing a female in guessing their doctrinal selection.
New units:
5). Armored cars: An early BA series and a BA64 upgrade option. There are two slots available In the T3 Tank hall And one of two Slots in the T4 Armory for the upgrade. The rationale is the same as for the BT5 suggestion in 1). above with the added vulnerability of poorer cross country performance for the early BA series and lighter armament for the BA64 option. Alternately availability could be made as a build or at start unit from Field HQ.
6). Maxim Wheeled MG in the short range support role. please, please, please.
And now for something completely different:
7). Cossack Cavalry in the recce role
8). Soviet Paratroopers. At the Start of Barbarossa the Soviet Union had a reserve of 2 million "trained" paratroops. Operationally they were succesfully used in 1943-4 in the Donets Basin Offensive, (my history might be flaky on those details), In any case the drop zones were all in swamps and marshes because many, (most?) did not have parachutes!
Needless to add I am very enamoured of the EF mod.
-
^I like all of it. If the EF team permit's I can fiddle with my usual unit stat template and go for a couple versions of those 'Soviet Airborne/Paratroopers' (which someone would need to come up with a name for, I don't know any Russian for the life of me). The Stalingrad T34 might be iffy, as it's a cheap unit and the T34 relies on that speed; otherwise it's a worthless tank (in 34/76 terms).
-
^The Stalingrad T34 might be iffy, as it's a cheap unit and the T34 relies on that speed; otherwise it's a worthless tank (in 34/76 terms).
1. I agree, don't change the speed, change the maneuverability. Historically the period AFV duel for the Minsk or Moscow maps converts in game terms to a duel between T34/76 and PZIVd. In ranged combat the penetration of the T34/76 should eat the PZIVd. PZIVd penetration sucks against AFV's; as it should! The point blank death tangos that feature so prominently in CoH are annoying at worst. My experience in these point blank duels T34/76 tops PZIVd. Historically PZIIIs, 38Ts and PVIVbs ate Soviet medium armor by aggressiveness, maneuverability, and Surprise. The "Stalingrad T34" is proposed not as an improved unit but as an optional reward/replacement AFV that can be used for play balance or historical aesthetics AND is an off the shelf AFV that can be nerfed without a new design. Yes, "the Play is the thing". History and aesthetics are secondary; BUT giving the Designer options to more quickly deal with the glitz will allow more time to be allocated to develop the Mod. Or maybe your happy with the time it is taking to get out Ostheer?
2. To illustrate the maneuverability/speed issue Play Test an ISU2 and a T34 in a race track around the graveyard, and a drag race down the highway on the Highway N13 map.
Post Merge: March 29, 2011, 06:25:03 PM
I am interested in the possibility of creating several historical reward factions:Sov 1938-1941; Sov 1941-1942 etc.
As a gamer it doesn't matter what the name or historical unit stats or periods of deployment are. "The Play's the Thing". Every unit needs a role. Every unit needs a counter. Kaput.
A historical reward faction would add historical relevance to the the game. No king Tigers at Moscow in 1941. No prototype units. eg T90, (experimental two T60s were converted). MBT's would be Appropriate to the time period 1941-1942 KV-1 MBT Heavy, 1943-1945 ISU2 MBT heavy. Has anyone ever seen a picture of a BergeTiger? (PzIs were converted to the role since there were so many of them and they had limited survivability on the front lines. PzVIs were far too valuable and expensive to use in this role; although every Tiger had a factory supplied towing system installed. It typically took four Tigers working together to get a disabled Tiger out of a ditch). No more stupid StugIV. (The name and skin, not the role/unit. The PzIV MBT medium was the most produced of all German tanks. The PzIII chassis had much higher production, Most (?) were used for the Stug AG role).
Replacement unit stats would more closely approximate "actual" unit stats/performance. The challenge to the players would be to come up with suitable counters to the TO&E of the period chosen for an individual game.
The benefit to the game system: Less nerf/buff patches the designers have to contend with when what they really would rather work on their own project or ideas allowing new concepts/mods to come on-line faster.
The benefit to the players: Different Strategies would need to be developed to overcome the weakness of a particular unit/role in that
particular game/time period. History nuts would take up less time/space on the threads, (which really seems to annoy a lot of you), so gamers can engage in the chat that really does enhance the enjoyment of the gaming experience: (not to mention taunting your opponent into doing something dumb)!
The benefit to the Community: More interest to a larger group of people. New or continued interest in the existing community to keep them playing. (How many times can you use the very effective WM SupportVetStrat before you get bored?)
I know this idea is not for everybody. It would take a lot of work to implement. Its beauty lies in the fact that you don't have to use it. (The Ket is so much more effective for my style of play I never use Schwims). Let the Dev Team know what you want.
-
In my opinion the best reward units can be: ( not at the same time, only 3 reward must be added like other armys )
1. First Add a "moto-anti sniper role" unit like BA64 and this unid can be changed by T37A or T38 Amphibius tanks in reward section. T40 no because it have better armour and for expample swingwagen is like a jeep, EDITED: te moto role is no only anti sniper, is a observer.
If BA 64 is added it can have the same stats than the PE scout car, and T37A/T38 can be Amphibius but more slower with more HP.
2. Amored cars instead ligth tanks, more fast and less HP and armour.
BA-6
BA-10
3.T28 instead the doc3 sherman, better vs inf
4.KV1 with flame upgrade instead de doc 2 KV2
4.SU 76 instead SU 85 with less Hp and more demange maitaining the Su 100 upgrade and unit.
-
1. Nah, soviets can chase snipers with their mega blobs. SU doesn't need motorbike.
2. Maybe BA-10 as reward for T-70?
3. No, no, no, no... T28 is sooo lame, three turrets? Why not five? But I agree that SU needs somethong to replace L-L Sherman. Maybe KV-85?
4. KV-2 FTW, I love it :D
5. SU-76 could do as replacement for L-L sherman.
-
1. Nah, soviets can chase snipers with their mega blobs. SU doesn't need motorbike.
+1
2. Maybe BA-10 as reward for T-70?
+1 to that and BA-64 for T-90 :P
3. No, no, no, no... T28 is sooo lame, three turrets? Why not five? But I agree that SU needs somethong to replace L-L Sherman. Maybe KV-85?
Other suggestions have been BT-7 and T-26
4. KV-2 FTW, I love it :D
My prefered candidate for this spot was T-28 (3 turr) or T-35 (5 turr)
5. SU-76 could do as replacement for L-L sherman.
Nah its too early for a Tank destroyer to be moving out L-L sherman is more anti vehicle. Considering SU-100 is being removed Su-76 as a reward for SU-85 is probs a better choice. Maybe being faster, cheaper and gaining a special ability (somewhat like a cross between a Marder and SU-85) instead of HP and excellent penetration etc.
These are just my opinions (ntm repeats from recent topics)
-
hey guys, how about making an upgrade for the t34 by changing its 76mm main gun with 1 or 2 36m AA gun just what they used to do in WW2 ?
-
hey guys, how about making an upgrade for the t34 by changing its 76mm main gun with 1 or 2 36m AA gun just what they used to do in WW2 ?
WTF? ???
-
hey guys, how about making an upgrade for the t34 by changing its 76mm main gun with 1 or 2 36m AA gun just what they used to do in WW2 ?
36 metre gun... I'd like to get my hands on that :P
No, never was the T-34 be equipped with AA (or at very minimum to an extent that it gains large recognition), that role is taken anyway with T-90 and would have to be a call in like Wirblewind.
-
hey guys, how about making an upgrade for the t34 by changing its 76mm main gun with 1 or 2 36m AA gun just what they used to do in WW2 ?
Only SPAAG variant of the T-34 in WW2 was a single captured T-34 being converted into a Flakpanzer by the Germans. You may be thinking about the Type-63-AA which is neither Soviet nor WW2.
-
(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7510/flak88t34fr4bx8.jpg)
LOL, I found this :-X
OMG
-
Am I right in saying thats a Flak-88 on a T-34...
Do want
-
Looks like one. If this existed, then it only was an early eastern front provisional self propelled anti tank gun that helped the Germans against the mass of Soviet tanks because they where lacking a good one.
-
(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7510/flak88t34fr4bx8.jpg)
LOL, I found this :-X
OMG
keep dreaming
-
I guess we need LordRommel's answer to prove it's existence.
-
I think it existed - Look at the infanterists looking up to the FlaK.
Doesn't look like something done with PS.
-
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1TaHlEZp14fF9JsmgWD1eFK-_wt0hcCVrE-zUAcMA2pluJDZi&t=1)
This seems to be an original.
-
1. Nah, soviets can chase snipers with their mega blobs. SU doesn't need motorbike.
+1
2. Maybe BA-10 as reward for T-70?
+1 to that and BA-64 for T-90 :P
3. No, no, no, no... T28 is sooo lame, three turrets? Why not five? But I agree that SU needs somethong to replace L-L Sherman. Maybe KV-85?
Other suggestions have been BT-7 and T-26
4. KV-2 FTW, I love it :D
My prefered candidate for this spot was T-28 (3 turr) or T-35 (5 turr)
5. SU-76 could do as replacement for L-L sherman.
Nah its too early for a Tank destroyer to be moving out L-L sherman is more anti vehicle. Considering SU-100 is being removed Su-76 as a reward for SU-85 is probs a better choice. Maybe being faster, cheaper and gaining a special ability (somewhat like a cross between a Marder and SU-85) instead of HP and excellent penetration etc.
These are just my opinions (ntm repeats from recent topics)
BA 64 - t90? no thx Ba 64 is a scout car with machine gun, Ba-6 have 20mm weapon
KV 85? no thx, is a heavy tank.
-
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1TaHlEZp14fF9JsmgWD1eFK-_wt0hcCVrE-zUAcMA2pluJDZi&t=1)
This seems to be an original.
he's right. the pic is a fake. the background and the soldiers are the same while the details on the tank are changed (hatch is closed, tracks on the side removed,...) and take a close look at the soldier standing at the right side of the faked pic (the helmet looks awfully strange).
-
(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7510/flak88t34fr4bx8.jpg)
LOL, I found this :-X
OMG
keep dreaming
Well. This tank was real. This photo is a fake ;)
During the last months of WW2 some Landser had mounted a single 88 on a captured T-34 tank. It was an field improvisation
to make 88 more mobile.
1 - max. 2 88 were mounted on T-34. So they were an absolute curiosity on battlefield.
-
Ah! So T-34 88mm existed :D awesome, I just love those strange and crazy weapons ;D
-
@88mm t34 wow imagine seeing this abomination! :Dhaha
@su-76 replacement/reward for LL sherman. yes thankfully comrades agree with me to ditch that sherman finally for a great idea that is the su-76 Brilliant!
-
BA 64 - t90? no thx Ba 64 is a scout car with machine gun, Ba-6 have 20mm weapon
KV 85? no thx, is a heavy tank.
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/armored_cars/BA_6/BA_6_01.jpg) (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/armored_cars/BA_6/BA_6_01.jpg)
That for a T-90... Im thinking of a fast firing mobile armoured vehicle as a replacement for the T-90, oh and the BA-6 had a 45mm so if you meant as a reward unit for T-70 then maybs.
-
@Raider217
Why? There's already T-70 for that matter.
-
@Raider217
Why? There's already T-70 for that matter.
What? Im trying to make sense of what Hamasei meant because Ba-64 to T-90 make's more sense than BA-6 to T-90 so im just assuming he meant it as a replacement/reward for T-70
-
IS-4 Heavy tank would be a nice reward
-
yes it would ive been pushing for addition of IS-3 or 4 for a week or 2 now
there seems to be a good amount of support for the unit
-
yes it would ive been pushing for addition of IS-3 or 4 for a week or 2 now
there seems to be a good amount of support for the unit
Nope, IS-4 wasn't used on WW2, IS-3 still has chances to be considerated.
-
IS-4 Heavy tank would be a nice reward
meh, find me one battle during WWII it took part, and I'm okay with it :-\
-
Yeah this is true IS-4 never took part in WWII but atleast the IS-3 was around at the time even if it didnt see frequent use
The only reason i can see why it would receive negative feeling is because the axis players are reluctant to give up total armor superiority! :P
-
Yeah this is true IS-4 never took part in WWII but atleast the IS-3 was around at the time even if it didnt see frequent use
The only reason i can see why it would receive negative feeling is because the axis players are reluctant to give up total armor superiority! :P
... I'm playing EF just because I can play Soviets :) but I find balance pretty important.
As far I'm fine with the fact that there's no tank that can beat KT in 1v1, and it should stay as it is. That's why this beast is total economy killer and true king of the battlefield. And every time I destroy it I feel damn good :D
-
Yeah this is true IS-4 never took part in WWII but atleast the IS-3 was around at the time even if it didnt see frequent use
The only reason i can see why it would receive negative feeling is because the axis players are reluctant to give up total armor superiority! :P
... I'm playing EF just because I can play Soviets :) but I find balance pretty important.
As far I'm fine with the fact that there's no tank that can beat KT in 1v1, and it should stay as it is. That's why this beast is total economy killer and true king of the battlefield. And every time I destroy it I feel damn good :D
I understand your feeling comrade cephalos.
I agree that king tiger should be top dog since the Mp drain is so dramatic. but thats not a reason to downplay the fact that IS-3 was a superior tank to the king tiger in every regard. wouldnt you agree? its factual
However If the IS-3 were to be implemented as reward I would most certainly want the same Mp drain that king tiger comes with to effect soviet as well. It wouldnt be balanced to have it any other way. and it would also allow the mod to keep that same historic flavor it currently has
and not penalize the IS-3 to being downplayed as second fiddle to KT. because vcoh axis always had armor superiority
-
I hardly think so. KT and Jagdpanther are unique and very badass, and I totally understand why - they have little weak points and are very tough. Soviets are about "quality of quantity", so they shouldn't get only-one-call-in units. ISU-152 is slow, rotates slow, shoots once for ages and is pretty expensive. And it can be beat by single 50mm Puma. Try this trick with T-60 and KT. Good luck :)
The phenomen of Soviet tanks lays in way they were constructed. Better armoured and armed with bigger gun IS-2/3 was 20-30 tonnes lighter than Tiger II. This is damn miracle of soviet engieneering.
-
[...]The phenomen of Soviet tanks lays in way they were constructed. Better armoured and armed with bigger gun IS-2/3 was 20-30 tonnes lighter than Tiger II. This is damn miracle of soviet engieneering.
Tiger II had better armor and gun (more penetration and accuracy) than the IS-2 and a far bigger rate of fire. the IS-3 had similar armor protection and fire power (while 20t lighter).
-
[...]The phenomen of Soviet tanks lays in way they were constructed. Better armoured and armed with bigger gun IS-2/3 was 20-30 tonnes lighter than Tiger II. This is damn miracle of soviet engieneering.
Tiger II had better armor and gun (more penetration and accuracy) than the IS-2 and a far bigger rate of fire. the IS-3 had similar armor protection and fire power (while 20t lighter).
yeah the king tiger has the advantage over range no doubt about it.
king tigers armor was roughly the same as IS-2. is2 had slightly better rear armor and king tiger had slightly better frontal armor. and by slightly i mean less half an inches difference.
however the IS-3 outclasses king tiger by a good amount. it was better armored, probably the best protected late war era tank to hit the field. and you cant argue with a 130mm gun :D and dont forget IS-3 was a speed demon compared to IS-2
-
king tigers armor was roughly the same as IS-2. is2 had slightly better rear armor and king tiger had slightly better frontal armor. and by slightly i mean less half an inches difference.
-Tiger II had 30mm more frontal armor, 20mm more rear amor, 85mm more turret frontal armor
-IS-2 had 10mm more side armor and ~8mm more turret side armor
and you cant argue with a 130mm gun :D and dont forget IS-3 was a speed demon compared to IS-2
1. it was a 122mm gun (122 mm D-25T Tank Gun) and not a 130mm gun. it seems to be the same gun like that in the IS-2 which means same performance and firing speed (3-4 shots/min while tiger II's 88mm had ~10 shots/min)
2. just because it's bigger doesn't mean it's better (e.g. tiger I's 88mm gun was about as good as panthers 75mm high velocity gun)
-88mm gun (tiger II): 207-274mm at 500m, 159-184mm at 2000m
-122mm gun (IS-2): 155mm at 500m, 125mm at 2000m
3. speed: Tiger II 15-20km/h cross country and 38-41km/h on road, IS-3 19km/h cross country and 40 km/h on road, IS-2 19 km/h cross country and 37 km/h on road -> all about the same speed
-
yeah sorry didnt mean 130mm :-X that wass the IS-7
Not so sure on your armor values for IS-2, but We will leave it at that for arguments sake.
IS-3 armor slope was more dramatic, it was a complete re design and was revolutionary actually and paved the way for tanks like t-54/55, t-64, T-72. and the alloys used were more modernized, not to mention the huge drop off in german metal quality as war progressed. so it was alot better protected than the tiger II. its Target profile was drastically lower/smaller than the lumbering tiger II by a lot
This tank was specifically built to counter the german 88, and its 122mm main gun was also designed to penetrate the king tiger
the most important statistic is number built ;D
3,854 IS-2's
2,311 IS-3's <--- interesting this almost merits it being reward alone
250 IS-4's <--- One time call-in like king tiger?
492 Tiger II's :o
-
i couldn't find any data about is-3 armor so i can't say how good it was ;D. in all sources i found is-3 had the same 122mm gun as the is-2 which was inferior to the 88mm gun so the tiger II had an advantage as it could knock out the IS from bigger range.
but you are right, let's end this discussion ;)
about the numbers built: only ~350 IS-3 were built until the end of the war with intact russian industry...and is-4 came even later.
and the status of reward/regular/one-time call-in is not only dependent on how many were built but also a matter of balance. in vcoh we have regular units like ostwind (43 built) or bergetiger (3-8) which were rare and a more common tiger (1350) has a limit of 1 (just like the pershing with 8-20 vehicles)...only because of balance.
-
i couldn't find any data about is-3 armor so i can't say how good it was ;D. in all sources i found is-3 had the same 122mm gun as the is-2 which was inferior to the 88mm gun so the tiger II had an advantage as it could knock out the IS from bigger range.
but you are right, let's end this discussion ;)
about the numbers built: only ~350 IS-3 were built until the end of the war with intact russian industry...and is-4 came even later.
and the status of reward/regular/one-time call-in is not only dependent on how many were built but also a matter of balance. in vcoh we have regular units like ostwind or bergetiger which were rare and a more common tiger has a limit of 1...only because of balance.
IS-3 armor was of similiar thickness to IS-2 it was just re designed and of better quality. it was developed in 1943 and rolled off the line in 1944. less than a year later than the Tiger II. It did see combat
IS-4 was made a full year after the IS-3 and probably did not see combat in germany, but in china it did. they took Berlin ahead of schedule and said send it the other way
Yes, I'm aware of the sense of balance the game wouldnt be any good without it :)
good debate comrade
-
about the is-3: most people agree that it was not used in europe but 1 platoon was used in china (i guess you mixed that up with the is-4 which was build in 1948).
i leave it for others to decide if the is-3 could be used in EF or not. historically it shouldn't but you can argue to keep up relic's sense of history and use it as a one-time call-in ;) (which the danger of some crazy people calling for a Maus ;D)
-
Do you support the IS-3, ghost? or the maus for that matter?
-
Do you support the IS-3, ghost? or the maus for that matter?
I do not support the mouse. was a prototype that was developed on the orders of Hitler and against the advice of Guderian. It should never, never, never be used in EF'
The ISU 3 was not produced in quantity, (compare with 1000 T34's per month), during the war, but would be a useful
addition to EF for play balance. IE If some 8) model screws up the game The ISU3 could be added to the game, as a patch to fix this.
IMHO the ISU3 is much prettier than the ISU2.
(Tovarich it is 12 noon as I write this, lunch time. Get back to me on PM)
i couldn't find any data about is-3 armor so i can't say how good it was ;D . in all sources i found is-3 had the same 122mm gun as the is-2 which was inferior to the 88mm gun so the tiger II had an advantage as it could knock out the IS from bigger range.
but you are right, let's end this discussion ;)
about the numbers built: only ~350 IS-3 were built until the end of the war with intact russian industry...and is-4 came even later.
and the status of reward/regular/one-time call-in is not only dependent on how many were built but also a matter of balance. in vcoh we have regular units like ostwind (43 built) or bergetiger (3-8) which were rare and a more common tiger (1350) has a limit of 1 (just like the pershing with 8-20 vehicles)...only because of balance.
The Germans sold the machinery used to build: Heavy IE thick, curvilinear armor, That is so characteristic of the ISU2 IsU3 designs; to Russia when they were still allied with the Soviets. They didn't think they would ever need such heavy armor. Boy were they wrong! The BergeTiger is a special case in CoH. It was not used for its historical authenticity but to fill a role IE all other factions have a bunker. In EF the SovBunker is the outpost. In OF\PE The BergeTiger is a fancy rolling MG bunker, with a vehicle recovery option. Beware the BTiger_ it is subject to the White Tank Bug.
-
"No matter how many rocks you throw to the water or how much time you try to step on your own shadow, the water will stay, just like the shadow."
Maus is a No-No. You shouldn't put the IS-3 in the same bag than the Maus.
-
From Wikipedia:
The first group of pre-JS-3 left the factory in mid-May 1945. These cars did not participate then
any action in the European theater of war, the Germans despite claiming to have destroyed many
during the Battle of Berlin. At least one regiment of JS-3 was sent to the Far East, but it is unknown whether
have ever been involved in actions against the Japanese army. On September 7, 1945 52 floats participated
the victory parade in Berlin, caused a sensation in Western observers. The first series of tanks,
complete with every feature of design, were produced in 1946. In the same year, two wagons were
also sent to Poland for evaluation purposes. In 1950, a wagon was sent to Czechoslovakia. China
received several wagons, only after the Korean War. The only direct use of the T
by the Red Army was in 1956 in Budapest
In the late 50s the Egyptian army received the first three JS-3, although the majority were
acquired between 1962 and 1967. The Israeli army captured some of JS-3 in the Six-Day War (1967) and
in the Yom Kippur War (1973) and re-equip them with the T-54 engine.
IS-3 was most a "Cold War Tank", and I don't think it can be placed in EF.
-
From Wikipedia:
The first group of pre-JS-3 left the factory in mid-May 1945. These cars did not participate then
any action in the European theater of war, the Germans despite claiming to have destroyed many
during the Battle of Berlin. At least one regiment of JS-3 was sent to the Far East, but it is unknown whether
have ever been involved in actions against the Japanese army. On September 7, 1945 52 floats participated
the victory parade in Berlin, caused a sensation in Western observers. The first series of tanks,
complete with every feature of design, were produced in 1946. In the same year, two wagons were
also sent to Poland for evaluation purposes. In 1950, a wagon was sent to Czechoslovakia. China
received several wagons, only after the Korean War. The only direct use of the T
by the Red Army was in 1956 in Budapest
In the late 50s the Egyptian army received the first three JS-3, although the majority were
acquired between 1962 and 1967. The Israeli army captured some of JS-3 in the Six-Day War (1967) and
in the Yom Kippur War (1973) and re-equip them with the T-54 engine.
IS-3 was most a "Cold War Tank", and I don't think it can be placed in EF.
Wikipedia is not really the most accurate source when it comes to very specialized subjects. Soviet war records(what has been released anyways) are a very 'grey area'.
Eg. T44 was only thought to have made it to prototype stage up until a couple of decades ago, only to find out that there had been almost 1000 produced before the war ended(1000 tanks built and not used??).
The units where re-equipped with T34s before going into action in Berlin. Considering T44 units were stationed in Berlin during the cold war as top secret weapon and no westerner ever saw them, it'd be a safe bet to say the units were re-equipped to fight in Berlin with T34s so as to avoid any chance of the western allies seeing them. Its also a reasonable assumption that these units saw action before reaching Berlin. A test unit with 3 T44s 'is now known' to have been deployed.
Now, also given that an army would never miss the opportunity to use a new weapon in war conditions, I find it neigh unbelievable that the soviets didn't use both these tanks in the last few months and made sure no records of their actions fell to allied intel.
A collapsed retreating german army would hardly try and obtain details of any new allied/soviet weapon encountered so any eyewitness claims would more than likely be discounted as mistaken sights.
keep in mind that in certain german accounts it is mentioned that they faced up-armoured T34 assault leaders which they misnamed T43s . This account is in one of Steven Zalonga's books who is considered as authority on the field. What are the chances of these and other similar instances actually involving T44s?
You just never know really...same goes with the IS3s
Regardless, as an eye candy and cool factor, I'd say that if we ever got hold of an animated IS3, we'd put it in EF ;D
But nothing crazy/experimental would make it in.
-
The KT (if properly commanded/crewd) would almost assuredly beat the IS3 toe-to-toe. Although rare, many of the last remaining elite tank units were given glorious amounts of APCR Panzergrenate 40 ammunition. Not to mention the fact that KT crews, while fairly inexperienced with the tank they operated (as the KT served for what, 8 months?), they were seasoned veterans of tank combat--new crews would NEVER be trusted with a Tiger or panther, let alone a KT--nor the Jagdtiger/Jagdpanther; a might rarer and in the latter's case, more deadly (that speed IRL was a killer). Though if an IS3 was able to waltz up to a KT, yeah, it'd win from -900 or so meters. I'm not so keen on it, as if it replaced the IS2 it would blow, and it coultnt replace the ISU152 (it'd be blatantly OP). Atm, swapping the KV-85 for the T34/85 (or maybe the gloriously underused and under discussed SU85/SU100 (idea: the 'SU100' upgrade would just replace the SU85 with the KV-85, instead of just upgunning the SU?)
-
I feel like im pissin in the wind king tiger would not beat a IS-3 in a slugfest. it wouldnt! Maybe I'm just biased, yeah I think I am :) :P
I know its hard to come to grips that the axis just might not clearly hold total armor dominance anymore if Soviets acquire IS-3 for eastern front
And I dont know how you can try to say IS-3 shouldnt be considered for a reward/call-in when americans have the m26 pershing sitting in depots across the atlantic and the IS-3 had already rolled off the assembly line
production finally began in November 1944 for the m26 pershing. Ten T26E3 tanks were produced that month. yeah ten
And total they only produced 2000 pershings by the end of the war in comparisons the soviets produced roughly 2-300 more IS-3's than americans did pershings
Thats where I draw my relation I see the IS-3 as soviet pershing. the pinnacle of their armored might. I love my ISU-152 but its just not a true slugger like the King tiger and Pershing are.
-
I feel like im pissin in the wind to you axis fanboiz but the bleepin king tiger would not beat a IS-3 in a slugfest. it wouldnt!
Please keep a respectful tone and stick to facts. Only because The Volskinator estimates the KT would beat IS3 in a 1v1, he isn't an axis fanboy.
This doesn't really matter anyway. Look at the topic, it's not "Who has the best late war heavy tank and who beats who".
Thanks for the attention.
-
Edited, you can fix your panties now.
I can lobby for addition of a reward unit, if the convo turns into king tiger versus all so be it
-
My pants are desert dry..
I can lobby for addition of a reward unit, if the convo turns into king tiger versus all so be it
Sure you can, but please without using unnecessary insulting expressions. ;)
-
My pants are desert dry..
I can lobby for addition of a reward unit, if the convo turns into king tiger versus all so be it
Sure you can, but please without using unnecessary insulting expressions. ;)
+1
Calm down dude ;D, i don't see anything to be "pissed off". Let's just return to topic.
-
The KT (if properly commanded/crewd) would almost assuredly beat the IS3 toe-to-toe. Although rare, many of the last remaining elite tank units were given glorious amounts of APCR Panzergrenate 40 ammunition. Not to mention the fact that KT crews, while fairly inexperienced with the tank they operated (as the KT served for what, 8 months?), they were seasoned veterans of tank combat--new crews would NEVER be trusted with a Tiger or panther, let alone a KT--nor the Jagdtiger/Jagdpanther; a might rarer and in the latter's case, more deadly (that speed IRL was a killer). Though if an IS3 was able to waltz up to a KT, yeah, it'd win from -900 or so meters. I'm not so keen on it, as if it replaced the IS2 it would blow, and it coultnt replace the ISU152 (it'd be blatantly OP). Atm, swapping the KV-85 for the T34/85 (or maybe the gloriously underused and under discussed SU85/SU100 (idea: the 'SU100' upgrade would just replace the SU85 with the KV-85, instead of just upgunning the SU?)
Not true. Read up the one and only engagement of a Pershing vs a KT. The KT crew although it ambushed the Pershing, it missed the first shot at what is almost point blank. It then proceeded to 'charge' by going over the ruble in such a crap way that it exposed the underbelly of the KT, only to get shot by the Pershing and blow up. Hardly experienced veterans....more like 16yr old kids behind the wheel....
Also, M48s with 90mm and modern HVAP ammo couldn't penetrate IS3 at normal combat ranges in the East and were knocked out by IS3s in turn. It would be an even fight more or less with IS3s enjoying mobility and numbers - Not a nice prospect....
Finally, you can't possibly say a unit will be OP if you don't know what the stats would be. Plus...we don't have one atm and there are no current plans either so, best not continue on the specific subject
-
^+1
-
My pants are desert dry..
I can lobby for addition of a reward unit, if the convo turns into king tiger versus all so be it
Sure you can, but please without using unnecessary insulting expressions. ;)
1
Calm down dude ;D , i don't see anything to be "pissed off". Let's just return to topic.
Gentlemen. Tempers are rising here. I think as much because of honest differences of opinion; as because of national or ethnic pride. The discussion of Soviet and American Tank developments during the Last part of WWII is fascinating. I think we might all benefit by moving this part of the discussion to the history forum.
I don't think anyone involved in the current discussion is trying to slur or insult anyone. I think what we have here is called a passionate debate,
The KT (if properly commanded/Crewed) would almost assuredly beat the IS3 toe-to-toe. Although rare, many of the last remaining elite tank units were given glorious amounts of APCR Panzergrenate 40 ammunition. Not to mention the fact that KT crews, while fairly inexperienced with the tank they operated (as the KT served for what, 8 months?), they were seasoned veterans of tank combat--new crews would NEVER be trusted with a Tiger or panther, let alone a KT--nor the Jagdtiger/Jagdpanther; a might rarer and in the latter's case, more deadly (that speed IRL was a killer). Though if an IS3 was able to waltz up to a KT, yeah, it'd win from -900 or so meters. I'm not so keen on it, as if it replaced the IS2 it would blow, and it coultnt replace the ISU152 (it'd be blatantly OP). Atm, swapping the KV-85 for the T34/85 (or maybe the gloriously underused and under discussed SU85/SU100 (idea: the 'SU100' upgrade would just replace the SU85 with the KV-85, instead of just upgunning the SU?)
TheVolskinator raises many good points Here that relate to game design in EF.
1."The KT (if properly commanded/crewed)"...If this means experienced commanders and crews it is a veterancy issue.
..... if on the other hand it refers to: 4 or 5 man tank crew sizes, and 1 or 2 man gun turrets this is a consideration for the model designers.
2. "glorious amounts of APCR Panzergrenate 40 ammunition"....
I question the validity of this Statement. In the US army APCR
ammunition was issued to American Armor elements in July 1944. Patton for one was opposed to this ammo, (I don't remember why). Tungsten = WolframGer was in rare supply during WWII. (I suspect the Sovs had the most ready access to it). American tanks seldom had more than 6 rounds available. In September? The US prioritized the T2 APCD ammo for use in the Tank destroyer Elements.
Use of APCR and Pz.Granate 40 ammo in Coh/EF should have a high muni cost to it. modification of this cost should be used for play balance only. I don't know what kind of APCR ammo the Soviets had or used In WWII, is suspect they had the same availability as the Amis. Use of Sov APCR ammo should not be a global upgrade. it should have a per use type of muni cost.
The suggestion to replace the T34/85 with the KV85 has merit. It is do-able within the constraints of the EFv1.3.1 T4HQGUI. In fact the KV/85 was shown in Ostheer A5.5. DevTeam has yet to announce what the Neutral MBT is contemplated for EF_Ostheer. I'm betting on the BT_7M_fast_tank. :) I was very pleased to see the BA10M AC 8) is being considered for the AC role. The BA64[/]AC[/] :) shown in Ostheer A5.5 is a good choice, but the BA10 has such classic lines. :) It is possible to get the T34/75, T34/85, KV85 and BT7M into the T4HQ GUI, but either the LT tanks or the Tank Killers would have to be moved to the Sov T3HQ GUI1. ;) Ah but "Thyme, it is a precious thing".
WTF! If you don't understand the last paragraph Just read the Bold Type and google on (wwii "navaho code talkers").
Is the SU76 an ATG or indirect fire CS AFV?
BTW today April 12, 2011 is the 150th anniversary of "the first shot fired on Fort Sumter", the outbreak of fighting in the US Civil War. E. Ruffin of Virginia fired it.
Footnotes
1. If you need help I can do the GUI layout and macro logic. I don't code. Sure wish I had a better handle on the Insert Table fcn.
-
Do you support the IS-3, ghost? or the maus for that matter?
NO MAUS! wouldn't fit into CoH and wasn't used.
about IS-3...i don't need to see it in EF but i don't oppose it either ;)
i just tried to say that some people will start calling for something stupid like maus if a tank (IS-3) is included that didn't fight on eastern front.
Post Merge: [time]Mi 13 Apr 2011 01:02:49 GMT+8[/time]
Not true. Read up the one and only engagement of a Pershing vs a KT. The KT crew although it ambushed the Pershing, it missed the first shot at what is almost point blank. It then proceeded to 'charge' by going over the ruble in such a crap way that it exposed the underbelly of the KT, only to get shot by the Pershing and blow up. Hardly experienced veterans....more like 16yr old kids behind the wheel....[...]
You're referring to the Super Pershing (M26E4) fight described by Irwin/Zaloga. The german tank wasn't indentified and was only rumored to be a tiger (by irwin) while the other guy (Zaloga) says it wasn't.... ???
-
The gunner was also 17, green, and it was pegged as a luck shot. There are no records of any elite panzer movements, invloving anything heavier than a Panzer IV, within 20 miles of the area where the 'ambush' was rumored to have taken place. A KT would also avoid urban combat; its a big, slow target. It loved open plains where it's superior range could outfight the enemy (which was my point in KT vs. IS3. If the KT crew was any good, they could probably hit the IS3 long before the IS3 was within it's own gun range/could get an accurate shot off). A solid hit might not outright kill the tank, but it's pretty easy to assume an 88mm shell would stun them pretty good.
Enough o' that, don't want a flame war. KV-85 as a replacement for the SU; other than planned additions (Maxim gun, DHsK MG team, BA-64 AC, etc), I think the RA is pretty fair off as it is (IMO).
-
why would we want a kv85? it was old and junk
we have the kv-2 already which does everything the kv85 did but better
also I think the devs have their minds made up about reward units so we may just be pissin in the wind here
-
why would we want a kv85? it was old and junk
we have the kv-2 already which does everything the kv85 did but better
also I think the devs have their minds made up about reward units so we may just be pissin in the wind here
Perhaps you are confusing those units, but KV-85 is more like upgunned sherman and KV-2 is like StuH.
-
It doesn't have any particularly original and appealing outlook, nor was it of some significant efficiency. Basically, a dead branch in tank development. So there's no reason to include it, IMO.
-
Basically, a dead branch in tank development. So there's no reason to include it, IMO.
Yes, but most of the heavy tanks used during the war could be described in the same way.
I would argue that the KV shouldn't be underestimated, it was a tough little tank and for me it represents some of the earlier soviet tank development. That's always been one thing i've felt this mod should have is a little bit more hardware from the 39-42 period.
But hey that's just my opinion!
-
I was referring to KV-85 suggestion. This particular model was produced for like half a year only, if I'm not mistaking.
-
I was referring to KV-85 suggestion. This particular model was produced for like half a year only, if I'm not mistaking.
Yeah according to wiki 148 were produced, i've suggested before that you could have a KV-1 with an upgrade to a KV-85 thus killing two birds with one stone.
-
Some new ideas.
(Repeating ideas possible ...)
1. T-34 minesweeper. (Both basic modification of the tank. 1942 & 1944.)
(http://www.wio.ru/tank/gal2/t34minec.jpg)
(http://www.wio.ru/tank/gal2/t34tral.jpg)
IS-2 minesweeper is not questioning :) :) it will be ubermechanism.
(http://www.wio.ru/tank/gal2/is2tral.jpg)
History event: Date of front scale expirience minesweeper tanks - 1944. First massive combat operation - "Bagration." Engineers was trancfered to other perposes.
2. Field repair mechanism. It will be on every tank, but i can't find photo ...
(http://liveguns.ru/files/u7243/T34Color51_0.jpg)
3. Tank Ambush
http://army.lv/image.php?img=17900.jpg&maxw=800&maxh=800 (http://army.lv/image.php?img=17900.jpg&maxw=800&maxh=800)
Matilda in ambush
http://www.mk-armour.narod.ru/2001/04/Photo_35.jpg (http://www.mk-armour.narod.ru/2001/04/Photo_35.jpg)
ISU-152 in ambush
(http://protown.ru/pic/wow_7_13.jpg)
4. Evacuator T-34 (Introdused 1942-43)
(http://warfoto.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/evakuator_tank.jpeg)
-
minesweeper looks actually quite good, but SU has already Sturmovie Ingenery with minesweepers to deal with mines.
Tank repair mechanism is a LOL, I can't imagine self reapiring mechanism on tank, which had 3 gears "forward" and one gear "backward". T-34 is too primitive for this.
ISU-152 had ambush ability, but it was useless, so it was replaced.
Evacuator T-34? This is.... strange, it's kind of Kangaroo?
-
I'd made a minesweeper before release, but Apex didn't want it added because he was a meanie :(
(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Elburro/Loomis/Things/roller.jpg)
-
1.
minesweeper looks actually quite good, but SU has already Sturmovie Ingenery with minesweepers to deal with mines.
2.
Tank repair mechanism is a LOL, I can't imagine self reapiring mechanism on tank, which had 3 gears "forward" and one gear "backward". T-34 is too primitive for this.
3.
ISU-152 had ambush ability, but it was useless, so it was replaced.
4.
Evacuator T-34? This is.... strange, it's kind of Kangaroo?
4. yes, some kind.
3. May be ... but ISU-152 is not that extended like T-34.
Brekthrough strategy suggesting
Look at that:
Танковый бой Колобанова З. Г. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-R4gs5EzB0#)
2. Light condition repair is take a place. Hauling winch (ore some kind) turret placed is front line is field service regulation tank equipment. This thing was used for field cannon extraction, ammo loading procedure , ect.
Brekthrough strategy suggesting.
1. T-34 minesweeper will be usefull while tank offensive operation. You can not use effectively Sturmovie Ingenery on the main tank offensive dirrection. Heavy casualties ...
Brekthrough strategy suggesting.
I'd made a minesweeper before release, but Apex didn't want it added because he was a meanie
It's sadness, i think.
-
Minesweeper upgrade would be an interesting addition to the mechanic ability in breakthrough possibly bringing more usefulness to that unlock?
-
[...]
I'd made a minesweeper before release, but Apex didn't want it added because he was a meanie
It's sadness, i think.
Sadness you say??? On the contrary ;D!! Apex isn't the leader anymore :D!! That means it could be added to the T-34 series(not as easy as sounds but still). Perhaps when the soviet units being to be reworked in the future, this may be added as well.
-
T-34 minesweeper looks kind of strange, but it could by a nice addition for breaktrough doctrine, just like the evacuator.
Sorry for OT, but I always asked myself why Apex was kicked or went went away before he would have been kicked?
-
T-34 minesweeper looks kind of strange, but it could by a nice addition for breaktrough doctrine, just like the evacuator.
Sorry for OT, but I always asked myself why Apex was kicked or went went away before he would have been kicked?
cos he was meanie ;D
-
T-34 minesweeper looks kind of strange, but it could by a nice addition for breaktrough doctrine, just like the evacuator.
Sorry for OT, but I always asked myself why Apex was kicked or went went away before he would have been kicked?
cos he was meanie ;D
He said was due to "personal reasons" :P. Perhaps doctrinal T-34s could be upgraded to that(minesweepers) ;D!
-
mommy - whats apex?
-
mommy - whats apex?
"It or he is a meanie, son. Banish the thoughts of it ;)"
-
All I know about Apex is that he wasn't a very good balancer, and it could have lead to one of the reasons he left, because the soviets were broken due to the WAY OP. Remember when 120mm had Incendiary rounds? ;) (Whosever idea that was, not slammin' you, but the mortar was like a stand-alone army, you could plant that think and you could practically destroy the enemy base in a couple minutes)
-
Su-122 can replace KV-2 in close arty support in reward unit, so we can choose the KV-2 slow but durable arty support (and expensive) or the Su-122 fast but not durable (like M76 sherman paper) and cheaper. That 2-choice support like the idea of the Soviet support barrack. :D
-
EDIT: Said something I wasn't supposed to.
-
Like change the jagtiger for kingtiger. Change the Su-122 for the KV-2, if the Su-122 is a reward unit. Like you sacrifice the better armor and better gun tank for a cheaper and faster but has smaller gun and thinner armor one. Maybe the cheaper aspect should not be irrelevant. Hope you understand now...
-
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=5758.0 (http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?topic=5758.0)
-
I think it will be nice change the partisans for an assault group (Those groups were very important in the urban combat style, like in Stalingrad)
The groups would be armed with PPSH, grenades, anti tank grenades and a flamethrower. Also they can have the ability of throw a lot of grenades. I read about those groups in the book "Stalingrad" (Antony Beevor). Sorry if you don´t understand me well, my english is not too good.
-
1. Veteran Guards - anti-tank nades, nades
2. Sturmovie Ininery - flamethrower ( even two :D ), PPshs
1+2= OPness, I just can't imagine such powerful like Sturmovie with Guards abilities.
-
1. Veteran Guards - anti-tank nades, nades
2. Sturmovie Ininery - flamethrower ( even two :D ), PPshs
1+2= OPness, I just can't imagine such powerful like Sturmovie with Guards abilities.
These groups of about 30 men had:
1 light AT gun (45mm) or 1 tank (T-34/76),
1/2 flamethrowers,
lots of people with ppshs and 'nades.
They were set for urban fighting.
How could this be made in just one unit? More like a call-in group. But if that latter would be to even distantly represent it's RL prototype, it would be extremely expensive: one tank-rider unit (on a tank), one flamethrower unit (sturmovye ingenery). How much could that cost? 1000mp?
-
Yeah... not gonna happen.
-
I think that you should take some inspiration from World of Tanks which is considered as tank simulator at least in case of data about armor thickness,traverse speed,rate of fire etc.
Sure there is some mistakes in tech tree. I doubt that something like pz4 with panther turret and 75mm long gun upgrade have ever existed because tracks could hardly hold such big turret and gun but it doesnt matter. To the topic.
1. make IS-3 tank to the game is good idea as a counterpart of King Tiger.. yeah it was faster and more mobile than KT and has better armor protection because of improved sloped armor.But if you make it little more expensive balance will be ok.
2. I am not sure but I think that isu which is in game has short 152mm gun but if someone says ISU-152 to me I imagine TD with long 152mm BL-10 gun which was capable to fire AP shells.If you will not add IS-3 in game why dont you just give isu-152 the truly "beast slayer gun" which it had in improved form? :-)
-
Yeah... not gonna happen.
Why not? - for a 1000 mp, it could be.
-
I think that you should take some inspiration from World of Tanks which is considered as tank simulator at least in case of data about armor thickness,traverse speed,rate of fire etc.
Sure there is some mistakes in tech tree. I doubt that something like pz4 with panther turret and 75mm long gun upgrade have ever existed because tracks could hardly hold such big turret and gun but it doesnt matter. To the topic.
1. make IS-3 tank to the game is good idea as a counterpart of King Tiger.. yeah it was faster and more mobile than KT and has better armor protection because of improved sloped armor.But if you make it little more expensive balance will be ok.
2. I am not sure but I think that isu which is in game has short 152mm gun but if someone says ISU-152 to me I imagine TD with long 152mm BL-10 gun which was capable to fire AP shells.If you will not add IS-3 in game why dont you just give isu-152 the truly "beast slayer gun" which it had in improved form? :-)
- CoH is not a historic simulator, guns will never have thier correct realistic values. No matter if Blitzkrieg series or MoW have realistic values (great for their player base i think)... CoH is different. Deal with it.
- "If you will not add IS-3 in game" but we are going to add it ???
- ISU-152 won't have a stat change just to reflect his RL counterpart for the situation described in the first point.
-
While its true the real life IS3 was the superior tank, the KT still is the #1 supertank in the game - in a straight slugfest. we should avoid these abrasive discussions about realism vs balance - its gets us nowhere.
but what the EF IS-3 has to even the playing field vs KT is speed, circle strafe that clumsy tiger :P so dont panic my comrades!
You can bring down the king tiger with a little finesse. hell i've seen a tetrarch circle strafe KT to death :P just look out for ninja paks! haha
If you ask me the IS-3 is the better choice over the ISU-152
isu152 used to be my favorite tank because it always penned and was really tough. it was easily circled though
well comrades, if you thought the isu152 could take a beating wait'll you get your hands on my baby the IS-3. its got the magic 3. speed, protection and firepower
-
These groups of about 30 men had:
1 light AT gun (45mm) or 1 tank (T-34/76),
1/2 flamethrowers,
lots of people with ppshs and 'nades.
They were set for urban fighting.
How could this be made in just one unit? More like a call-in group. But if that latter would be to even distantly represent it's RL prototype, it would be extremely expensive: one tank-rider unit (on a tank), one flamethrower unit (sturmovye ingenery). How much could that cost? 1000mp?
I had imagined these groups formed by 4-5 men with an only frame thrower. The group can cost 600.
I give the idea of create the assault group because is very easy to make it.
-
While its true the real life IS3 was the superior tank, the KT still is the #1 supertank in the game - in a straight slugfest. we should avoid these abrasive discussions about realism vs balance - its gets us nowhere.
but what the EF IS-3 has to even the playing field vs KT is speed, circle strafe that clumsy tiger :P so dont panic my comrades!
You can bring down the king tiger with a little finesse. hell i've seen a tetrarch circle strafe KT to death :P just look out for ninja paks! haha
If you ask me the IS-3 is the better choice over the ISU-152
isu152 used to be my favorite tank because it always penned and was really tough. it was easily circled though
well comrades, if you thought the isu152 could take a beating wait'll you get your hands on my baby the IS-3. its got the magic 3. speed, protection and firepower
Very nice summary RedGuard. Im really looking forward to it. Kinda sounds like a JS-ACE. I didnt really like the 152, even if it was insanly powerfull with its gun.
I guess as well that this is going to be one of my fav units in the game. Again i have to say that its just great to see this tank in the mod.
JS-ACE for catkiller!
(http://catalinawinemixer.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cat-killer.jpg?w=510&h=383)
Regards,
-V-
-
just build 1 (doctrine upg) sturmovye ingenery and 1 (armory upg) tank hunters - you'll have 2 men with ppsh, 2 flamethrowers, 2 PTRDs, 2 7-dmg mosins, and AT nades. All that for about 580 mp and some lots of ammo (like 150 out of memory).
-
8) 8) 8)
Spambot >:(
-
I, for one, am a fan of the ISU 152. Loved the raw power of this beast and thoroughly enjoyed the sight of it blowing the hell out of Stugs and Panthers. ;D Will be really sad to see it replaced by the IS3 although I would really like to try it out. Kinda torn betw the 2 here. :( Is it possible to include the IS3 without taking the ISU 152 out, and let players have a choice of deploying either vehicle? The one-vehicle-at-a-time rule can still apply. Hope the mod masters can consider this. :) Cheers
Post Merge: May 25, 2011, 04:23:17 AM
I, for one, am a fan of the ISU 152. Loved the raw power of this beast and thoroughly enjoyed the sight of it blowing the hell out of Stugs and Panthers. ;D Will be really sad to see it replaced by the IS3 although I would really like to try it out. Kinda torn betw the 2 here. :( Is it possible to include the IS3 without taking the ISU 152 out, and let players have a choice of deploying either vehicle? The one-vehicle-at-a-time rule can still apply. Hope the mod masters can consider this. :) Cheers
-
Think you've misunderstood... ISU-152 is still there, IS-3 is just a reward replacement for it that you need to enable before starting a game, like swapping a StuG for a GWagen.
-
Great~! Thanks for the clarification. =)
-
Hmmm, now the only thing that i keep in mind for now is T-60 as a reward unit for the T-70 because T-60 can't be used as a SPAAG despite its 20mm gun and the T-70 is a crap in any aspects. BA-64 replaces Partisan in Urban Warfare or better put it into the support barrack. A Zis-5 mechanic truck has ability to repair vehicle replace the mechanic in Break treough doc. Maybe in the future- i hope so, KV-1 and KV-85 with tank guards will be available.
-
T-60 would be a replacement for the T-90. Imo, T-60 should have replaced the T-90 from the very start since the T-90 was only a prototype.
-
+1 on the T60 or even a BT7M if modeling time is available. The T90 is a great model BTW. What for Flak do the Sovs have besides the T90. Maybe a Gaz AA or Dual Purpose Zis3 emplacement might be in order for those Pesky He219s/Stukas, (Ostheer?).
-
Ok guys since you guys have upgrades for vehicles like the T-34, KV-1 can be upgrade from 76mm gun to 85mm gun so why not for light tanks. First of all, we can purchase the upgrade of light tanks T-70 and T-90's engines that should upgrade the tanks Gaz-202 engines which has 70 Hp each to Gaz-203 engines which has 85 Hp each. Secondly i think the T-90 shouldn't be started in the Tank factory, we should use the T-60 instead, which its 20mm gun no infantries can stand a chance but in return T-60 can't target air units. And then the T-90 upgrade will be available to purchase. But if player want to keep the T-60, then they will have a 37 mm automatic air defense gun M1939
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/61-K.jpg/800px-61-K.jpg)
As a doctrinal building , the 37mm gun will be a reward building that replace the mechanics. And then Soviet tanks will be save from PE's Henschel Hs 129 and the disturbing PGs with panzershreck and later OH's Stukas.
-
Merged.
I don't think we will replace mechs by the 37 mm automatic air defense gun M1939, they fit very different roles.
-
How about trading the IL-2 for the AA gun ?
-
I for one, actually really like this 37mm AA gun suggestion.
-
It could potentially replace the field cannon in the prop doctrine (same AI role). It's not very propaganda-ish though.
-
I think the AA gun would be fir as a replacement for the IL-2 in Breakthrough doctrine. Maybe you guys should leave the sturmovie ingeneries build the defense emplacement instead of regular ingeneries.
-
I think the AA gun would be fir as a replacement for the IL-2 in Breakthrough doctrine.
That won't fit under no circumstances. First of all these are to whole different things. A massive air raid exchanged by a sweet 3,7cm AA gun? That won't do. Noone would agree with that replacement.
-
I'd add it to Prop doctrine. With other defensive constructions like ZiS3 it could be unlockable "Heavy Defenses" or something.
-
Hardcapped like the Howitzer of course. 2 of each.
-
Than take away the M-30, that arty can just be built one at a time so it won't do much.
-
You shouldn't really need more than 1. The Soviet howitzer is fine.
-
And how do you guys think about the upgrade of light tanks T-70-90 have gaz-202 engine then upgrade in the Armory to Gaz-203 engine ?
-
What the hell would be the point?
-
Higher top speed, better acceleration? Honestly, they don't need it.
@Mr.Q: Please stop suggesting things just for the reason of suggesting something. If you suggest things a little more deliberate, that would be fine ;)
-
i kinda like the idea for the 37mm aa gun, probably could be a reward unit for the Zis3 or some other stationary unit
-
Have you guys considered a PTRS-41 upgrade or as a reward weapons for the Sov's tank hunter ? Since the PTRS is a semi shooting AT gun and its effective range is 800 m and maximum range is 1,500 m and the PTRD's effective range only 549m but PTRD's weight is less than the PTRS up to 3 kg. So i think they can replace each other cuz the PTRS has speed but for exchange it is much heavier than the PTRD.
-
Have you guys considered a PTRS-41 upgrade or as a reward weapons for the Sov's tank hunter ? Since the PTRS is a semi shooting AT gun and its effective range is 800 m and maximum range is 1,500 m and the PTRD's effective range only 549m but PTRD's weight is less than the PTRS up to 3 kg. So i think they can replace each other cuz the PTRS has speed but for exchange it is much heavier than the PTRD.
Why would you make a reward unit but the only difference is the main weapon...?
Not gonna happen. You shouldn't have to make a squad slower for a semi-auto AT weapon.
This is almost like saying we can replace panzershrecks on grenadiers with AT Rifles as a reward unit.
-
No i said reward weapon not unit. But the Devs have already made the PTRD model so if not as a reward so should it be an upgrade in the Armory ?
-
No i said reward weapon not unit.
Pfff...there's more important stuff to develop than this.
Moreover:
@Mr.Q: Please stop suggesting things just for the reason of suggesting something. If you suggest things a little more deliberate, that would be fine ;)
-
@Mr.Q
I don't think that would be a nice reward unit.
-
Moreover:
@Mr.Q: Please stop suggesting things just for the reason of suggesting something. If you suggest things a little more deliberate, that would be fine ;)
Yea, no offense Mr. Q, but your suggestions are sometimes half-hearted and to the team seem like you just saw it in a movie or game or saw it's picture and decided to suggest it...
Reward "Weapon" or not, as you say, it's not going to happen as it takes time away from the development of more important things.
-
I realize only a limited number of rewards units are contemplated for the Final version of Eastern Front. Is there a reason why all the units developed for the game cannot be included as rewards units until the Mod design is finalized?
-
Because it's too much stuff :-\.
-
Oh well. That is too bad. It seems a shame to potentially lose all the work that went into the models.
-
I'm not sure what is the reason why, but why wouldn't T-26 work as a t70 reward unit? t26 could be a cheaper, but weaker t70. Or what about the T-26 flame tank? It's basically a not so powerful vehicle but great killing capability.
-
It would be fine if the AT gun (Zis 2 or 3) did has a stealth ability, as a upgrade, for exemple...
P.
-
It would be fine if the AT gun (Zis 2 or 3) did has a stealth ability, as a upgrade, for exemple...
P.
Mmh...
Zis-2 has already Hull Down ability, and Zis-3 I don't think it's necessary.
-
Guys, i have a few words for Mech squad. I think they shouldn't have the ability to build the emplacement just like the Ingenery because they already have theirs. They have the advanced repair ability and they also have the ability of boosting the production of the Tankovy factory. Make them have ability to build MG nest, outpost, roadblock, sandbags... is not necessary.
-
It's not necessary to remove them either. What difference does it truly make on a game? The only difference is that they now have some use when they're not repairing or supervising tank production. Otherwise they are useless during the downtime.
-
I intially thought that people complained that mech squads weren't useful due to their lack of abilites :(. They're ability to build basic constructions allows me to not have to build Ingenery later in the game.
BTW how much do mech squads speed up production? Alot?
-
IIRC it's 25%. Not a huge difference to be honest. I think a T-34 takes 50s to build. So 25% off that is still 37.5s.
-
I think it's an odd that we have 2 kinds of unit but have the same ability. I think if you guys want the Mech have more ability, you should give them Vet through repairing vehicle mean if the more time they repair, the will have vet and with vet they could have some new abilities like repair faster or increase the production of tank factory.I'm don't think building stuff is suitable for them (their name is Mechanic squad so that is something involve with vehicle).
-
You missed my point. The unit is useless when they're not repairing or supervising. This gives them utility outside of that niche role. At least LGF can build flaks and are OK in combat. Also, vet through repairing is not possible.
-
Maybe you can make them to build some station that can auto repair vehicle when they are close cuz i'm not so fond of the idea that mech squad have to build the ingenery's buildings.
-
IMO Mechs are usefull and doesn't need any changes; I use them often because they have Over-repair.
Units doesn't need any forced change if their OK.
-
Mechs have over repair? Is it similar to sappers?
Anyways I have a suggestion :P. As we all now most factions have mdical stations :). US, Wher, and Brits have Med stations that have medics. PE does not :( due to their highly mobile nature and the fact that collecting 3 wounded soldiers to make a PG squad is highly imbalanced.
However the Soviets have no such building nor are they considered as mobile as PE although ou can try to be :P. My suggetion is that the Soviet medical truck has medics riding along with it and when it locks down the medics run out collecting people.
As for balance concerns, the medic would either collection 7 people and make a strelky squad or collect 8 and make a conscript squad. That way since alot of soviet soldiers tend to die :(, you wont have too many squads coming out of the medic truck at the same time since medics pick up 1 soldier at a time. Also, since medic trucks come out later, you wont be instantly swarmed by strelky/conscripts.
And since you can only have 1 truck, you wont have multiple medics running aloof everywhere :P, yet you can retreat your medics and deploy them anywhere, making it unique :).
What do you think?
-
Soviet troops actually have a very small chance of being recoverable by medics when they "die" to prevent team game abuse. Soviets won't have medics, sorry. PE has the berge to recover units.
Mechs have advanced repair but they don't have overrepair.
-
I have a suggestion pop up when I played EF today
It is possible to put the KV-2 as the reward unit rather than SU-122?
we know KV-1/KV-85 are the reward units of the T-34s
so if KV-2 become reward unit of Su-122 (which use t-34 chassis )
we can than choose between using T-34 chassis tank (as standard unit) and the KVs (as reward unit) then
thought?
-
I have a suggestion pop up when I played EF today
It is possible to put the KV-2 as the reward unit rather than SU-122?
we know KV-1/KV-85 are the reward units of the T-34s
so if KV-2 become reward unit of Su-122 (which use t-34 chassis )
we can than choose between using T-34 chassis tank (as standard unit) and the KVs (as reward unit) then
thought?
I can't follow you...You can already choose between KV-2 and SU-122.
-
He wants kind of a KV package (KV-1, KV-2, KV-85) to be a reward unit pack for the vehicles based on the T-34 chassis (T-34/76, T-34/85, SU-122).
-
This just locks the player into using all 3 reward units at once. Pointless. You can still choose to only use KVs or T-34s by switching one option on and the other off.
-
no
I actually mean switching position of SU-122 and KV-2 only...
sorry for my poor language...
-
That wouldn't change anything. Pointless suggestion IMO.
-
no
I actually mean switching position of SU-122 and KV-2 only...
+1 on MaxiKing.
It's like calculate 2+1 or 1+2..result doesn't change. ;)
-
I know that's not changing gameplay
just for convenience and unity only...
also, as only 334 KV-2 were built while there's over a thousand of SU-122 were built
shouldn't the no of product be one of the deciding factors for reward unit?
again sorry for my poor language...
-
Guys have you guys considered to give the Soviet sniper the furry outfit like this ?
(http://www.badassoftheweek.com/zaitsev2.jpg)
-
Sorry, I can't see any Sniper there. They are too well-cloaked ;D
-
Honestly, I'm still waiting for the KV with tank guards on it ;D
-
Me too. KV with Guards.
-
Me too. KV with Guards.
why?? we allready have the t-34 with tankriders
-
Cause it looks awsome ;D. Maybe in the reward we should include KV-1, KV1/85, and KV-1 with tank riders which replaces the BT doctrine abiltiy. Obviously costing more ::)
-
Doctrinal unlock, comes with T-34 tank rider upgrade:
Guards are now able to ride tanks.
-
I have a suggestion. The SU engineers should be able to upgrade with minesweeper and flamer. It just doesn't seems fair that only the CS and T70 can detect. They can be everywhere at once :(. The only way for SU to stop mines is to either avoid obvious spots or have conscripts run throught it :(. But this should not be a practical tactic :-\. This way Sturm engineers are more powerful like they(sorta) should be and SU doesn't have to worry as much about mines as b4. BTW if either CS or T70 detect a mine can they just shoot it and it explodes or are they unable to. Never tried it :P
-
I have a suggestion. The SU engineers should be able to upgrade with minesweeper and flamer. It just doesn't seems fair that only the CS and T70 can detect. They can be everywhere at once :(. The only way for SU to stop mines is to either avoid obvious spots or have conscripts run throught it :(. But this should not be a practical tactic :-\. This way Sturm engineers are more powerful like they(sorta) should be and SU doesn't have to worry as much about mines as b4. BTW if either CS or T70 detect a mine can they just shoot it and it explodes or are they unable to. Never tried it :P
I think you are mixed up by "Detection Factor"
The CS And T-70 have a good detection range for Cloaked units like Snipers and Storms. Bikes, Jeeps, etc. have good detection range.
Neither unit can detect mines. Sturmovie come with a minesweer.
-
Stealth detection =/= mine detection.
You can use molotovs or AT nades to destroy mines since they're free. Try throwing them at commonly used mine locations such as the crossroads of Angoville.
-
Im sorry :-[. I didn't know the 2 were different. No wonder I've never detected a mine with a CS squad :P. But why cany the regular SU engineer have a mine sweeper. The layout now forces you to but Sturm engineer and spend additional reasources on a mine sweeping squad which wont come out until later in the game :(. Unless your floating a crap load of reasources.
-
a new unit
we all know that the soviets did trained dogs to look for food under armored vehicles
and in war they put a suit with an explosive charge on them and set them free when an enemy vehicle is approaching , so that when the animal get under the vehicle they detonate it by a wireless signal and that will destroy the vehicle
so
this dog cost ammunition and a little of manpower
it can be detonate by a click
or we can point it to run at any vehicles and explode at the moment that the dog touch's the vehicles
-
You are not serious, right (http://troll.me/images/angry-samuel-l-jackson/you-fucking-serious-lolno.jpg)?
(http://troll.me/images/angry-samuel-l-jackson/you-fucking-serious-lolno.jpg)
-
LOL in the corner it says troll me :P
@eyas; You should probably read the list for units that will never be made ::). Using dogs would be hard to animate and for humane animal reasons, EF wont be blowing up Lassie the Wonder Dog any time soon :P
-
Because Lassie needs to save Timmy who fell down the well again?
-
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9205/beztytuuxzm.png)
-
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9205/beztytuuxzm.png)
This can substitute the "Nein nein nein" video! ;D
-
This can substitute the "Nein nein nein" video! ;D
join my petiton to adding this (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9205/beztytuuxzm.png) to forum emoticons :P
-
This can substitute the "Nein nein nein" video! ;D
join my petiton to adding this (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9205/beztytuuxzm.png) to forum emoticons :P
Sub'd (Y)
-
This can substitute the "Nein nein nein" video! ;D
join my petiton to adding this (http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9205/beztytuuxzm.png) to forum emoticons :P
It would be a nice reward unit for the " ::) ". JK ;D I know its not a reward unit :P
-
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9205/beztytuuxzm.png)
This can substitute the "Nein nein nein" video! ;D
I just have to do this anyway...
Hitler says NEIN for 10 minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4#ws)
And how can somebody suggest something like this? Do you really have no soul OP?
-
Guys, i have a suggestion for upgraded TH, after upgraded, TH can have the abilty to shoot at the tank's track which can be cost about 25 ammunition.
-
Sounds a tad bit op to me :-\
-
Sounds a tad bit op to me :-\
... when including their at grenades, at mines and insane effectivness against enemy tanks. Yeah, pretty OP.
-
TH are enought strong, no need changes.
-
so basically biological goliaths? ive no qualms using the dogs but the animations would be tough to do. would seem a tad unconventional for coh though as we do seem to use mostly conventional units.
-
so basically biological goliaths? ive no qualms using the dogs but the animations would be tough to do. would seem a tad unconventional for coh though as we do seem to use mostly conventional units.
You people are really persistent aren't you :P? Lets says this, *sigh*, again:
NO KILLING OR USING ANIMALS!!!!!!! (except the donkeyfaust which was an easter egg of sorts)
-
Here are a few units I would like to see in EF, though I know some have been discussed and rejected. I am just saying I would "like" to see them implemented not that they should be, I have also have highlighted the problems to acknowledge why they may not be implemented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units that probably will not/won't be able to make it into EF
Unit - T-28
Replaces - Unknown
Description - The T-28 was a multi -turreted tank that entered service 1933 in but was not very successful despite this it was used until 1944. Its main gun was 76.2mm kt28 gun, and it had 4 - 5 DP Machine guns.
Reason - Although it was not a very successful tank it was still used on the Eastern Front until 1944.
Problems - It will probably be difficult to animate this tank due to the high number of machine guns.
Unit - Female Sniper / Soldier / Partisans
Replaces - Varied
Description - Battle harderend Female Soldiers ready to defend their Homeland
Reason - Female soldiers were not uncommon in the Soviet army during World War 2 and were fierce fighters protecting there homeland from the Nazi Army.
Problems - Animating the females and sound files.
Unit - Maxim Machine Gun
Replaces - Mortar Crew
Description - A Heavy machine gun usually crewed by two or more men.
Reason - Iconic machine gun used by the Russian army to pin and slow down the Nazi's Infantry.
Problems - Probably would mess up the balance. Difficult to animate the wheels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units that may be able to make it into the EF
Unit - BT Series 2 - 7
Replaces - T70/T90
Description - A incredibly fast light tank, it was lightly armoured but could reach a maximum speed of approximately 45mph what was pretty fast for a tank in World War 2.
Reason - These tanks were used by the Russian army until the end of the war.
Unit - BA Series
Replaces - T70/T90
Description - An armoured car used by the Russian army usually crewed by 3 or more men. Equipped with a Machine Gun or an AT Gun.
Reason - These armoured cars were used through out the war by the Russian Army.
-
I like the BA car idea ^^. They were unique looking :P
-
Again and again ad again and again ad again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again with this damned female soldiers!!!
If peolpe stop to suggest it I will offer something to drink at all EF community!
-
Well we can actually model and animate multi-turret and multi directional MG tank (just look at the Great War Mod and their multiple directional MGs) but the T-28 wouldn't really be good to replace anything other than the T-70 and that would just be strange anyway, replacing a High Speed Light Tank with a Heavy, Slow, and more well Armed tank (not necessarily more armored though). That's pretty much a KV for the T-70 (other than the KV-1 and 85 has the same gun as T-34 and T-34/85 respectively)
Anyway the other things as you have said will not make it in to the game and are in fact on my List of Things The Devs Will Never Add.
The BT series would be hard to place in any particular place. The T-70 is actually more heavily armored than a BT-8 and still quite fast, so in my eyes it would be a waste of time to create it and put it anywhere into the game. Perhaps something like a PE Armored Car would be the proper place to put it as, but since the Soviets lack even that, it is not to be put into the Soviets in this mod. While the BT is faster than a T-70 and has a similar gun, it is much weaker armor wise, I can see a single shot from a Marder 3 or a Panzerschreck just killing this thing and regular small arms fire impacting it quite well too.
As for the BA Armored Cars, that might just work, if you use the B-10 to replace the T-70 and BA-64 for the T-90
-
I think we could add a female model to the Partisan squad if Lead Devs want :P.
The voice would be a problem, but as long as she's not the last member everything would be fine :P.
Although as we don't have models... and we have a ton of other stuff to do, you can say this can hardly happen. Same for BA/BT series and T-28.
-
I though we can make new voices. It doesn't sound too hard, but I guess the programming might be a problem, plus we would need 3 or 4 variants of the same voice, clear, mild static, heavy static and far of in the distance voices.
-
variants of the same voice, clear, mild static, heavy static and far of in the distance voices.
and don't forget: underfire, calm and almost dead
-
variants of the same voice, clear, mild static, heavy static and far of in the distance voices.
and don't forget: underfire, calm and almost dead
and annoyed because of fucking clicking! ;D
-
Well those are different voice files but we would need 4 variants for each of those as well, except the super-clicking one, which is kind of hard to do unless close to and clicking on the unit
-
I think Guards and Tank Guards should have RGD 33 grenade instead of F1 Grenade. F1 looks like a Mk 2, even though it might not be a lend lease copy.
-
Well the RGD 33 looks like German Steilhandgranate (sorry for the incorrect spelling), so does it really matter in the end. Unless you are zoomed in at the battle you won't really even see the difference between the grenades
-
I guess so.
-
I'm sure this has been suggested before, but have you thought about one of the Soviet doctrines including a "lend-lease" ability which will bring an additional tank onto the field? It could be somewhat random and a gamble for the player. You could get lucky and get a late-production M4A2 Sherman with 76mm gun. Or you could get less lucky and get stuck with a M3 Grant or Valentine.
I know people play Soviets for the Soviet equipment, but you could have some vehicles that don't appear normally in the US or UK factions.
-
while idea is quite good, it would require 3 models, skinned and animated. And coded, ofc. However this is Red Army, and it uses soviet equipment, so I guess it never happens.
-
Good point. I suppose doing multiple vehicles just for one ability would take up too much effort. The Soviets did get a good amount of lend-lease armor and I think it might be interesting to represent that. Something to consider if you ever get an army of clones to help you guys out.
-
IIRC ostheer foreign battlegroup will have several different units that are randomly chosen, so it could be done.
i like the idea especially with units like valentine/mathilda that are not in the game yet.
-
The main objectives of the Special Group were conducting intelligence operations against Germany and its satellites, the organization of guerrilla war, the establishment of intelligence network in the territories under German occupation, the management of special radio game with German intelligence to the enemy's deception.
In October 1941 the Special Group in connection with the expanded scope of work has been reorganized into a separate 2nd Division of the NKVD still reports directly to Beria "(later - the 4th Division).
The composition of OMSBON included:
- Management;
- 1st and 2nd regiments of motorized infantry trehrotnogo composition (in each company three motorized rifle and machine-gun platoons);
- Mortar and anti-tank battery;
- Engineering and engineer company;
- A company of airborne services;
- Communication company;
- Car company and unit logistics.
equipment
The troops of the NKVD supply arms, ammunition and clothing were delivered significantly better than the Red Army. In terms zafrontovyh widely used captured weapons, especially machine guns and MP 38/40 MG 34/42. Departments OMSBON were filled PPS submachine gun (then PPP-43) is almost 100%, except for the machine-gunners, anti-tank riflemen and some other specialists. All the soldiers wore, except machines, Coburn weapons: pistols, revolvers, or CT, as well as all kinds of trophy specimens. Saboteurs from the team, as well as other parts of the men of deep intelligence, mandatory so-called armed with knives, scout (HP).
http://www.undread.narod.ru/articles/nkvd.htm
-
Cool?? But whats your suggestion, i see only historical facts here, not any game related stuff.
-
Cool?? But whats your suggestion, i see only historical facts here, not any game related stuff.
Uppps...Forgot... :-[
I believe that this special group will be able to replace the guerrillas. ::)
As a reward, of course. :)
-
+
This team has been focused mainly on intelligence work behind enemy lines. Battle group includes the commander, radio operator, demolition, demolition assistant, two machine gunners and snipers on a mandatory basis.
In addition to regular weapons snipers stood carbine model 1938 with a telescopic sight, it is conditioned by the fact that such a weapon (relatively short), it was more convenient to work in the woods. Also used a rifle with a silencer, "Brahmi".
Perhaps this option to display the NKVD in the game. You decide.;)
-
You havent really presented a idea how this should work out ingame? In order for this to become a proper suggestion you should put some thoughts into how this would actually work out ingame (Ability, Weapons, squard size ETC)
-
This looks like an unit suggestion so, merged it with the correct topic.
-
I imagine this: ::)
Group of 5 persons: 2 submachine (PPSH'a), 2 engineers, 1 sniper (Mosin rifle with telescopic sight, flame default).
Features: masking, the ability to mine the object, a grenade, running.
Upon receipt of street fighting chance to get flamethrowers (75 munitions)
After improving the supply of ammunition in the arsenal: PPSh'a-> PPS-43.
-
Appearance:
Coloring uniform model 1943 was developed under the strong influence melkopyatnistogo SS camouflage: the basic framework grassy yellow or light olive paint contour branches and leaves. In some cases, over the composition depicted amoeboid black or brown spots, like the old camouflage suits. ::)
-
Seems a bit too powerful :-\. Mines, grenades, dual flamers, ppsh, repair, stealth, and sniper? Just half of that already is pretty powerful :P
-
Seems a bit too powerful :-\. Mines, grenades, dual flamers, ppsh, repair, stealth, and sniper? Just half of that already is pretty powerful :P
Story ;) ... but you're right. ::)
Then this:
Group of 5 persons: 2 submachine, 2 engineers, 1 sniper (Mosin rifle with telescopic sight, flame default)
Sniper - a jewel of the group(Necessarily was present at all groups).
Stealth,disguise - they are subversive group.
To put an explosive to the object - primary goal.
Weapons: PPSha,because these units were equipped very well, for an effective response to the enemy.
Occurrence on a card: just as the guerrilla group.
Well as? Better? :-[
-
Well I have some other problems even with this new design. The first thing is if you have a sniper as part of a unit then chances are he isn't a sniper in the proper sense, as much as he is in the Designated Marksman (also, he uses a silencer on a carbine, he cannot physically have the same range as a real sniper using a non-Carbine model), he is really something closer to the Ostheer Marksman (whose official name escapes me atm), as he doesn't have the range of a sniper, but he does have the killing power. Having 2 PPSh and 2 Flamethrowers (since you said 2 Engies, I assume both have Flamers) and a DM, that might be too overpowered. That would make people just ignore the Partisan in general, which wouldn't make it a reward unit as much as a replacement. It really just gives you a stronger and more efficient Partisan.
And Seeme wouldn't like that one bit ::)
-
Basically: Needs to be toned down just a little bit more ;)
-
Well I have some other problems even with this new design. The first thing is if you have a sniper as part of a unit then chances are he isn't a sniper in the proper sense, as much as he is in the Designated Marksman (also, he uses a silencer on a carbine, he cannot physically have the same range as a real sniper using a non-Carbine model), he is really something closer to the Ostheer Marksman (whose official name escapes me atm), as he doesn't have the range of a sniper, but he does have the killing power. Having 2 PPSh and 2 Flamethrowers (since you said 2 Engies, I assume both have Flamers) and a DM, that might be too overpowered. That would make people just ignore the Partisan in general, which wouldn't make it a reward unit as much as a replacement. It really just gives you a stronger and more efficient Partisan.
And Seeme wouldn't like that one bit ::)
Flame thrower-it is my initiative, but this offer has arisen thanks to that that the given groups have well been armed also I wanted to connect two branches of street fight. :-[
May be I can help? ::)
-
2 flamers, 2 ppsh, and sniper is ridiculously powerful. maybe op. But about T-35, I know it won't be in EF, but I would like it if it was. It may be able to fit in as IS-2 reward unit, or a new feature for Propaganda War Strategy or Breakthrough Assault. But, as devs said, it doesn't need to be in EF.
-
And another thing, I don't think tanks should be realistic because COH is not realistic. Take something like the KT for example, it was plagued with mechanical problems but it doesn't have that. Or the ISU-152, it can't really do so much to German heavy tanks anymore.
-
... But about T-35, I know it won't be in EF, but I would like it if it was. It may be able to fit in as IS-2 reward unit, or a new feature for Propaganda War Strategy or Breakthrough Assault. But, as devs said, it doesn't need to be in EF.
22nd june, 1941 in РККА was registered 48 tanks T-35 consisting on arms. Thus only 7 cars have been lost directly in fight, 6 at the moment of the war beginning were under repair, and others 35 have left out of operation as a result of malfunctions, have broken on a march and have been thrown or destroyed by crews. :P
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-35
-
I remember the devs had a T 35 model once and it looked badass! But there was some animating problems with all those turrents afaik. I would love to see a T 35 ingame but problem is there isent any space for it, it would have to be squeezed into a doctrine in favor for something else.
-
Why would you even need a T-35, you already got the KV2, slow as hell Breakthrough tank (that for some reason is in Urban Doctrine :P) with an over-sized gun. That's pretty much the T-35 in a nutshell except the T-35 has 3 guns instead of 1. Hell that thing is about as fast as a Maus
-
2x PPs43, 2x Ingenery Mosins, Flamer by default (5 men). When Urban warfare is attained, option to buy either a second flamer or a spotter's Mosin-Nagant, both at the expense of one man (if upgraded at 5 men, squad UI would read 5/4). Camo in cover with reduced fal bonuses (probably 1.15 damage and accuracy in place of Fal's 1.25 multiplier), and the ability to throw either a bundled grenade or satchel charge (depending on what the devs see fit).
Thats my suggestion for it, idk what the unit is, i just scrolled over it and saw how powerful it was. Best not to pile on all those weapons and upgrades on a single squad, it makes the squad blantantly OP no matter how high of a cost you give to the unit.
-
Why would you even need a T-35, you already got the KV2, slow as hell Breakthrough tank (that for some reason is in Urban Doctrine :P) with an over-sized gun. That's pretty much the T-35 in a nutshell except the T-35 has 3 guns instead of 1. Hell that thing is about as fast as a Maus
The concept of a T-35 is pretty awesome. There is no superheavy infantry only tank ingame, making it very unique. Who wouldent like to see that big tin-can drive around shooting in every direction with shitloads of turrents ROFL POPZ (not taking balance into account) But as i said there isent any space for it, IF the t-35 would be present ingame it would have to be squeezed into a doctrine in favor for something else, or as a reward unit (which might end up sucking hard) I don't even think its possible for the modders to get a T 35 tank ingame, "hell" it would require too much work and reconstruction of the current doctrines.
-
Replace either the IS-3 or KV-2? IS it possible to make a limit of 2 call-ins ???
-
Either IS-2 or KV-2. T-35 =/= IS-3
-
Replace either the IS-3 or KV-2? IS it possible to make a limit of 2 call-ins ???
about T-35. IIRC multi-turret tanks can be animated but it takes much time and patience.
which tank it would replace depends on balancing.
about 2 call-ins. i'm not sure what you mean:
1. two tanks at a time. this would be simple (hardcap at 2).
2. like KT but but can be called twice not once. can't remember seeing it in any mod so far. might be simple to code, if not maybe this could work: giving the player 2 one-time call-ins with a hardcap on the t-35 which prevents you from calling the 2nd tank before the 1st is destroyed.
-
Replace either the IS-3 or KV-2? IS it possible to make a limit of 2 call-ins ???
about T-35. IIRC multi-turret tanks can be animated but it takes much time and patience.
which tank it would replace depends on balancing.
about 2 call-ins. i'm not sure what you mean:
1. two tanks at a time. this would be simple (hardcap at 2).
2. like KT but but can be called twice not once. can't remember seeing it in any mod so far. might be simple to code, if not maybe this could work: giving the player 2 one-time call-ins with a hardcap on the t-35 which prevents you from calling the 2nd tank before the 1st is destroyed.
I mean #2. 2 one time call ins. Not sure how powerful the T-35 is so I'll leave that up to u guys :P
-
I think T-35 should be slow, powerful, but deadly. I think it should be somewhat frail cause it has many machine guns. Slow, weak, but deadly. KV 2 and IS-2 are better in their ways.
-
Well, people would start lobbying for the Maus if they saw the T-35 ingame.
-
Reminds me of something I did today.
-
What did you do today?
-
What did you do today?
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
...
;)
-
uhhh, whats with the confusing/double meaning riddles???
-
What did you do today?
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
...
;)
The rocket powered fist :P
-
What did you do today?
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
...
;)
The rocket powered fist :P
The Egg :P, Cause I had breakfast first! ;D
-
T-35 was a hideous tank... it had relatively the same armour thickness as a Panzer II. If any 'multi turreted' tank was to be considered, it would be the T-28, which is essentially the same tank without the rear turrets... at least the Soviets were able to weld on a few extra plates giving later T-28 models a grand total of 80mm frontal armour.
-
If any 'multi turreted' tank was to be considered, it would be the T-28
Or the M3 Lee? ;D. Not sure if thats the right name :P
-
T-35 was a hideous tank...
you have a point there. and why would anybody replace the IS-3 anyway?
-
If any 'multi turreted' tank was to be considered, it would be the T-28
Or the M3 Lee? ;D. Not sure if thats the right name :P
I guess the Soviets got Lee's/Grant's Lend Lease... I planned on making one for my Uni project, but then Skyrim happened...
-
It happened to many brave men Burro, I hope you don't take an arrow to the knee though :P
-
I hope you don't take an arrow to the knee though :P
Oh god. My friend was just explaining that to me XD. And he wouldnt stop using it :P
-
I think it was the M3 Grant.
-
I used to be productive like you, but then I took a Skyrim to the knee. :P
-
I used to be productive like you, but then I took a Skyrim to the knee. :P
This Skyrim disease is affecting many people lately :P
-
Thankfully I'm OK. Werewolves are immune to disease :P
-
But they are over vulnerable to silver bullets tho :p
-
Sure if you could find a sivler bullet :P
I currently have Gears Of War disease. I just got the game thats why ;D
-
What are its symptoms?
-
Well both diseases cause atrophy of the mind and of work ethics. It also has a tendency to make ppl angrier and more glued to the TV :P
-
In other words you mean Zombies
-
BRAIIINSS!!!
-
In other words you mean Zombies
You could say that ;). If ppl addicted to xbox games are calld zombies then why not ;D. JK
-
wow. where did the red army suggestions go? now its all zombies and werewolves.
-
REPLACE CONSCRIPTS WITH ZOMBIES.
-
Well they often come in hordes and you kill like 100 of them and they come back in doubled numbers so Yeah. WHY NOT?
-
wow. where did the red army suggestions go? now its all zombies and werewolves.
Well once someone suggest something we will talk about it and then probably get sidetracked. But untill then:
ZOMBIE CONSCRIPTS
-
Panzergrenadiers will kill them by just looking at them
-
Panzergrenadiers will kill them by just looking at them
Indeed.
-
hmm. actually i dont think it would be that hard to make a zombie skin. and robotnik could POSSIBLY (if he has the time, (and wants to)) re work that one mini game about "surviving the oncoming waves" to only infanty hordes.
EDIT: that "mini game" would be fortress mode.
-
Or like the zombie mod. Derp :P
-
yea, but what about the conscripts hmm?????
-
They will be replaced by better units. We won't miss them. Instead of throwing Molotovs they will set themselves on fire and charge towards the Germans.
-
Thats kind of a cool idea ;D. Whole new meaning to bear hug ;D
-
See, I am not completely stupid.
-
Company of Incendiaries: Eastern Molotov.
New features include new Armor Piercing Lights Shit on Fire (APLSF) ammunition for Axis units and new co-axial and hull flamethrowers for Tigers.
V1's now leave a map-wide incendiary wake.
MG42s are 45-range flamethrowers.
::)
-
LOL all soldiers are equipped with flame nades. But as we wouldn't want this to be the least bit out of balance (durp) PE flame nades and Schiwwm incendiary attack do extra dmg ;D
-
And if you lose, your PC goes up in flames.
-
Then we shall buy flame retardent PCs ;D
-
Or some fire extinguishers and insurance :P
-
Seems expensive :P
-
It should be less expensive than flame retardent PCs :P
-
But in the long run the fir extinguishers will cost more and the flame retardent PC will help it survive household fire
-
Insurance. The flame retardent PC will eventually melt :P
-
maybe we just shouldnt buy COH: Flamewar Edition ;D?
-
Yes agreed
We shoul just stick with standard mods like EF.
-
NO. STANDARD MODES NEED MOAR DAKKA!
Make fortress mode loltastic, then move on to other new modes ^^.
-
LOL fortress mode should have waves of zombie conscripts of devil volks :P
-
And the MAUS blowing up zombie conscripts for the lulz
-
Wait, i remember a thread on units that won't make it to ef. why exactly won't the red army have any halftracks or anything? not that i want them.
-
Wait, i remember a thread on units that won't make it to ef. why exactly won't the red army have any halftracks or anything? not that i want them.
They MIGHT be made for other game modes but that list is of units we won't add for multiplayer armies
-
Really? they might make it into campaign? maybe they might make a mission in which you're trying to transport troops but all they do is die.
-
Really? they might make it into campaign? maybe they might make a mission in which you're trying to transport troops but all they do is die.
Thought there was suppose to be a train mission like that :P
-
Really? they might make it into campaign? maybe they might make a mission in which you're trying to transport troops but all they do is die.
What sort of campaign mission would that be?
-
a suicidal one ;D
-
Who knows maybe they survive :P
-
I will love the campaign if it meets my criteria:
1. Lots and Lots of dying
2. Long (longer than PE or british campaign)
3. lots of urban and winter missions
4. Most of all......... BERLIN!!!!!
-
And something unique would be nice :D Like the Maus :o
-
Or T - 35
-
T-35 could be a demonstrating model, used its wreck to decorate the maps since a lot of it was abandoned.
-
Don't forget partisans. Have a partisan level.
-
Don't forget partisans. Have a partisan level.
I think that's already covered(recently :)) :P.
-
Don't forget partisans. Have a partisan level.
I think that's already covered(recently :)) :P.
That should be interesting :P. Like the US airborne mission in the beginning of the game
-
seriously. im seeing Operation Uranus, the one where they surrounded and recaptured the city of stalingrad.
-
seriously. im seeing Operation Uranus, the one where they surrounded and recaptured the city of stalingrad.
Thats seriously the name of the operation? :P Weird
-
'Operatsiya Uran' in Russian, not so bad :P
-
the burro has a point.
-
hello people
i want you to get new patch with new tanks usa like ram and m46 patton
-
:)i want to get american tanks more powerful
-
Being polite - First lesson:
- This is how to address people in a nice and polite way. Being polite increases your chance on being taken serious and getting what you ask for. -
1.) Don't want people to do something. Ask or beg them.
2.) Structure your posts or sentences in a way which highlights that you want to be taken serious.
3.) Never ignore simple rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation.
We won't include M46 Patton because this is a WW2 modification. You're even lucky to have the Pershing ;)
-
@amr
Unfortunately, our objectives are to continue support our soviet faction, balance RMC and finish Ostheer. We haven't planned to add new units for US and probably we won't.
About the M46 Patton, I think the correct mod to depict it would be the 1949 mod ;).
-
americans are not supposed to have heavy tanks. thats just not their play style. if you want heavy armour, play as soviets or axis.
-
1.) Don't want people to do something. Ask or beg them.
LOL beg is a option? Does it work ? ;D
Basiclly the US wont have any heavy tanks b/c it would do weird things to balance. Basically what stealth said.
But there is always the Sherman Jumbo :P. Always reminds me of a elephant ;D. Just check the rewards section. Its only a EF reward unit though.
-
It's better than demanding.
-
Patton wasn't put into service until the 50's... don't make me pull out the diagram! *shakes fist*
-
Americans also have the pershing, and with the HVAP gun it rips through tanks
-
Yesterday, when I was playing Soviet and call in a SU-85, I had a idea. Call-in SU-85... What about SU-100 call-in, maybe 1 or 2 SU-100 as reward units in place of IS-3 and ISU-152?
Note: this idea mostly being write here to if anybody thought about this. They could know that this idea was... (very likely) not accepted :P
-
^ we already have a reward unit for the ISU152, the IS3
su100 could be an upgrade for the SU85 if we get a proper model, who knows
-
Yesterday, when I was playing Soviet and call in a SU-85, I had a idea. Call-in SU-85... What about SU-100 call-in, maybe 1 or 2 SU-100 as reward units in place of IS-3 and ISU-152?
Note: this idea mostly being write here to if anybody thought about this. They could know that this idea was... (very likely) not accepted :P
Well, I think you can't have two reward units for one unit.
And didn't we used to have an SU-100? What happened to it? Unless I missed it somewhere...
-
Maybe we could replce the SU-85 for SU-100 and just give it weakened stats. Mainly just for eye candy :P
-
SU-100 was/is being considered as an individual upgun for SU-85s.
-
SU-100 was/is being considered as an individual upgun for SU-85s.
Oh ok :P. Good to hear anywho :D. It'll be like the PE Panzer IV. Its gets an armor upgrade and a offensive upgrade :P
-
That's what we were thinking, although you could only get either the upgun OR the cage armour. However, the point is moot until the model is fixed and even then we need a pretty serious discussion about it.
-
OdinsWolfpack
Ingenery
I find it really annoying for the soviets to have to mg. I realize they compensate in other ways ie the d28 light mgs upgrades and hords of inf but still annoying when your tryin to hold down a side of a map in the early stages of the game. So i thought that it might be a cool idea to give them a machingun crew and use the same machingun thats in their mg dug outs. The team would have to wheel it around like the at crew does at a faster rate of course but slower than a reg mg team so there would be a draw back to it. idk jus a thought i have might give them a better chance in one on one battles and in 2v2 or 3v3 you wouldnt rely on a american teamate as much. tell me what you think
-
Yeah,as a replacement for Tankhunters.
-
I was thinking about the soviet's favorite lend-lease tank. The M3 Stuart(Honey) as a replacement for the T-70. The trade-off would be a better chance of getting hit for better anti-infantry firepower. But what to do about the T-90?
-
I find it really annoying for the soviets to have to mg. I realize they compensate in other ways ie the d28 light mgs upgrades and hords of inf but still annoying when your tryin to hold down a side of a map in the early stages of the game. So i thought that it might be a cool idea to give them a machingun crew and use the same machingun thats in their mg dug outs. The team would have to wheel it around like the at crew does at a faster rate of course but slower than a reg mg team so there would be a draw back to it. idk jus a thought i have might give them a better chance in one on one battles and in 2v2 or 3v3 you wouldnt rely on a american teamate as much. tell me what you think
This was suggested many times. Soviets with mg is too strong. Same reason why soviet/US combo is imbalanced
I was thinking about the soviet's favorite lend-lease tank. The M3 Stuart(Honey) as a replacement for the T-70. The trade-off would be a better chance of getting hit for better anti-infantry firepower. But what to do about the T-90?
Why replacing a anti vehicle car for better anti infantry firepower if you just could build the T90??
Honestly i don´t think its a good idea to add any other reward unit for soviet faction. They not even have to be balanced but have to fit in a soviet design concept. In addition they have to fit in a combination with other allies.
Thats what the Jagdtiger for example lacks, because it takes the role of the Elephant. A heavy armoured tank hunter which is accurate at middle distances (compared to 88) but is slow and needs support.
-
Why replacing a anti vehicle car for better anti infantry firepower if you just could build the T90??
The Honey was just as good a taking on armor as the T-70, in fact its 37mm had a better chance to penatrate armor than the 45mm of the T70 that is why the soviets loved it. It actually was one of the most demaned vehicles of the war by the soviets.
-
but you said this tank should have better anti infantry performance, thus making the T90 useless.
But thats the whole concept about these tanks, that soviets have specialized units. The T70 is against armor and T90 against infantry. Merging them like a M8 destroys this concept.
-
OdinsWolfpack
Ingenery
I find it really annoying for the soviets to have to mg. I realize they compensate in other ways ie the d28 light mgs upgrades and hords of inf but still annoying when your tryin to hold down a side of a map in the early stages of the game. So i thought that it might be a cool idea to give them a machingun crew and use the same machingun thats in their mg dug outs. The team would have to wheel it around like the at crew does at a faster rate of course but slower than a reg mg team so there would be a draw back to it. idk jus a thought i have might give them a better chance in one on one battles and in 2v2 or 3v3 you wouldnt rely on a american teamate as much. tell me what you think
Try not to post the same exact thing in two different threads :P. We see it the first time ;).
And the T-70 and T-90 basically forces you to choose b/w AI and AT.
Besides the M3 Stuart is a US tank :P. Wouldn't you rather your SU faction have SU units?
-
No; but it would be fun to make the 85mm gun as a reward unit for the OBR. Seriously, think about it. Its not like the soviets dont have enough arty right?
-
ya sorry bout double post
-
Wait, TH got replaced? i haven't been playing coh recently, so i wouldn't know. and why are people still hot on mg team?
-
TH are still there, just nerfed :P. And ppl complain about MGs probably cause they thought 1.6 would have MGs. Obviously this wasnt the case.
-
They got nerfed? in what ways? I'd say Soviet Union is better off WITHOUT an mg team lol.
-
They got nerfed? in what ways? I'd say Soviet Union is better off WITHOUT an mg team lol.
I think THs do less dmg per shot :-\. Not fully sure. Check changelog :P
-
THs had their penetration at long range nerfed but also had their cooldown at short range reduced. This way, their shots will bounce a lot more at range but they will fire faster and thus be more deadly at short range.
-
Would it be possible to post a side-by-side comparison of the Soviet Firebase, the British 25 pounder, and the American Howitzer? From what I see, the Allies have artillery coming out the wazoo. The Howitzer is doctrinal, true, but Infantry Company is a common choice anyway. So it might be possible to replace one of them with a reward unit; I have the idea of a 4.2 inch Chemical Mortar pit for the Americans firing incendiary/smoke WP, but I'd rather not toss that out as a proper suggestion just yet.
-
Would it be possible to post a side-by-side comparison of the Soviet Firebase, the British 25 pounder, and the American Howitzer?
IIRC GLD was suppose to do some sort of tips of the week thing (involving the SU firbase) but that never happened :P. Ask him
-
TH are still there, just nerfed :P. And ppl complain about MGs probably cause they thought 1.6 would have MGs. Obviously this wasnt the case.
This has never been a problem for me, I either;
1: Take one from the enemy's cold dead hands
2: Wait for allied support
3: Get them from an allied paradrop
The Soviet's main advantage is their horde and specialists, a mg would just slow them down IMO.
-
I'd prefer the term Tide instead of Horde, makes them feel more glorious.
-
I'd prefer the term Tide instead of Horde, makes them feel more glorious.
LOL, spam, but funny spam. XD ;)
-
I have a suggestion, would you guys consider to arm the tank riders ( Tankodesantniki) with the body armor SN-42 since i just came across it on wiki
-
i think that the tank riders are exactly the same as guards or shock guards if you have the upgrade. so if you improved tank riders you would have to improve guards as well.
-
I have a suggestion, would you guys consider to arm the tank riders ( Tankodesantniki) with the body armor SN-42 since i just came across it on wiki
I wouldn't be for it. Sturmovie Ingenery have SN-42, if i'm not wrong. Sturmovie Ingenery can support tanks well, they're good fighters for units that can repair.
-
I have a suggestion, would you guys consider to arm the tank riders ( Tankodesantniki) with the body armor SN-42 since i just came across it on wiki
Are you suggesting a upgrade that helps them fight better or just a change in looks? If its an appearance change then I dont know, ask devs :P
-
Guys, i have another suggestion on the model of the naval infantry. Having nothing to offend, the naval infantries look really cool and badass but i consider that they would look better if you guys could give them another feature is the SSh-40 helmet which was also used by the naval infantries in the war . And i think 2 members of the team, especially the ones that carry upgraded weapons (DP, PTRD) , could have the helmet, and the rest keep their old out-fit.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p4I8U3g5x6w/Tiu_aC912RI/AAAAAAAAK3I/C2AefuISKfU/s1600/Soviet-Naval-05.jpg)
-
Guys, i have another suggestion on the model of the naval infantry. Having nothing to offend, the naval infantries look really cool and badass but i consider that they would look better if you guys could give them another feature is the SSh-40 helmet which was also used by the naval infantries in the war . And i think 2 members of the team, especially the ones that carry upgraded weapons (DP, PTRD) , could have the helmet, and the rest keep their old out-fit.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p4I8U3g5x6w/Tiu_aC912RI/AAAAAAAAK3I/C2AefuISKfU/s1600/Soviet-Naval-05.jpg)
Well I suppose there's nothing wrong with this, however it's very minor it seems and the devs are busy at work with the Ostheer. They'll reskin the soviet stuff once they're done.
-
i second this notion, but only after 2.00
-
Guys, i have another suggestion on the model of the naval infantry. Having nothing to offend, the naval infantries look really cool and badass but i consider that they would look better if you guys could give them another feature is the SSh-40 helmet which was also used by the naval infantries in the war . And i think 2 members of the team, especially the ones that carry upgraded weapons (DP, PTRD) , could have the helmet, and the rest keep their old out-fit.
great! can you model, animate and skin it?
-
@Mr.iuos.Q
Well, I think we can look at it at the future, when soviets models start to be reworked ;).
-
So, I've just been doing some reading on the Soviet Airborne troops, and that got me thinking. After all, American paras, British commandos, and German Fallschirmjaegers are already represented: why not the Soviet VDV?
The VDV undertook three major combat drops in WWII: the 1942 Vyazma operation, the 1942 Demiansk pocket, and the 1943 Dnieper River crossing operation. In all three cases they got butchered horribly, but they still fought as leg infantry throughout the war. It's mentioned that when a drop went wrong (...all the time), they'd meet up with local partisans and conduct guerrilla warfare.
I'm thinking of having VDV troops replace either Naval Infantry, or Partisans. If the latter, they could give Urban Combat players a hard-hitting midgame infantry unit, which they need. Potentially they'd be more expensive than Partisans, better-armored, incapable of camouflage (or else only capable of Fallschirmjaeger camo), deadly at close range, in contrast to medium-range Navals. In exchange, they lose the ability to plant demolition charges and incendiary traps. Alternatively, they'd be good all-around infantry who can't infiltrate from buildings like Partisans can; that would distinguish them from Partisans and Fallschirmjaegers and change their nature from back-line ambushers to frontline combatants. Give 'em blue berets and telnyashkas and let 'em rip!
-
I think they could replace the Partisans aesthetically but game wise (as in different abilities and such), perhaps not immediately. Maybe later on they could replace them game wise and lets say replace the incendiary mine thing :P
-
Oo! I've thought of a potential way to distinguish them further: give the option to upgrade them with SKS carbines. Most sources I've seen agreed that there were a limited number of Simonovs on the Eastern Front in 1945, undergoing combat trials; there's no indication which lucky units got them, so may as well be the VDV. To distinguish between SVTs and SKSes, have the latter fire faster with fewer movement penalties, and be better at short range than medium range. The exact numbers and methodology will have to balanced via trial-and-error, needless to say.
I've also thought of another reward "unit", so to speak: 4.2 inch mortar WP barrage, as a replacement for the American Infantry Company's Off-Map Artillery. There's historical basis for this: the Chemical Mortar battalions were widely feared by the Germans for their HE and WP barrages. Instead of firing HE shells, though, they fire WP shells that:
* Lay down a heavy smokescreen instead of exploding in the massive artillery explosion. There are a lot of potential uses for a big smokescreen, after all.
* The explosion of impact will have a medium radius and deal immediate fire damage to infantry, like the Panzer Elite exploding boobies booby traps. Damage to vehicles will be fairly minimal. On the other hand, since it counts as fire damage, cover doe not protect against it.
* Optional: vehicles caught near blast center suffer some damage and are stunned, like a T17 WP shell ability.
* Unlike the Wehrmacht Incendiary Barrage, it does not leave patches of fire on the ground. Not only does it make it a more unique ability, it also changes the utility: it's not usable for mass area denial, and it can't burn out infantry from buildings over a long time. It also allows Infantry commanders to charge Rangers and Rifles into the smoke almost immediately.
* It's less damaging than the Arty Barrage; it should cost correspondingly less. At the same time it's still lethal to infantry caught within shellburst range, so it should cost quite a lot more than the Creeping Smoke Barrage for the British. I suggest a cost of 100 or 120 Muni or so.
Opinions?
-
take out partisans? never! you know that those guys singlehandedly liberated the town of mostar right?
-
Well, they are intended as reward units, after all. The alternative is having them as the reward unit for Navals, but I think Urban Combat needs the infantry support more.
-
infantry reward unit eh? well i guess that would be acceptable. but dont ask me, im not a dev.
-
Guys, i have another suggestion on the model of the naval infantry. Having nothing to offend, the naval infantries look really cool and badass but i consider that they would look better if you guys could give them another feature is the SSh-40 helmet which was also used by the naval infantries in the war . And i think 2 members of the team, especially the ones that carry upgraded weapons (DP, PTRD) , could have the helmet, and the rest keep their old out-fit.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p4I8U3g5x6w/Tiu_aC912RI/AAAAAAAAK3I/C2AefuISKfU/s1600/Soviet-Naval-05.jpg)
I actually like it, +1 to the idea
-
How about Shock Troops as a replacement for Naval Infantry? They would be a 5 man squad and be heavily equipped but a little slower than most units. Two of their men would be wheeling around a M1910 Maxim which would do little suppression but high damage. This could be upgraded for 50 munitions to a RG-43. The other men would start with SVT-40s and have the option to upgrade a DP-28 two times (65 munitions each). The cost of the unit would be like 500-550 manpower. Any thoughts?
Also, how about instead of an Artillery Firebase there would be the option to build up to two weaker moveable ZiS-3 that have direct fire (no charge) ability and a light-artillery barrage of up to 150 meters?
-
no HMG for soviets.
other than that, get the shock guards upgrade for shock troops
arty has a significantly different role than AT, and why would we nerf the zis-3 and make it into arty? please explain.
-
no HMG for soviets.
other than that, get the shock guards upgrade for shock troops
arty has a significantly different role than AT, and why would we nerf the zis-3 and make it into arty? please explain.
First, the "HMG" functions just like a more powerful LMG. No suppression, did you read that?
Shock Guards=/=shock army troops. The difference historically (if you know anything) between guards and shock armies were that Guards were the elite, relatively fast moving and well trained army used to exploit a breakthrough. The Shock Army was HEAVILY equipped (ISU-152s, high numbers of IS-2s, many machine guns, etc.) but had little in the way of sustaining themselves for extended conflict and making fast advances. Therefore, shock guards=fast moving elite infantry. Shock Army=Slow moving breakthrough units.
Either you worded yourself wrong or have no idea between the difference of a ZiS 2 and a ZiS 3. If you know history or have done even 30 minutes of wikipedia research, you would know that the ZiS 2 is the AT gun, the ZiS 3 is the field gun. ZiS-3=/=ZiS support gun in the game. The ZiS "Support Gun" (cough cough derp AT gun) is OBVIOUSLY still buildable. The point being that the ZiS 3s (which can and was used as a slightly weaker substitute for the ZiS 2 at times but its main role was light artillery support with some AT support when neccesary) could replace the unmoveable but powerful artillery firebase with a more mobile but weaker force.
-
You'd be taking away some of the AT power by giving them a wheeled Maxim, I think, especially as Naval Infantry PTRDs do provide a much-needed AT stopgap. Different strat, different role?
As for the ZiS-3s, it sounds a lot like having mobile OBRs in concept.
The biggest issue with the wheeled Maxim might actually be that everyone looks at it and sees "HMG", and then get confused why it's not suppressing.
-
I guess that you're right about the AT stopgap. Hmm... Maybe give the Shock Troops AT nades and make the SG-43 do some damage to light vehicles like halftracks and light armored cars? Maybe for the wheeled Maxim (or SG-43) in the description of the Shock Troops there could be a "!!!MG does not supress!!!" notice or something? or maybe list it like "Heavily armed shock troops armed with a high damage, nonsupressing MG".
And I guess you could see the ZiS-3s like that. They would be decent for medium-light AT but they would be bad against infantry. However, if they use the barrage ability (which has a cooldown and range of 20-150) they fire HE shells which are good against infantry.
-
no HMG for soviets.
other than that, get the shock guards upgrade for shock troops
arty has a significantly different role than AT, and why would we nerf the zis-3 and make it into arty? please explain.
First, the "HMG" functions just like a more powerful LMG. No suppression, did you read that?
Shock Guards=/=shock army troops. The difference historically (if you know anything) between guards and shock armies were that Guards were the elite, relatively fast moving and well trained army used to exploit a breakthrough. The Shock Army was HEAVILY equipped (ISU-152s, high numbers of IS-2s, many machine guns, etc.) but had little in the way of sustaining themselves for extended conflict and making fast advances. Therefore, shock guards=fast moving elite infantry. Shock Army=Slow moving breakthrough units.
Either you worded yourself wrong or have no idea between the difference of a ZiS 2 and a ZiS 3. If you know history or have done even 30 minutes of wikipedia research, you would know that the ZiS 2 is the AT gun, the ZiS 3 is the field gun. ZiS-3=/=ZiS support gun in the game. The ZiS "Support Gun" (cough cough derp AT gun) is OBVIOUSLY still buildable. The point being that the ZiS 3s (which can and was used as a slightly weaker substitute for the ZiS 2 at times but its main role was light artillery support with some AT support when neccesary) could replace the unmoveable but powerful artillery firebase with a more mobile but weaker force.
no need to be pissy man. you asked about these units, and i replied. you dont need to go all out about how i am uneducated or anything.
yes i read about no suppression on the HMG
yes i do know somthing, however im no ww2 history buff, so i didnt know the difference between shock guards and shock army troops. this stuff is situational history man, i didnt learn it for the same reason you didnt learn about the california gold rush.
no need to be rude. you posted this to get feedback, and i provided it.
-
Quick thoughts.
1. T-90 replaced with T-60? I know it might sound redundant but I like 20mm cannons and I think they do better in certain areas than MGs.
And also, a quick question. T-90s are good against infantry, terrible vs vehicles. T-70 good vs light vehicles. Fairly bad against tanks. decent against infantry. M8 which costs the same as either is good against infantry, good against light vehicles, and is significantly faster. IMO T-70s and T-90s are too weak for their cost and limited, quickly disappearing role. The gap they fill doesn't quite come together too well as first off, t-90s aren't fast so they can't be used as a reactive anti-capper like PUMAS and ACs can be. Then, it dies like AC to AT guns so no real frontline combat with AT guns around. Its only window of oppurtunity is if the opponent has no AT at all but it can't even really capitalize on that because while somewhat fast, its not an AC. T-70s are not the best against infantry unless they're parked right next to them, in which case they'll be shreded by AT fire. To really make anything happen, you need to intensively micro it to strategically target any light vehicles. I think T-70s needs slightly better performance against infantry (maybe 1.3x accuracy or bigger splash) or a cost reduction. Also, maybe T-90s should do a little more damage vs light vehicles like PE halftracks? or do they already do as much dmg as BARs or vickers bren carriers? I just say that by the time light tanks have been fielded, A soviet will have spent about more fuel than it would take a PE to get a light ATHT and AC out and that the enemy will surely have some form of AT on the field. However, ACs can swiftly evade AT whereas light tanks cannot do so as well.
^please take my opinion with just a little grain of salt plz. I tend to say that everything is too weak ;D
-
I agree that t-90s are in an odd place right now. They're at best a mid-game unit, but really only function like an early/mid-game one. It seems unreasonable to move them from the tank depot. What do you think about making the tank depot cheaper, and jacking up the price on the t-34/kv-1? That would make the t-90 available a little earlier, and you wouldn't have to tweak it.
-
I've also thought of another reward "unit", so to speak: 4.2 inch mortar WP barrage, as a replacement for the American Infantry Company's Off-Map Artillery. There's historical basis for this: the Chemical Mortar battalions were widely feared by the Germans for their HE and WP barrages. Instead of firing HE shells, though, they fire WP shells that:
* Lay down a heavy smokescreen instead of exploding in the massive artillery explosion. There are a lot of potential uses for a big smokescreen, after all.
* The explosion of impact will have a medium radius and deal immediate fire damage to infantry, like the Panzer Elite exploding boobies booby traps. Damage to vehicles will be fairly minimal. On the other hand, since it counts as fire damage, cover doe not protect against it.
* Optional: vehicles caught near blast center suffer some damage and are stunned, like a T17 WP shell ability.
* Unlike the Wehrmacht Incendiary Barrage, it does not leave patches of fire on the ground. Not only does it make it a more unique ability, it also changes the utility: it's not usable for mass area denial, and it can't burn out infantry from buildings over a long time. It also allows Infantry commanders to charge Rangers and Rifles into the smoke almost immediately.
* It's less damaging than the Arty Barrage; it should cost correspondingly less. At the same time it's still lethal to infantry caught within shellburst range, so it should cost quite a lot more than the Creeping Smoke Barrage for the British. I suggest a cost of 100 or 120 Muni or so.
I like the idea a lot. Make it more of a smoke/anti-infantry barrage instead of a kill-it-all barrage? +1 to this idea.
The VDV undertook three major combat drops in WWII: the 1942 Vyazma operation, the 1942 Demiansk pocket, and the 1943 Dnieper River crossing operation. In all three cases they got butchered horribly, but they still fought as leg infantry throughout the war. It's mentioned that when a drop went wrong (...all the time), they'd meet up with local partisans and conduct guerrilla warfare.
I'm not sure I like the idea of VDV, even as a reward unit. Both naval infantry and partisans were much more popular. I know a bit about WWII, but I've never heard of any VDV operations. Also, it sounds like they just ended up fighting alongside partisans, so it would be kind of redundant.
-
Uhm guys could i ask you something about the Red tide in the propaganda strategy, i think you guys should change the call in resource to man power as your change log states that
Red Tide
* Removed replace squad ability.
* Increased command point cost of Red Tide to 3.
* You get 2 NKVD Squads and more depending of your tech level:
- An additional NKVD squad, if no support upgrade purchased.
- A Strelky/Red Banner Strelky squad, if any Soviet Support Barracks is purchased.
- A Guard/Shock Guard squad, if any Tank Hall upgrade is purchased.
* A NKVD squad consist of 5 conscripts armed with regular mosins and a commissar armed with a PPSH-41.
* NKVD's Commissar has an ability called motivate that breaks suppression for 10 seconds.
* Motivate ability duration time can be increased by 2 seconds for each vet level.
* NKVD health set to 290 manpower (58 manpower per member).
* Reinforcement time of NKVD set to 8 seconds.
* Reinforcement cost of NKVD set to 20 manpower.
And even if the ability is still available, it won't be a matter because the effect time is too short. And 200 munition is too costly but do insignificant effect. So i consider that this is only a call-in ability and the cost should be set to 500 man power.
-
The munitions cost is comparable to Manpower Blitz.
-
Its sad that Commissar squads don't have the Molotov cocktail, If they did they would be a poor man's Guard squad. A nice stopgap measure.
-
The munitions cost is comparable to Manpower Blitz.
I don't think it's fair because, although the Wehr need 6 CPs and 200 munition but they get anything they like from the 900 man power plus that doesn't account for their pop cap. Even the American only spend 7 CPS and 800 man power to receive riflesquad, .30 cal MG, Mortar, Anti-Tank Gun, M8, M10, rangers that is a huge force to do a push. For the Soviet, let me put the Red tide into its ultimate form in which it only bring in 2 shtrafniki squads and 1 Guard squad and the sum of man power of those squads, which i make it out according to the cost of the regular squads, is about 820 man power ( let me put the shtrafniki's price is 240 mp). However, to get that it takes you 5 CPs which a considerable amount of killings and time.
-
The munitions cost is comparable to Manpower Blitz.
I don't think it's fair because, although the Wehr need 6 CPs and 200 munition but they get anything they like from the 900 man power plus that doesn't account for their pop cap. Even the American only spend 7 CPS and 800 man power to receive riflesquad, .30 cal MG, Mortar, Anti-Tank Gun, M8, M10, rangers that is a huge force to do a push. For the Soviet, let me put the Red tide into its ultimate form in which it only bring in 2 shtrafniki squads and 1 Guard squad and the sum of man power of those squads, which i make it out according to the cost of the regular squads, is about 820 man power ( let me put the shtrafniki's price is 240 mp). However, to get that it takes you 5 CPs which a considerable amount of killings and time.
You get 4 of those selections you made in Americans (2 AT 2 AI)
Wehrmacht needs more time to get to their blitz.
The ability is fine and has been used many times in competitive gamestyles. The former red tide was fail.
-
Manpower Blitz also lowers your income, so in the end you only get around 500-600MP or so. So Red Tide yields you a little more because the units are chosen for you. However, they are also produced instantly and Strafynie are excellent for capping or swarming a defensive position. Red Tide is also on the very useful left hand side of Prop which IMO is one of the strongest doctrine trees in the game.
Think about it this way, if you ever use firestorm, registered arty, sector arty etc. and kill 3 full enemy squads with it, you would consider that a great exchange for 150-200MU. This is like the opposite, granting you those three squads instead of killing the enemy's.
-
If you put it that way... But i think the Red tide also need something more like buffing your infantries in the field for a period of time during the ability is active like they would run faster and decrease the suppression on the units.
-
Soviets already have so many abilities like that. I think Red Tide is strong enough anyway.
-
I am sure someone already mentioned this but T-26 as a replacement for the T-70, not as strong or capable but a lot cheaper.
(http://mg-34.com/images/stories/photo/25.11.2011/offensive%20moscow.jpg)
The BA-64 armoured car as a replacement for the T-90, faster, thinner armour but good for recon and flanking.
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/MC-200/MC-200-53S22G369Sa-369/images/1-BA-64-ATR-Stalino-Ukarain.jpg)
ZIS-5 truck as a replacement for the medic truck, basically replaces healing aura for the reinforcement ability(no lockdown needed).
(http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/z/zis5vBVV.jpg)
Or....A lend-lease M3 Halftrack as a replacement for the medic truck. More expensive, reinforcement abaility(same stats more or less as the US half-track).
(http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/Historical/Eastern-Front/Soviets-winter44-03.jpg)
-
Most of these have already been mentioned and declined. However the Medic Truck replacement is interesting but I dont think it will work because the SU will lose their only way to heal and the SU already has Outposts available.
-
Most of these have already been mentioned and declined. However the Medic Truck replacement is interesting but I dont think it will work because the SU will lose their only way to heal and the SU already has Outposts available.
Nah, I already proposed something similar for the Medic Truck(just without reinforcement because they have the outpost) and was completely shot down. I would not expect more reward units for soviets as well, they have too much stuff already. Although maybe this can be looked once Ostheer is finished.
If soviets would needed some sort of similar unit, I guess we could have used the M3 Halftrack from US :P.
-
If soviets would needed some sort of similar unit, I guess we could have used the M3 Halftrack from US :P.
Now we are talking, lol.
-
I'm still holding out for reward infantry unit that's upgradeable to SKS carbines--shorter-ranged and less powerful than SVTs, but makes up for it with fewer movement penalties (encouraging attacks on the move).
-
what unit would it replace? why does this unit need replacing?
-
I've made the case earlier for VDV as a reward unit, optionally replacing the Partisans; Urban Combat could do with a heavier-hitting midgame infantry punch. Partisans are useful, but they're not actual frontline combatants, per se, and I think it'd add some variety to give the Urban Combat doctrine an infantry unit that can stand and fight alongside Strelky, or hold the line if the player's going T1-T3. With Penal Units and Naval Infantry, Propaganda can do this almost too well, while the whole point of Breakthrough is to wait for the vehicles to roll in, but as things stand Urban Combat lacks a powerful midgame infantry unit.
Besides, every other country has their airborne forces on display somewhere in their order of battle. It wouldn't do for the Rodina to fall behind. :P
-
I sorta agree that the Urban doctrine lacks power mid game as the Sniper Ace or the KV-2 will take some time to get out and Partisans are kinda weak. I mean they are okay vs things like PGs or Volks or Grens but once they start getting vet or weapon upgrades or if they simply out number them by a lot, then Partisans become useless :(. But it is up to the balancers, not me :P.
-
I've made the case earlier for VDV as a reward unit, optionally replacing the Partisans; Urban Combat could do with a heavier-hitting midgame infantry punch. Partisans are useful, but they're not actual frontline combatants, per se, and I think it'd add some variety to give the Urban Combat doctrine an infantry unit that can stand and fight alongside Strelky, or hold the line if the player's going T1-T3. With Penal Units and Naval Infantry, Propaganda can do this almost too well, while the whole point of Breakthrough is to wait for the vehicles to roll in, but as things stand Urban Combat lacks a powerful midgame infantry unit.
Besides, every other country has their airborne forces on display somewhere in their order of battle. It wouldn't do for the Rodina to fall behind. :P
Partisans aren't supposed to be a front line force. They're useful for being an annoyance. You ambush smaller squads or move in camo behind the enemy lines and pick off the retreaters. You could also fully utilize them by sabotaging capping and getting in/out of buildings with their incdy mines.
Same with Falls, same with Airborne, same with Rangers, same with Commandos. Too expensive and single purposed to be a front line force. Stick with other infantry units like Strelky, whom are designed to be frontline later in the game.
-
The main things about the Partisan counterpart units, though, is that they're strong enough to take on infantry if needed. Yes, they're raiders and scouts and infiltrators, but they can also supply some heavy firepower in the heavy infantry role when you need it. Partisans are mostly unable to accomplish those tasks.
-
The main things about the Partisan counterpart units, though, is that they're strong enough to take on infantry if needed. Yes, they're raiders and scouts and infiltrators, but they can also supply some heavy firepower in the heavy infantry role when you need it. Partisans are mostly unable to accomplish those tasks.
Paratroopas? Take on enemy infantry? Have I missed something recently? :P
-
The main things about the Partisan counterpart units, though, is that they're strong enough to take on infantry if needed. Yes, they're raiders and scouts and infiltrators, but they can also supply some heavy firepower in the heavy infantry role when you need it. Partisans are mostly unable to accomplish those tasks.
Paratroopas? Take on enemy infantry? Have I missed something recently? :P
I think he's referring to Falls.
Falls are the closest counterpart to Partisans but are used for different purposes. Falls are much stronger against infantry at a range with their FG42s. While stationary and defending they are extremely powerful. Partisans are more of a on-the-move unit, but of course are still decently strong while stationary. Falls have a selection of grenades to pick from while the Partisans have a selection of nifty traps and mines to use to sabotage enemy movements. Falls are also more expensive and have to be upgraded to FG42s to unlock their true power.
Partisans are fine.
-
Yes, Falls.
In any case, I see I'm the only one advocating for the idea. Pity, really. I wanted to see VDVs in blue berets tearing up the battlefield.
-
Falls are also more expensive and have to be upgraded to FG42s to unlock their true power.
[/quote]
Get Def, Def, Off vet on them and don't bother upgrading them with anything. Keep them in pairs and stick to green cover. Watch them vaporize a rifle squad in 3 volleys.
-
IDK FG42 are devastating. Its like buying MP44s only better :P. And IMO you should get Off., Off., Def.
-
I think FG42s are like BARs awesome at all ranges.
Get def, off, off.
Watch them ninja Guards
-
IDK FG42 are devastating. Its like buying MP44s only better :P. And IMO you should get Off., Off., Def.
No. Defensive vet have bigger bonus on lvl 1. For this combo go Def. Off. Off. instead - other IS silly...!
-
The only unit that is true on is the AC, who gets a small health buff with vet1 def. For everyone else, it doesn't matter what order you get it in.
-
That's incorrect IIRC. At lvl 3, Infantry get a 10% reduction in received accuracy as opposed to lvl 1 or 2 where you get 5%. For vehicles its lvl 1 that matters as you get 10% reduced received accuracy instead of lvl 2 or 3 where you get 5%.
Received accuracy for those who don't know is the accuracy your opponents have when shooting at you. So if its a 10% reduction then you are 10% harder to hit, and essentially take 10% less dmg.
-
AFAIK, that bonus is for triple vet or triple def only. We are talking about mixed vet and the order you get it in, which doesn't matter. In the end, the total bonus will be the same unless you are a PE AC.
-
According to COH Wikipedia the special defensive bonus applies no matter what the previous bonuses were. Well for vehicles that bonus is the first one so yeah :P
-
AFAIK the CoH wiki is wrong.
-
According to COH Wikipedia the special defensive bonus applies no matter what the previous bonuses were. Well for vehicles that bonus is the first one so yeah :P
->
AFAIK the CoH wiki is wrong.
The COH wiki isn't updated often and like dennis said I'm pretty sure their current information is wrong. It's not a very reliable source in the first place. Is like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit no?
-
They updated recently :P. Its quite nice now :D. And Im pretty sure I read somewhere else that the bonuses are no reliant on each other.
-
i dont usually trust the wiki. its good for unit overviews, but you should just go to coh stats. too bad the site is closing down. (stats, not wiki)
-
I don't trust CoHstats either. I only trust Corsix itself.
-
I don't trust CoHstats either. I only trust Corsix itself.
How do you access a Corsix ???
-
I don't trust CoHstats either. I only trust Corsix itself.
How do you access a Corsix ???
Eh? Download Corsix's mod studio and open the Eastern_Front.module file?
-
I don't trust CoHstats either. I only trust Corsix itself.
interesting. i always saw CoHstats as very reliable. though not as reliable as corsix of course.
-
CoHstats hasn't been updated in ages.
-
corsix is 100% reliable, as it takes its stats directly from the source. the only thing is that usually confusing for a begginer to understand what everything means in corsix or where everything is located. If you want to know any stats you can just ask any of the Devs here as we all know how to use corsix, and some of the balancers do as well
-
If you get 2 offensive vet levels, your fals will fire before they recloak--and the bonuses are worth bupkis if you you only get them for the first shot they fire from cloak in prolonged fights. Plus defensive vet lets them slug it out longer.
-
1.) Don't want people to do something. Ask or beg them.
LOL beg is a option? Does it work ? ;D ...
Red Guard begged for an IS3.
Do you want something done for Ostheer? Try something like this: Suggest a Rewards Unit for PE faction say 38T.... Nikulturni, PE is not an EF faction and has a low priority ... In making your suggestion provide a way to make the Design Teams job easier ... The Hetzer is based on a 38T chassis and that model is done and working ... The response will probably be "No way Jose. Can't be done" .... Drop the issue and let it stew. I have hopes and expectations my "Ostheer Suggestion" for a 38T made long after the initial window of opportunity for those things will be implemented in the Axis Minor powers Doctrine.
Concerning the Falls: Line infantry discussion: Use Falls as a partizan-like unit until they have to retreat to base then their low reinforce cost makes them effective assault troops. Vet debate: If falls get the same off/def bonuses as PG, (which I believe is correct), a regen ability while not moving is granted with Def vet. A major plus fpr an infiltration unit with camo, ambush capability. D,O,O.
Concerning Partizans: Not a line infantry unit, not to be used as such. NI is so much better if you need the infantry stopgap. How many weapon slots do Partizans have? Partizans work equally well in a static or mobile role. Use them to decap more often then recap. Right now they are too expensive. They should be at 2CP or NI should be at 3 CP. If Sov fast vehicles are viable, (I'm still not convinced), 3CP. Let the T70/T90s handle the sturms before they can upgrade.
BA64 as a Reward Unit for T90: The sandbox crew indicates BA64 is almost ready for testing. Possibly available from T2. Pre publication scuttlebutt is that it is too OP and Nikulturni concept-wise. It would serve admirably in the AI/recce role in T3 and could be dropped from the line-up if it doesn't work out. And its almost done. Downside trade-off for recce role is no AA.
Is a mobile OBR being considered as a Reward unit for Static OBR or even as a reward unit for KV2. Its range limitations make it very vulnerable as an emplacement. It would serve as a stopgap for 107mm mortar. and Sovs have an artillery firebase as static artillery.
-
Hi!
I'm quite new on this community, but I have played EF for a long time. I've tried many strategies, read a lot on this forum, and based on this I would like to make a suggestion. The balance of the game is great, all the Soviet units are interesting and usable. Only the tank hunter squad is a bit less often used. But with this little change they would make them a tactical choice. Instead of greater damage a new ability would be nice. I'm thinking of immobilize. I've made a bit research on it, and the main targets of anti tank rifles were the tracks, or the driver, but the result is the same.
The Soviet army used the Simonov PTRS-41 14.5mm anti-tank rifle, witch was a magazine fed, semiautomatic anti-tank rifle with a five-round magazine. The 14.5 mm antitank rifles were put to a variety of other uses. Besides tanks and armoured vehicles, they were used to destroy mortars, gun, and machine gun emplacements. Vasily Zaitsev used a PTRS to attack machine gun nests, during the Battle of Stalingrad, where their sandbag walls stopped standard rifle 7.62x54R bullets. The armour-piercing bullets could easily penetrate the sandbags walls. So this is an other possibility to improve this unit. But I would prefer the immobilize. It could be the ability of the improved tank hunter squad and an ammo based one around 25-30.
Please think about it, because it would make the Soviet army more interesting :)
-
They already have TM 13 mines which immobilise AND deal huge amounts of damage.
Also the PTRD functions like the PTRS (Extremely fast at close range and Useless at max range). Perhaps the model could be changed, yes?
-
the tank hunter squad...tactical choice.... new ability... immobilize.... the main targets of anti tank rifles were the tracks, or the driver,..Vasily Zaitsev used a PTRS to attack machine gun nests, during the Battle of Stalingrad, where their sandbag walls stopped standard rifle 7.62x54R bullets. The armour-piercing bullets......It could be the ability of the improved tank hunter squad and an ammo based one around 25-30.
What you are suggesting is giving "Men against Tanks" tread breaker ability and maybe focus fire to like the PE ATHT. I like the "Thread breaker" idea. THe muni cost to the ATHT for the same ability (35-40 muni)?
The anti infantry tactic you suggest: using the PTRD to reduce the level of cover of a crew weapon is interesting. I'm not sure how this could be coded. I think it a little to overkill too, since the PTRD has an anti=structure attack. The concept is very interesting in any case.
EDIT: Upon reflection I like this idea a great deal. All AT rifles like the PTRD, Slothurn and Panzerbuch(?) should have a long range and reduced penetration value as well as the "tread breaker" ability, from a historical relevance POV at least. I think adding the "tread breaker" ability instead of an additional PTRD for the upgrade would work for upgraded TH squads. THey would still be a soft counter and retain the 3rd rifle. THe addition of a fifth squad member would not be required. I suspect you will draw a lot of fire from the more reactionary element of the EF community. Such is life. I think I will use your concept for any mod I do with AT Rifles.
-
Rather than suggest this and suggest that, we should enjoy what we have and while we still can.
-
Your Philosophy is commendable but your motivation is obscure. THis is a suggestions thread after all. BTW: Take time to smell the Roses.
-
Okay, THs with "tread breaker" is not good at all (I mean it's OP, yeah). Suggest new units, new abilities are mostly being denied but they're somewhat fun and the creative are used in a positive way but this mess up with gameplay a lot. Sorry if my posts hurt something in you but I have to write this.
-
Okay, THs with "tread breaker" is not good at all (I mean it's OP, yeah). Suggest new units, new abilities are mostly being denied but they're somewhat fun and the creative are used in a positive way but this mess up with gameplay a lot. Sorry if my posts hurt something in you but I have to write this.
In 1.0 TH had Tread Breaker and yeah it was completly overpowered, like everything in 1.0.
-
and also TH were nerfed against emplacements and buildings because they were like a massive WtfUltraPwnBlob that could steamroll right through mgs, tanks, and bases.
good idea, and hisorically accurate, but as always, balance
realistic
-
We have decided to avoid as much as possible using other faction's features, that's why Guards covering fire, TH "tread breaker", salvaging tanks and other abilities were scrapped and will never return.
-
We have decided to avoid as much as possible using other faction's features, that's why Guards covering fire, TH "tread breaker", salvaging tanks and other abilities were scrapped and will never return.
god bless this decition :P
-
othseer will have trenches though? or is that scrapped?
-
IIRC its a trench but can be run over like a sandbag. So its not permanent.
-
ahh. good to know. :)
-
othseer will have trenches though? or is that scrapped?
they won't be like british trenches for 2 reasons:
1)balance, b/c british have no flamethrowers or other dedicated anti-trench-weapon
2)to add something new instead of using the old british ones
as far as i know OH trenches will be more like sandbags but with heavy cover
-
We have decided to avoid as much as possible using other faction's features, that's why Guards covering fire, TH "tread breaker", salvaging tanks and other abilities were scrapped and will never return.
Thank you for at least considering this. The one thing I don't understsand is, if you won't change anything, than why is this topic open?
I know that balancing is hard, but maybe if the ZiS-3 76mm Anti Tank Guns damage or moving speed would be reduced then it would improve the necessity of using combined attacks. But it's your call. I'm gratefull to have this great mod, and again thank you!
-
They are focused on the Ostheer right now, they will be more open to sugestions later on. ;)
-
othseer will have trenches though? or is that scrapped?
they won't be like british trenches for 2 reasons:
1)balance, b/c british have no flamethrowers or other dedicated anti-trench-weapon
2)to add something new instead of using the old british ones
as far as i know OH trenches will be more like sandbags but with heavy cover
Earlier posts on the trenches for ostheer lead one to believe they will resemble the type of trenches found on the Kursk map.
-
othseer will have trenches though? or is that scrapped?
they won't be like british trenches for 2 reasons:
1)balance, b/c british have no flamethrowers or other dedicated anti-trench-weapon
2)to add something new instead of using the old british ones
as far as i know OH trenches will be more like sandbags but with heavy cover
Earlier posts on the trenches for ostheer lead one to believe they will resemble the type of trenches found on the Kursk map.
I believe we've done away with trenches altogether for something slightly different... you'll likely see it soon.
-
Otto please keep unpublished Ostheer things in the Devforum..
#post deleted
-
I believe Otto only has access to the coding section of the Dev forum
-
Otto please keep unpublished Ostheer things in the Devforum..
#post deleted
WAAAAH :'(
-
Sorry guys I fucked up.
-
Well, usually when somebody suggests something that's in and we don't want to confirm it, we either sit quiet or we jump in and say 'What the fuck, are you stupid? Get out of here and don't come back you loathsome smelling byproduct of animal buggery.'
Ah, guess we took the high road on this one.
-
Nothing Otto wrote revealed something about Ostheer... or at least the original text I read and IIRC that comment wasn't edited by Otto adding more info in the next five minutes he posted it... so I think Walki overreacted a bit XD.
-
:(? I guess I was drunk the last evenings :P.
-
I'd be drunk all the time too if I lived in Riesling country :P
-
Gentlemen, Perhaps we should move this to the private section. I am happy to submit to chastisement for poor judgement. It is only fair after all. I don't think dirty laundry is best aired out on the front porch... If you understand my meaning.
-
No I don't take your meaning :P .What did you write exactly BTW?
-
somthing that was deleted for security reasons. i suggest we all abandon thread untill somthing relevant to the topic comes out.
-
Not gonna happen tankbuster
-
No I don't take your meaning :P .What did you write exactly BTW?
What Otto did was he accidentially talked about Ostheer on this thread. However that type of stuff was meant for the Dev forum. So he deleted it. And Otto means that he wants them to end conversations about this mistake. Thats all :P
-
This is no longer relevant to the thread. Changing topic in 5... 4... 3... 3... 3... *clunk* 2... 1... NOW!
-
Here some suggestions, i made some new things using old stuff and some comunity models.
Isu-152 update with panther decals, su-57 and i replace zis-2 gun model for zis gun 3, i think this model is better. :P
-
Good work, but I don't understand ISU-152 pic, what's the difference?
-
The tree branches attached to the front and sides :).
-
Good work, but I don't understand ISU-152 pic, what's the difference?
Look front and sides i add mr. scruff panther decals(camo fooliage).
Here you can see better.
-
Good work, but I don't understand ISU-152 pic, what's the difference?
Look front and sides i add mr. scruff panther decals(camo fooliage).
Here you can see better.
Ok all clear. :) I thought that the foliage was a tree of the map break down by ISU-152. :P
-
somthing that was deleted for security reasons. i suggest we all abandon thread untill somthing relevant to the topic comes out.
KCH with Flammenwerfers. Discuss.
-
it's not as OP as it sounds, but I like that idea
-
it's not as OP as it sounds, but I like that idea
It's pretty OP. Flames ignore armor so it's a counter to elite infantry. Elite infantry like KCH with anti-elite infantry weapons in hand will just rape everything.
-
I think it was a joke Cranial. I want the ZiS 3 after the Gunnery veterans upgrade.
-
That doesn't make much sense because if memory serves, ZiS-3 was more of a "Do-Everything, but Nothing Perfectly" weapon and became useless when Tigers and Panther appeared on the battlefield. The ZiS-2 was brought back into production because of that and with its long 57mm barrel it could penetrate the Tiger and Panther more efficiently.
Thus, the ZiS-3 should be pre-upgrade and ZiS-2 should be post-upgrade (and if memory serves that is how it is at the moment)
-
isn't it 47mm?
-
57-mm anti-tank gun model 1941 (ZiS-2) is the original official designation for the ZiS-2
-
If the model were made, the ZiS-3 would be the basic weapon and upgrade to ZiS-2.
-
The KCH with flamethrowers. If we change them so they aint KCH but something differant. Still good but not the like elite infantry armour of the KCH? Would it be okey then? :>
-
I don't know if this issue requires a replay but I just state it out here, it's the discipline ability of the Shtrafbats, which is suppose to break suppression and it does. But instead keep the squad running when activate, it makes the squad stand up when being pin for a moment and then they are pinned again.
-
T-26 to replace the t-70. They were used quite a bit by the soviets and can be like Greyhound vs Staghound of the americans.
-
T-26 to replace the t-70. They were used quite a bit by the soviets and can be like Greyhound vs Staghound of the americans.
+1 !
I hate the t-70 ;C
-
T-26 was a snail compared to the Greyhound... and about as well armored.
-
That's ok. We'll make it just like the Greyhound. Except with KT speed.
-
KT with destroyed engine speed. Just to troll redguard
-
Hate to break it to you, but if you don't like the T-70, you'll absolutely hate the T-26. It is slower, less armored, and packs a weaker punch.
A little note to the devs. Why does the in-game T-70 not have a coaxial MG? That always bugged me. It had one IRL, and NOT having one makes it very difficult to use against infantry with any effect.
-
I think Sommarkatze hates the T-70 in an Axis player way, that is, it's a decent harassment vehicle and should be nerfed beyond reason. :P No coax mg is just an error on the side of whoever animated it, there's probably no marker for the coax MG on the model. Not to worry, we'll fix that in time.
-
I think Sommarkatze hates the T-70 in an Axis player way, that is, it's a decent harassment vehicle and should be nerfed beyond reason. :P No coax mg is just an error on the side of whoever animated it, there's probably no marker for the coax MG on the model. Not to worry, we'll fix that in time.
Should have a co-axial maxim. 8)
-
It had one IRL, and NOT having one makes it very difficult to use against infantry with any effect.
It shouldn´t have a MG at all. Maybe it will get nerfed against infantry. Its still too accurate. The T90 is the vehicle to go for if you want AI capacity.
-
I think they want it for ascetics rather than AI power
-
I think they want it for ascetics rather than AI power
Ah ok then i misunderstood. As long as there comes no bullet out of the mg im happy :)
-
or bullets like the coax mgs of other tanks.
-
Like the Sherman coaxial MG which does almost no dmg, just looks cool :P
-
I think every coaxial MG in coh its just there for looks. They seem to fire blanks or something XD
And Burro is right, I dont like it in a axis player perspective. Its devastating against PE and all of their AT misses the damn thing XD
-
I think they want it for AI power rather than ascetics
Fixed. Again, not a serious suggestion.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/LlJ6E.jpg)
Guys, in this image, I find this some what interesting about the ability of indirect fire of the SU-76 SPG although this ability of the 76 mm gun was considered ineffective at range but it could serve as a short-medium artillery and I see relic did a good thing about realism. I wonder if this could violate to the balance of the mod, and if it is causing no harm, could you add it ?
-
The SU-76 doesn't have that role in the EF Soviets. He is purely a tank hunter and Soviets have other arty options.
-
it woud be like a mini ISU if it took place. would give ppl like GLD nightmares
-
The problem is that change will make the devs have more work to do which they already have much to do.
-
Personally I would like the IS-2 to replace the IS-3 and the IS-1 (or IS-85 if you prefer) to take its place. The only real problem with it is that we no longer have a big enough gun to take on Panthers which means almost everyone will go Breakthrough to get IS-2.
The IS-1 would be too powerful to replace the T-34/85. It is fairly fast and has a ridiculous amounts of armor for a medium tank, thus making it more of a heavy tank but lacking the super-powered main gun. It may be able to replace the IS-2 though, at least early on.
If we perhaps made an upgrade akin to the T-34 upgun for the IS-1 to go to the IS-2 then that would make sense, but then it would be ridiculous to get the IS-2 out on the battlefield, so nobody would get it and instead go Breakthrough to get the IS-3, or go to Propaganda and get Katyushas.
-
who said that the is3 will stay as powerfull as it is in the current version?
in the internal versin the isu152 is already a much better tank (at least this tank got some very good changes) so you should wait for the next patch :D
-
(http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s445/EricBouchard/relic00025.jpg)
can haz?
-
You want AI sticky nades? Lol sounds like the end of the world is near.
In American CO voice:
"Composition C is in, we now have an enemy seeking anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air, anti artillery, anti-vehicle, anti-KCH, anti-Structure", anti-Flamer, anti-EVERYTHING grenade made of a sock, a dab of axle grease and a bit of Comp C."
Hell just to add to the fun why don't we make you throw 500 of them all bundled together at a cost of 1 munition, make them see through fog and have the ability to destroy an entire base by being thrown from across the map?
-
Looks like neosdark's troll detector needs a Ukranian Bandaid 8)
ALSO, worthy sig material sir.
-
Lol, how'd you know that I'm Ukrainian?
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
Seems quite hard to put in the game (animation, 3D model etc..).
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
Seems quite hard to put in the game (animation, 3D model etc..).
pff piece of cake if I already think of the vehicles I animated :P.
-
In American CO voice:
"Composition C is in, we now have an enemy seeking anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air, anti artillery, anti-vehicle, anti-KCH, anti-Structure", anti-Flamer, anti-EVERYTHING grenade made of a sock, a dab of axle grease and a bit of Comp C."
-
Yes, thank you for stealing my rant from a month or two back, its right on the other page, no need to look too far :P
Back to the topic of rewards, can I safely assume that since the SturmTiger and Kugelblitz are being included, we may also see a Sturer Emil for the Elefant/Ferdinand, don't recall which we will have. They fought exclusively near Stalingrad so that warrants something, no?
EDIT: Whoops wrong section, I'm a clutz XD
-
Sturmtiger and Kugelblitz are in?!? I must've missed that memo.
-
Kugelblitz is 100% in as far as I know and the Sturmtiger is being debated as of now
-
Sturer Emil can be the reward of the Elefant, although we need to make the model first :D. It certainly would be better than what we are currently thinking(King Tiger).
-
Sturmtiger and Kugelblitz are in?!? I must've missed that memo.
yeah kugelblitz is a t4 unit
sturmtiger is an reward in army elite
-
Having the Kugelblitz throws me for a loop. Only 5 units were ever produced, and it has been stated that the devs don't want to include 'prototype' units. Don't get me wrong, from a gameplay perspective I'm sure it is great. I just hate to see an experimental design placed in the mod. Why not use the Flakpanzer38(t) instetad? It's cool, and works almost the same way.
Also, straight off the "list of units that will never be used":
5) Sturmtiger- Never truly served on the Eastern Front. They fought during the Warsaw Uprising and on the Western Front not on the Eastern one though, so as Rommel would say WILL NOT BE INCLUDED.
-
Flakpanzer Gepard doesn't work the same than the kugelblitz, that's not even remotely true.
Kugelblitz has superior weapons and superior armour. The only bad thing is than only five were built.
And tbh, Flakpanzer 38t is anything but cooler compared with the Kugelblitz and I'm not sure if it is cool even without the comparison :P.
-
Actually, if you look at the Official EF Unit Inclusion Chart (http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Elburro/shite/ef_unit_inclusion_chart.jpg) (as made by me), it says 'Keep Dreaming'... it doesn't explicitly discard the idea of adding experimental units.
Besides, Kugelblitz did actually see action unlike a lot of other experimental units. It saw 100% more action in WW2 than the T-90 and IS-3 that's for sure. Plus the balancers like it and the model is awesome :P
As for the Sturmtiger... well, the Warsaw Uprising was on the Eastern Front. IIRC, the Soviets were attacking Warsaw at the same time as the uprising, just very slowly, for a few reasons but mainly because Stalin wanted the Polish to accept Soviet rule with little resistance after Poland was liberated. Whoever put that on the list obviously hadn't been studying their Official EF Unit Inclusion Chart correctly.
-
and keep in mind that the reason why the sturmtiger was developed was the eastern front because the wehrmacht requested an heavy strom mortar
-
All in all I HAVE TO say FOR me; i dont like Kugelblitz and Sturmtiger. But it seems to me that everyone else want those tanks (in Dev/Balancerteam).
And against Burro: Well. Kugelblitz had fought - but against the US Army. And this battle reports arent quiet detailed or fully extant reports. So.
There is no source i know that i reporting battle action against red army. It is like the both "Berlin Jagdtigers" or the "WW1 Mark V Berlin tank" or the "Kummersdorfer Maus"; There are rumours, no details.
And about the Sturmtiger: Well. Out of my view Warshaw uprising isnt part of the eastern front. The fact that Stalin didnt help the polish liberation army and
that Stalin tried to "wipe those polish freedom fighters out" by waiting for the reaction of the Wehrmacht is isolating this battle from the front.
All in all u can discuss about all this weapons and the historical background.
For me it is important that i say that i dont like them 8)
-
The Kugelblitz would just be a beefed up panzer IV with better cannons than the wirbelwind, that could be done i guess.
The Strumtiger on the otherhand would be horrible to balance without making it either a piece of crap or overpowered.
I mean a tiger with a 380(!)mm rocket launcher. The biggest cannon ingame is currently the 152 of the ISU and that thing is pretty beast. So in contrast would the Sturmtiger shoot V1s or what?
Edit: oh right, forgot about the AVRE, thanks for pointing it out ApeMen^^
-
The Kugelblitz would just be a beefed up panzer IV with better cannons than the wirbelwind, that could be done i guess.
The Strumtiger on the otherhand would be horrible to balance without making it either a piece of crap or overpowered.
I mean a tiger with a 380(!)mm rocket launcher. The biggest cannon ingame is currently the 152 of the ISU and that thing is pretty beast. So in contrast would the Sturmtiger shoot V1s or what?
no the biggest is atm the Churchill AVRE 290-mm mortar
@Orle
no problem^^
but dont worry the sturm will be balanced and usefull and keep in mind its an reward unit
so your basic unit will be another one
-
Afaik most of the Kugelblitz's that were made are unaccounted for so nobody can say for sure where they fought or if they even fought at all (except that one at Spichra). So for the sake of having a great and unique unit in game, we will assume that they went to Berlin to aid the fight against the Red Army where they were lost and never recovered.
And the fact remains the Red Army was fighting in Warsaw at the same time as the Warsaw Uprising, and even if the main insurgency was isolated, the uprising was still a direct response to Soviet presence in the city. In my mind, this makes it part of the Eastern Front theatre.
-
It is true that a small number of Kugels were produced and saw action. I don't have a big problem with that . They were used in the end days and there are several Scenarios where they can be used aesthetically. :) Simple fact a mobile AA vehicle is needed. The Mobel Wagon might be nice but I think to make it work in a pleasing manner would be a bitch. (and I am not belittling any of the modelers here).
-
How about replacing the Luftwaffe officer with the terror officer?
-
@132
What do you mean with "terror officer"? The one from CoH:O I guess. What were his abilities?
-
He had a one shot kill execute, mini firestorm, and some other ability I forgot . Also he had an stg44.
-
How about letting the luftwaffe officer have no weapon at all but the abilety to pick one up? :>
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
-
One thing i just realized is that the US are still missing a reward unit ever since the removal of the sherman jumbo.
Ive gathered a list of tanks and vehicles which we know there are models of which we might be able to use as a reward unit
M8 GMC - Basically an M5 stuart with 75mm stubby gun and .50 cal
M36 jackson
M5 AT gun - 3in AT gun, equivalent to the pak40
M15 CGMC - AA halftrack with 2 .50 cal and 37mm autocannon
COH:O Sherman Ace - A badass looking sherman
Disney bomb - maybe a reward ability? I made a working one a few months ago
M45 Quadmount - Basically an stationary version of the quad .50 cal, similar to the flak38
M24 Chaffee- a light tank which used the same 75mm gun as the sherman
M21 81 mm MMC- a mortar halftrack
M10 sonic- An M10 fitted with large loudspeakers, used by the 3133rd SSC and 23rd Headquarters Special Troops to deceive and confuse the germans. I dont think it would take much work to make such a modification
-
i think usa dont need any of these units...
-
IS-I-100?
I forgot where I picked this up but the IS-I-100 is an IS-2 armed with the 100mm cannon mounted on the SU-100. It also had better optics/fire control. Quite redundant as the IS-2 currently in the game does heck ton of damage to armor and does WTFISTHISSH*T damage to enemy infantry. But if you were going to change the IS-2's stats (To where a Pershing Cannon or better so it would reflect its real life main gun) We could use this unit for the dedicated tank killing role the IS-2 in game currently has. (As well as steamrolling through Flak 88s and AT guns)
-
If I would pick up something from that list, it would be:
* M36 Jackson -> Reward unit for the Pershing. Same gun, less armor but more speed.
* M5 Halftrack -> Reward unit for the M3 Halftrack, can be upgraded to M15 CGMC.
* CoH:O Sherman Ace -> Reward unit for the M4 Sherman.
I haven't checked the Sherman Ace, but if it can be upgraded with the 76mm gun, it might be a good replacement, similar to the reward Tiger for Wehr.
@Wekwekboris
About the "IS-I-100", supposing it existed, it might be just a prototype, and certainly soviets doesn't need such unit.
To be honest, the last thing I'd like would be to mess with a reward unit for a doctrine XD.
-
* M5 Halftrack -> Reward unit for the M3 Halftrack, can be upgraded to M15 CGMC.
LOVE IT! that would work perfectly
also the sherman ace comes with the 76mm by default
-
Well, if the sherman ace only has the 76mm gun, there is nothing we can do :P.
But I prefer the idea for the reward HT as well :).
-
Well, if the sherman ace only has the 76mm gun, there is nothing we can do :P.
But I prefer the idea for the reward HT as well :).
Great, ill get started on it :P
-
Don't worry, it is not priority :). IMO we should finish our current pending stuff.
Reward units definitely should come later. Also, IIRC DMz has an unfinished M5 HT :).
-
I like the M5 HT as well, Though the Sherman ace is interesting...
-
An IS-2 Ace? The IS-3 is very pointless considering it didn't participate in the Great Patriotic War against the Germans.
-
The IS2 Ace idea might be used later to replace the IS3, we are discussing it.
-
Will the IS3 forever be gone then? I might be alone about thinking so but I rather see a ordinary tank then a ace. With all though respect but this whole ace thing is kinda.. lame XD
If I want aces or heroes I play Down of war.
Sorry If sound like a douche but thats my opinion. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! <3 :D
-
Just make it a reward unit like how Tiger Ace replaced the King Tiger? So IS-2 Ace replaces the IS-3?
-
3 Units for 1 position ???
-
What you could do is have the early war IS-2 the buildable one, and a late war IS-2 as a replacement for the IS-3 ;)
And you could give the IS-2 ace those white stripes around the turret, so you can see the difference between em ;D I think that would fit pretty good.
-
What you could do is have the early war IS-2 the buildable one, and a late war IS-2 as a replacement for the IS-3 ;)
And you could give the IS-2 ace those white stripes around the turret, so you can see the difference between em ;D I think that would fit pretty good.
That's essentially what the plan is.
-
So the buildable IS-2 will be weaker than the current IS-2? ???
-
No ( I guess) , it will be the same and new one will be better - like IS-3.
-
That's a matter of future balance, but the buildable IS-2 won't be nerfed just because we changed the model.
-
Basically the IS2 ace will be the exact same as the current IS3, just using a different model though
-
Basically the IS2 ace will be the exact same as the current IS3, just using a different model though
I would like an IS-2 ace be 1 unit on field on a given time only, and not 1 time call in. Hopefully it is just a IS-2 with more range, more speed, more accuracy, more firing rate, an DSHk on top ;) and better veterancy bonus.
-
Giving the IS 2 ace a cool ability such as the ones in the TOV Tiger Tank campaign would be nice, such as tank commander up/down, s-mines, tank shock, etc. Make it slightly differant than the IS2 tank and the Tiger Ace and make it more similar to the ToV Villers Bocage Tiger Ace.
Also the problem with making IS 2 ace being called in multiple times would affect balance a bit too much. The tiger ace that replaced the KT remained as a 1 time call in, so I think the is2 ace should be the same
-
The one from CoH:O I guess. What were his abilities?
-
There was no Ace in COHO. Only the KT/regular Tiger.
-
I'm also opposed to the ace units.
-
How about letting the luftwaffe officer have no weapon at all but the abilety to pick one up?
-
Hi everbody, I'm new on this forum, first I'd like to thank the modders for their wonderful work! Then excuse me for eventual grammatical mistakes, I'm French.
However since the last patch introducing the OstHeer and modifications to the Red Army, i'd like to suggest some modifications that seem logic to me:
-the new penal units system is weird: why would brave conscripts/recruits units be suddenly changed in an unit composed of desertors, and condemned soldiers? The former way to recruit them was much more correct, in adequation with the soviet strategy: they were "sent" to the front. And having a kommisar to command them and strelkys acting as a blocking unit preventing from desertion was great! So I wonder if you could reintroduce the former penal units; recruitable in a building or as a capacity. To my mind it would be much more correct.
-Modifications brought to partisans are great! But as their description shows: they are guerilla units. So I wonder if they shouldn't; because they fight "behind ennemy lines" and in order to rebalance their lacks in close combat, have a camo system, the same as sharpshooters, allowing them to move discretly to their target.
One more time: thanks to the whole team for this great mod! And have a nice day!
-
Hi everbody, I'm new on this forum, first I'd like to thank the modders for their wonderful work! Then excuse me for eventual grammatical mistakes, I'm French.
However since the last patch introducing the OstHeer and modifications to the Red Army, i'd like to suggest some modifications that seem logic to me:
-the new penal units system is weird: why would brave conscripts/recruits units be suddenly changed in an unit composed of desertors, and condemned soldiers?
Commissars were forced to create Penal units for every part of the Eastern front with Order No. 227. It didn't matter if the units were desertors or condemned. They were just issued to become penals. That's why "Not One Step Back!" (which is based on Stalin's Order No. 227) enables the Strafnies.
The former way to recruit them was much more correct, in adequation with the soviet strategy: they were "sent" to the front. And having a kommisar to command them and strelkys acting as a blocking unit preventing from desertion was great! So I wonder if you could reintroduce the former penal units; recruitable in a building or as a capacity. To my mind it would be much more correct.
The Strafnie upgrade itself is brought in for gameplay reasons: Propaganda is supposed to reflect the huge "Human Wave" tactics from the Soviets early in the war, with masses of cheap conscripts pushing forward and defending territory with huge losses, but they're inexpensive since they are cheap to reinforce etc.
The Stafnie upgrade gives Conscripts a better way to scale into the midgame, so you can use them as a placeholder infantry until you can get either Navals and/or Guards.
-Modifications brought to partisans are great! But as their description shows: they are guerilla units. So I wonder if they shouldn't; because they fight "behind ennemy lines" and in order to rebalance their lacks in close combat, have a camo system, the same as sharpshooters, allowing them to move discretly to their target.
One more time: thanks to the whole team for this great mod! And have a nice day!
thx :) And yes, Partisans have camouflage to sneak around in enemy territory.
-
He means if Partisans are fine as it, because in his opinion they don't feel like a guerrilla unit any more.
-
Well the thing about Partisans is that they're the purest level of a glass cannon. There are plenty of times I've had partisans get right up to a landser and then get wrecked. They need support of a larger army, or a second partisan group, to help them out. When they're supported well, they're great line breakers/behind the line fighters. If you try to use them in your defensive lines, you're basically asking for a bleeding partisan. Especially considering their vet and the conscripts vet are the same.
-
May be for SSSR will you make command tank or new system rang of tanks? :D
-
KPV heavy machine guns in ZPU-4 quad anti-aircraft mounting 14.5x114mm
(http://www.imfdb.org/images/1/18/ZPU-4.jpg)
-
KPV heavy machine guns in ZPU-4 quad anti-aircraft mounting 14.5x114mm
(http://www.imfdb.org/images/1/18/ZPU-4.jpg)
Those were created after the war
Though the soviets did have 25mm and 37mm AA guns which performed a similar role, and quad maxim AA guns
-
Would be nice to have mg gunners on heavy tanks like tiger and the Is2. Also a reward unit for the ISU 152 would be great.
-
Would be nice to have mg gunners on heavy tanks like tiger and the Is2. Also a reward unit for the ISU 152 would be great.
We have that planned for when we make the updated soviet models
-
Would be nice to have mg gunners on heavy tanks like tiger and the Is2. Also a reward unit for the ISU 152 would be great.
We have that planned for when we make the updated soviet models
... furthermore the Ostheer Tiger has a MG Gunner (Radio Vet 2)
-
They should be powerful inf- but only limited to 3 the whole game.
Please no unitcaps! They drive me insane!
-
AVT-40 kinda like an SVT-40 but it's fully automatic
-
The AVT-40 couldn't handle the extreme recoil of automatic fire - it literally fell apart. So, me thinks that won't be a nice choice of weaponry for Yuri.
-
Jupp. Good point at the red army reward thread xDDD
-
How about adding the KV-122 as a reward unit for the IS-2 being cheaper to produce so you could have either the IS-2 or KV-122
Is-2 being more expensive but having slightly more armour, life, slower and being slightly more expensive
or
KV-122 being cheaper but slightly less armour, life and being faster
-
This already is the case with IS-2 compared to T34. One is cheaper and less durable and the other is stronger overall but more expensive.
-
You guys are playing too much World of Tanks ;D
Your KV-122 was a single prototype tank to test the new 122mm gun of the IS-tanks.
It was never planed to use this prototype in field because the IS tanks are nothing else than a new version of the KV-concept.
So out of my view no chance.
AND in ingame terms u can already use the concept Darci described. And keep in mind; with Su-100 or T-34/85 u have a good late game tank too.
But this tanks need a different strategy than the heavy IS-2.
-
I think there were a few KV tanks which mounted a short barreled 122mm howitzer though, i think they were called KV-9
-
Jeah. But this tank is different from the tank BffWithDEATH suggested and wanted to add ;)
So - different point, different question xD
-
I would still love to see a reward unit ability to call in a single shot from railgun Dora and send it flying at the red line
-
Wrong suggestion thread buddy ;) Also the Dora is waaay to inaccurate for COH. Its like designed to blast cities to pieces XD
-
Wrong suggestion thread buddy ;) Also the Dora is waaay to inaccurate for COH. Its like designed to blast cities to pieces XD
Awwwh, come on Hans just wants to give Ivan a Christmas prezzy c'':
-
I just want to recommend a little suggestion for the Soviet conscripts. At the moment, you've already had the weapon reserve from the armory to unlock full-rifle for each Cons squad and the commissar from the Propaganda doc to get a few more PPShs. I suggest that instead of getting SMGs for Cons so doctrinally, why not making it a universal one ? Like making a consecutive version of "Weapon reserve". In that way, we can exploit the Commissars further by adding bonuses and new abilities to the squad that gets upgraded with him.
-
Because conscripts aren't meant as frontline troops by default. They should be replaced by Strelky/guards at some point in the game, and your remaining conscripts should be used as a sort of stronger pioneer unit - construct defenses, ninja cap, flank enemy buildings and throw molos etc.
Propaganda was planned to make you able to play with conscripts alone + doctrinal infantry to replace guars/strelky.
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
I always thought that would be an interesting unit to see in game
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
I was never a fan of this RBT-Prototpyes.
I would prefer the BT-7A ingame ;D
-
The RBT-5 hosted a pair of large artillery rocket launchers, one on each side of the turret. Several designs for extremely wide tracks, including, oddly, wooden 'snowshoes' were tried on BT tanks.
I was never a fan of this RBT-Prototpyes.
I would prefer the BT-7A ingame ;D
I like that one too :)