Unit - Reward suggestions thread:

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[Raider217]

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

[Aouch]

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. 

[Cozmin95]

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? 

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? 

[Akalonor]

I love how he recommended T-44 , but last I remember that came out too late to be used....
+1 for the Kv-85 though.

[neosdark]

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??

[Cozmin95]

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! 

[Panocek]

-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

[Xeones]

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. 

-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.

[Blackbishop]

...
-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.

[Xeones]

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.

[Panocek]

...
-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

[Cozmin95]

-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! 

[Panocek]

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 [nofollow]

[Blackbishop]

...
-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.