Definitely a DShk upgrade for the IS-2

[DrRockzo1986]

I mean adding a DShk upgrade to the IS-2 is really a no brainer and has probably been thrown around already, but I put it out there Just in case.

[Killar]

 

[neosdark]

Never recall anything resembling that being discussed, and I'm sure I will be backed up on this, NOT NEEDED. The Soviets have more than a ton of ways to deal with infantry without a pretty useless upgrade for a tank most competitive players don't use until the endgame of a battle (at least in my experience). Devs got much more important stuff to do than waste time on a useless upgrade.

[Blackbishop]

Actually you may be surprised about this, but we already considered this option.

After Ostheer stuff is done, BurroDiablo will rework the soviet models, such as T-34s, IS-2, IS-3, etc.

Then was decided that only 3 tanks will have such weapon:

• IS-2
• IS-3
• ISU-152

And SU-122 will have a commander. AFAIK that's all.

[DrRockzo1986]

Appearently the original CoH designers didnt think mounted mg upgrades were worthless considering most other tanks have them. But if you not trying to go the same way as the rest of the game i get it, thats what modding is all about is getting the game to be the way you want it. You might as well up squad sizes to 10 each, up damage stats to the max and make them free to build while you're at it.

[neosdark]

Hmm, well i truthfully think that its a large waste of time, considering most such MGs such as the Sherman, and M16 upgrades are useless IMO. These MGs will come with the model or will they be a purchasable like the M4 MG? I'm just wondering why these tanks, with their HE ammo need anymore AI stuff, but i trust the Devs to their decision.

[Blackbishop]

Appearently the original CoH designers didnt think mounted mg upgrades were worthless considering most other tanks have them. But if you not trying to go the same way as the rest of the game i get it, thats what modding is all about is getting the game to be the way you want it. You might as well up squad sizes to 10 each, up damage stats to the max and make them free to build while you're at it.

Last time i checked most light/medium/heavy tanks don't get that upgrade.

Tanks with top mg:

• StuG IV
• StuH
• King Tiger
• Panzer IV(Wehr)
• Panzer IV(PE)
• Panther(PE)
• Panther(Wehr)
• M4 Sherman
• Geschutzwagen
• Hetzer
• M-18

Tanks without mg:

• Sherman Crocodile
• Sherman Calliope
• Pershing
• Jagdpanther
• Churchill
• Churchil Crocodile
• Churchill AVRE
• Cromwell Command Tank
• Cromwell
• Tiger
• Stuart
• Tetrarch
• Sherman Firefly
• Hotchkiss

Somehow the non-mg list seems to be bigger than the other one, and I didn't add to that list the Marder III (i recall some units were equipped with mgs), Hummels and Nashorns (i don't thinks these units had mgs so they didn't make it on the list) and the M10. Even if we remove the light tanks and/or tank destroyers from both lists the latter "wins".

So, what was the problem about what the original designers think? Sorry but i'm only seeing you are trying to acomplish your agenda and certainly you are not really bringing anything to make your claims hold weight . Or what do you mean with "most other tanks have them" ?

So what we got from that:

1) Most axis tanks have top MG.

2) Most allied tanks don't use top MG.

3) Soviets are under the allied factions.

4) Not every CoH tank needs to have a top mg, but that doesn't exclude them from tank group.

Hmm, well i truthfully think that its a large waste of time, considering most such MGs such as the Sherman, and M16 upgrades are useless IMO. These MGs will come with the model or will they be a purchasable like the M4 MG? I'm just wondering why these tanks, with their HE ammo need anymore AI stuff, but i trust the Devs to their decision.

Don't know, probably will i would vote to come with vet. Besides, i don't know too much about history but, most of the pictures I have seen of T-34s and KVs don't have that top mg.

[DrRockzo1986]

I wasnt directing that towards you but if you want to go that way we'll go historical then IS-2s had DShk's mounted on them. The tanks listed under your have section did historically the ones under you have not section didn't. Maybe the sherman croc did. I was refering to buildable tanks and didnt take into account british tanks since I cant think of one historically that used turret mounted mgs.

[Cranialwizard]

History < Balance, for the record 

I don't think it's a bad idea, but on the same token you can consider the IS-2 a "heavy tank", or "Tank Killer". Only Panthers and KT's, some tanks remotely close to it had mounted MGs.

Very rarely can history be used as a legitimate argument.

Granted if you told me Japanese Zero's should be in EF because they were in WWII the reason for rejection would be for History and not balance.

[DrRockzo1986]

Im only trying to say go with the flow, for the most point they made the tanks historically correct (not including range and such things). Regardless if the tank is a tank killer, heavy or whatever you wouldn't take the MG off the King Tiger.

[Blackbishop]

I wasnt directing that towards you but if you want to go that way we'll go historical then IS-2s had DShk's mounted on them. The tanks listed under your have section did historically the ones under you have not section didn't. Maybe the sherman croc did. I was refering to buildable tanks and didnt take into account british tanks since I cant think of one historically that used turret mounted mgs.

All that history stuff was already thought within this phrase:

4) Not every CoH tank needs to have a top mg, but that doesn't exclude them from tank group.

and i remember i already said this:

Actually you may be surprised about this, but we already considered this option.

After Ostheer stuff is done, BurroDiablo will rework the soviet models, such as T-34s, IS-2, IS-3, etc.

Then was decided that only 3 tanks will have such weapon:

• IS-2
• IS-3
• ISU-152

And SU-122 will have a commander. AFAIK that's all.

So, there's nothing to discuss. And there is no reason to bring historic facts to the table . They aren't needed for this discussion.

[GodlikeDennis]

IS2 doesn't need an MG. It is a behemoth that wins slugfests with other tanks and obliterates bunkers. It's not really need for it to have an MG. Most of the MGs are rather ineffective anyway, except for the Sherman .50cal.

By the way Bishop, the priest has a really good .50cal on it .

[cephalos]

so maybe ISU? This thing needs some AI power... or wait... hmm... 152mm main cannon... 

[DrRockzo1986]

Well if the 50 cal works the DShk should work its a 12.7x108mm MG which is the russian equivalent to the American 50

[RedGuard]

the IS-3 could use a telescopic sight to help spot for it, like a commander upgrade.

but a commander or a gunner on the is3 would look odd I think, the model is so beautiful already