Red army flame tanks?

[Raider217]

Tbh at this point just from looking in the balance section its becoming more and more apparent that the KV series needs more negatives right now, not buff's. Also the IS-2 was equipped with those mine rollers so you'd only have to wait a bit longer until you aquired them instead.

Also on the KV-1 upgrade historically the gun was downgraded to a 45mm to fit the flamethrower in, but on this occasion i think its better to say



And just let the KV keep its normal gun so its less complicated and simply a straight upgrade, but thats my opinion.

[RedGuard]

Well the fact of the mater is that the KV-1 was more heavily armored than the KV-85 because the KV-85 used a IS-1 turret and gun on a KV1S Chassis, which was lighter and less heavily armored, thus faster (which the KV-85 is compared to KV-1 in game).

wered you find that info? wiki has nice chart that lists every kv series - and official sources cited

KV-1(heaviest model, 1942) 47tons
armour   20–130 mm

KV-85(only model, 1943) 46tons
armour   30–160 mm

only one KV1 model was heavier than the kv-85 and its only by one ton, the lighter KV1 variants had even lesser armour 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank

[neosdark]

If you read the list of variants above the chart you would notice that the KV-85 uses the chassis of a KV1-S and the cupola and gun of the IS-1. If you look at your chart you would notice that the KV-1 and KV-85 have different weights but the difference is minimal, only 1 ton. Well I'm no smart guy, but does this means that a difference in 1 ton means a giant difference in speed (KV-1 M.1942 goes 28 KM/H, while the KV-85 goes 40 km/h, considering they use the same engine, a V-2 600 HP), whats with that?

Another discrepancy I would like to point out is that the additional 30mm of armor (compared with the KV-1 M.1942) came on the KV-85 due to the IS-1 turret, cupola and gun, which were quite heavily armored to protect the crew since it was a heavy tank.

All in all, my random and seemingly nonsensical babbling, leads to this conclusion, the KV-1 while having less maximum armor (130mm compared to the KV-85's 160mm), was much more heavily armored in general and thus was slower and heavier. The KV-85 was faster because it was built on a less well armored chassis, but had an extremely well armored turret and this contributed to more weight than the standard variant of the KV1-S (which I believe went 45 km/h)

The one thing that confuses me is how that 1 ton difference made a 46 ton tank go 40 km/h, while a 47 ton tank go 28 km/h. According to the source I was just given, they have the same exact engine don't they? So whats the difference??

Anyway Otto, the applique armor is just armor welded onto various parts of the tank to add some extra armor to it, not much more, its like the Sherman and its sandbags, improvised to attempt to improve a certain characteristic of the tank. I don't understand about welding on some steel plates to the sides of the tank where the engine is, shouldn't asphyxiate anybody, i'm not sealing up the engine in a box, I'm adding metal to its sides to make it harder to get to.

[Raider217]

The Kv-85 carried less munitions and the changing of turrets affects weight distribution and thus potentially speed and acceleration as seen in modern rally cars etc etc. Also the first version of the KV-1 was produced in 1939 the KV-85 in 1943 im sure at least some improvements were made to the engine/transmission or related part over that time that improved output. Also fuel usage goes up over the two models so its apparent something changed regarding the engine.

Also on the applique armour instead of increasing armour or crit resistance it could instead allow the KV-1 with its increased weight to go through hedges/dragonteeth (max/heavy crush or whatever isnt it), simply because its a useful attribute without improving the KV-1's stats at all.

T-34 gets a mine roller, KV's get you through obstructions both useful for breakthough and neither exactly massive gains to either tank.

[neosdark]

Ok i like that idea too , but wouldn't that be sort of weird, I mean armor usually you know, protects, not just makes things heavier.

[Raider217]

Ok i like that idea too , but wouldn't that be sort of weird, I mean armor usually you know, protects, not just makes things heavier.

The KV's really arent in a position for any sort of buff regarding armour be it HP or crit resistance (as Guard has said), would'nt be suprised if we see the opposite in coming patches. My suggestion for applique armour is as close as it probs gonna get for inclusion although not the only one of course.

[mads]

I believe that there are already plenty of Minesweeper and flame tanks on the Allied side. I also thought the Germans must have something in return if the Red Army gets Minesweeper and flame tanks. only Panzer Elite is the only German team who have something to remove the mines quickly, because all their men can find and remove mines after upgrading. maybe ostheer or Wehrmach should get a "Panzer III sapper". it has a mine Plough and 1x mg34. I'm not sure that the name is correct, but that's what they call them in but of war. it is not strong, but it would be great for removing mines quickly.

I also thought it would be cool if only t 34 could upgrade Minesweeper but not flamethrowers.

only KV1 could be upgraded with a flamethrower. which will mean that it should have a small cannon. but the main gun was downgraded to a 45 mm. the KV1 should also make tank shock, like a Churchill tank.

in this way the player must now decide whether he wants minesweeper or flamethrower, both very useful in their own way.

I doo not think that IS-2 should have any upgrades since it is already very strong. but this in turn would be cool to see an IS-2 and IS-3 have the ability to shoot with high-explosive round very useful against large groups of soldiers or buildings.

my ideas

[neosdark]

Well if you read the above posts, if the KV-8 is implemented, the gun will remain the same for simplicity's sake. The OT-34 was built in larger numbers too, so it has a higher chance of getting into the mod than the KV-8

Also these would most likely be doctrinal upgrades (although not confirmed so don't quote me on it) so the tanks getting them would only have access to one at any given point in time.

The KV will certainly not get Tank Shock because it is the signature ability of the Churchill in vCoH and the KV fights against infantry pretty damn well, no need to make it worse for the players (also if you read the above posts you would know that KV will be getting nerfs not buffs)

The IS-2 and IS-3 (please capitalize these tanks' names since it took me about 10 mins to figure out that you were talking about them) don't need HE shells mainly because as you said yourself, they are already strong so no upgrades or bonuses needed there.

I would have to agree with you on the Panzer 3. Since the Ostheer is supposed to be different it would be amazing to see Panzer 3 variants, not just the Stubby or Long barrel, I would love to see the Minesweeper, Flammpanzer, and some other variants, perhaps incorporate that into their Vet or ACE choices. But these are all flights of fancy and ideas that I doubt we will ever see. But you never know.

As for the Mine problem with Wehr, well the Pioneers can quickly get rid of mines in your path with the Mine Detector. And if you don't trust that you have cleared them all out then shoot some Nebel rockets onto the place, should blow the rest of the mines up.

[Raider217]

The IS-2 and IS-3 do not need HE rounds for better AI their weapon values as it stands are to directly mirror their intended purposes, high AT (Anti-Tank) with minor AI (Anti-Infantry), adding HE goes against their intended use and provides nothing to them. The mine sweeper I suggested is in no way an advantage in combat it doesnt increase AI or AT it just clears mines for a paid muni upgrade through breakthrough doctrine.

It doesnt matter how many minesweepers the Allies side has what matters is how many the Soviet side has, it's likely that Axis will gain their share of mine disposal with the Ostheer. From memory the sturm pio's have a mine sweeper, as for an upgrade of the Panzer IV with mine disposal capabilities im not aware of any variants that were equipped like that however someone like Lord Rommel would be the best person to turn to for that.

On the flame throwers I simply stated that its best amd far more simpler if the KV does not downgrade to a 45 because that would make it useless vs late game armour,  the flame thrower should simply be "do I need better weapons vs emplacements/trenches/buildings yes, do it", not "I need better anti building but then this tank becomes useless against tanks ummmmm do I really need this" of course however their should be negatives going from the hull mg to a flamethrower such as range, recharge and effect vs vehicles (bleh to tha last one ). 

My suggestion as it stands
-KV-1's and T-34/76 after 85mm upgrade (or double flamers in Urban as Bishop said earlier) gain optional flamethrower upgrades to KV-8 and OT-4 respectively. (without the KV-1 downgrading to 45mm)
-Aquisition of Mechanics in Breakthrough doctrine also gives access to Minerollers to T-34's (and possibly IS-2's) as well as Applique armour for KV's giving heavy crush.

[RedGuard]

the IS series 122mm cannon is all the AI it will ever need
-1 to HE rounds

and flame tanks are just a dumb idea, we all know how successful the ami crocodile is, its still useless even after heavy buffs of 2.602  haha

[pariah]

It's a good choice when your enemy is going heavy infantry anti-infantry. Although at a whopping 110 Fuel, it's often better to just get a standard Sherman...

[neosdark]

Well then there should be no problem adding them, eh, Redguard?

If they are that useless then we should just add them and you won't use them, while the people who want to waste munis will, maybe they'll get there munis' worth, maybe not.

[RedGuard]

what you think the crocodile is worth even half its cost? engie flamers were far superior DPS compared to a tier3 110 fuel coffin. just sayin 

thats like thinking of the least used and effective unit a faction has to offer, and suggesting making one for another faction. it didnt work before why would it now. maybe im being too cynical, I can be sometimes 

while the people who want to waste munis will, maybe they'll get there munis' worth, maybe not.

yeah that theorys not very conducive to winning, just like the croc tank

[pariah]

I don't usually like upgrading Engineer (or Pioneer) Flamethrowers, because the units are weak and only have a few squad members. I've got better things to spend 50 Munitions on.

The Crocodile is a decent tank for killing infantry and buildings, but it could certainly use some buffs, and maybe a Fuel cost reduction. It makes more sense to me for the standard Sherman to cost more Fuel.

[Raider217]

Guard I don't disagree that the croc is useless I use the 105 reward everytime however can I point out that it has a disabled main gun and what I'm suggesting is an upgrade for one of either tanks hull or coaxial mg to be replaced with a flamer not the construction of a new worthless tank. The us croc is useless yes doesnt mean the Russians does as well however