The Official IS-3 reward thread

[RedGuard]

I was hesitant to suggest the addition of any reward unit, I generally trust the devs in this area

But upon further research I learned that there is quite a bit of support on the forums here for the addition of an IS-3 as reward. I think it could replace the ISU-152
theres currently no heavy turreted call ins for soviet, This unit would be great to deal with the abundance of heavy axis armor especially with the new ostheer coming.
And as I look over all the suggestions for soviet reward units theres really not a need or a role for the majority of them. the IS-3 is different and would be great

and it mirrors the american pershing as a very unique and relic-esque unit.

So what say you powers to be?

[cephalos]

I'm against. It could do, but only when there would be Japanese faction. IS-3 never took part in WWII on the West. And this is main reason.

[RedGuard]

That is just speculation and/or here say.

However if I was to give you the benfit of the doubt my counter-argument is Neither did the pershing. While the pershing was still in america there were more IS-3's already built in USSR

Ten T26E3 tanks were produced at the Fisher Tank Arsenal, 30 in December, in January 1945
In contrast
IS-3 production began late 1944, so they rolled off the line about the same time difference being the IS-3's were already in europe the pershing was not
And more IS-3's were produced total than pershings

[cephalos]

But M26 saw some combat against German panzers, while IS-3 not. Get used to historical accuracy by Relic.

You could say also let's add T-54. There was more T-54 than Pershings, and both tanks didn't saw combat against Germans.

[RedGuard]

I would have to respectfully disagree on this matter there are accounts of IS-3 in combat against germans
just as there are accounts of pershing battle germans

[cephalos]

See? So there's nothing to argue about  Pershing was added by Relic, and devs won't change it, however they want to make EF historically accurate, so I guess IS-3 won't be added.

[RedGuard]

Agreed comrade nothing to argue about indeed, thats why we're sharing a conversation friend. 

 "historical accuracy when possible" is the teams official stance on EF.

the IS-3 meets these parameters. The only thing not adressed is a willingness of the dev team to consider its addition. I will await an official accept/decline.

Thank you for sharing ceph

[GodlikeDennis]

7 Posts later and only 2 opinions being shared...

The only problem I see with the IS3 is that it doesn't fit into the doctrines. KT is on a useful but not powerful tree which doesn't have callins or artillery abilities. Replacing the ISU means you still have Shermans before it which can tie you over until you call it in.

[IJoe]

First of all, there's absolutely NO MODEL for it ATM.
Secondly, show me the tasty model, and I'll think about it,- if it's awesome, I'll strongly support it; if it sucks, I'll mercilessly reject it.
Overall: would be nice to have this beautiful tank.

[RedGuard]

Thank you for sharing comrades your views and thoughts are most appreciated.

@GodlikeDennis The only place I see this fitting in is in the breakthrough doctrine, replacing ISU-152. It was the most armored tank the Soviets had in WWII so breakthrough fits nice. and it would come too early to replace sherman or tank riders. So IMO isu-152 fits it well

@IJoe if only I could model I would have had it drawn up already. Shouldnt be too hard really its basically a re designed IS-2, except it started the whole low profile dome turret design we now recognize on all russian tank design.

[IJoe]

... except it started the whole low profile dome turret design we now recognize on all russian tank design.

You mean, we recognize it on all modern tanks, that are any worthy, since IS-3 was a pioneer in low combat profile.

[Raider217]

... except it started the whole low profile dome turret design we now recognize on all russian tank design.

You mean, we recognize it on all modern tanks, that are any worthy, since IS-3 was a pioneer in low combat profile.

Wasnt the first though Stug used that as an advantage (only one I can remember)

[RedGuard]

@IJoe I was specifically talking about the soviet tank design we all recognize the "over turned bowl turret" and low low profile. the trademark cold war soviet tank design.

 look at a picture of t-55/64/72 and you'll notice it looks like a small IS-3

@raider and no I dont think you can count the stug in the same category it had no turret, and was kinda clumsy and boxy

[Paciat]

The main reason why IS-3 wont be in the game (apart from that theres no model) is that it had no disadvantages of the KT.
Unless you want it to be clumsy, with slow speed and slow turret speed.

[Ghost]

OMG, not that again 
1. there are NO facts proving that IS-3 were used on the eastern front vs. germans (actually it is agreed that they didn't fight), while there are plenty of facts proving that pershing's were used. -> as i said in the other thread that is NO reason not to include it (keeping up relics tradition of historical accuracy  ), but it's a fact nervertheless!
2. IS-3 had the SAME speed like KT and an inferior gun while i can't say anything about the armor protection since i couldn't find any data on that (but i guess now comes the point "the form of the tank was unique making it superior to any other tank[...]". but fact is that this unique form was only used on IS-3, IS-7 and T10...no other tank, so maybe it wasn't so good after all  ).
3. the ISU-152 has it's weaknesses and can be called-in more than just once making it quite balanced. if you replace it with IS-3 you would have to make it a one-time call-in like KT to keep balance.
4. which are those "unneeded reward unit suggestions" and what makes the IS-3 needed?
5. you can't ignore what GodlikeDennis mentioned about balance problems.