Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Suggestions => Red Army Suggestions => Topic started by: Crinkle on June 19, 2011, 07:41:37 PM
-
After conducting a bit of research on the soviet armed forces, I found that the russians did actually have a variety of flame tanks.
This is a list of the most popular that I found:
- "KV-8 – A KV-1 fitted with the ATO-41 flame-thrower in the turret, beside a machine gun. In order to accommodate the new weapon, the main gun was restricted to a smaller 45 mm Gun M1932, though it was disguised to look like the standard 76 mm. 57 shots of 10 liters of flame"
- "OT-34 (76) -- hull mounted ATO-41 100 liters, (ATO-42 later w/200 liters?) of fuel, 20 shots of 10 liters"
- "OT-134 - Based on T-26 model 1939., with standard uparmor (20+40mm front, 20+30mm sides, 20+30mm turret). 45mm gun, 2 x DT, KS-25 flamethrower. Few were used in Winter War and later in 1941"
- "OT-27 - T-27 tankette with KS-3 flamethrower and MG. ~180 produced"
Would it be over powered to include these tanks within the game considering the americans and the british already have flame-thrower weilding tanks?
If not then I feel that a flame throwing KV tank could be very useful as part of the urban combat strategy as a possible reward vehicle replacing the KV-2.
-
Actually Ubran Warfare doesn't need a flame tank - they have those insanely powerful twin flamethrowers squads.
-
Its not a priority for the Devs but they consider changing Royal Marine BREN carrier upgrade to the Wasp upgrade.
Wasp Universal Carrier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H5vNeVSZ8Q#)
-
Its not a priority for the Devs but they consider changing Royal Marine BREN carrier upgrade to the Wasp upgrade.
+1
-
Its not a priority for the Devs but they consider changing Royal Marine BREN carrier upgrade to the Wasp upgrade.
+1
+1 Wow!
-
An optional upgrade would be cool; You can choose to upgrade your Bren Carrier to carry a Bren which can fire paid armor-piercing rounds (better vs light vehicles and infantry), or that fucking sweet flamethrower (much better vs infantry).
-
If we could animate it ;D...
-
Animating isnt the problem on the wasp, its a straight model mix, making flames come out of it is easy, Ive had a wasp on my desktop for 6 months given to me by someone else to uvmap and skin. The problem in my case is ive lost intrest , Besides if i did it, it would probebly never be the right scale anyway ;D
-
Animating isnt the problem on the wasp, its a straight model mix, making flames come out of it is easy, Ive had a wasp on my desktop for 6 months given to me by someone else to uvmap and skin. The problem in my case is ive lost intrest , Besides if i did it, it would probebly never be the right scale anyway ;D
Why it won't be on the right scale ???? I think that could be useful ;D...
-
I think the scaling issue is the same as in the SU76 in my pocket thread.
-
@DMz
Is the Bren Carrier bigger in CoH or the wasp would be bigger ????
-
@DMz
Is the Bren Carrier bigger in CoH or the wasp would be bigger ????
It's smaller. Normally you should be able to duck yourself inside the carrier but in CoH it looks more like they are standing there. Maybe because Relic was too lazy to animate :P.
-
I wouldn't care if it's oversized ;D... a wasp is a valuable addition, also i don't think it's size would be way bigger than the current model (or yes ???).
-
Maybe you should just make all your vehicles too big, so they are the right size in relation to each other. ;D
-
Yeah! Remake every vehicle in Company of Heroes in the same size :P!.
-
They're already the wrong size, man. ;)
-
It'd be quite interesting if after the 85mm upgrades for the T-34 and KV series the originals built before and after the gaining of the upgrade were given the option to upgrade with flame throwers and maintain a large amount of use late game (not that they dont already anyway), KV-1 to KV-8 and T-34/76 to OT-4... im just throwin it out there.
-
God you cant pull anyones leg anywhere no more lol.
A wasp would be the same size as the bren its one of the handfull of relic vehicals thats the correct size, plus a wasp wouldent need additional crew. If you want me to uv and texture the damn thing say so. Then i only have to worry about the mess your animaters will make of compiling it lol :)
-
God you cant pull anyones leg anywhere no more lol.
A wasp would be the same size as the bren its one of the handfull of relic vehicals thats the correct size, plus a wasp wouldent need additional crew. If you want me to uv and texture the damn thing say so. Then i only have to worry about the mess your animaters will make of compiling it lol :)
Hahahaha, sorry DMz ;D. I didn't ask because you already have a ton of work to do and the last thing i want is to add more :-[.
It'd be quite interesting if after the 85mm upgrades for the T-34 and KV series the originals built before and after the gaining of the upgrade were given the option to upgrade with flame throwers and maintain a large amount of use late game (not that they dont already anyway), KV-1 to KV-8 and T-34/76 to OT-4... im just throwin it out there.
Yeah, that sounds good ;D. I wonder if that could be possible to implement after BurroDiablo makes new models for the T-34 series ;D.
-
Didn't you also have some kind of minesweeper T-34 that Burro made?? That would be pretty cool to see too, looks like a tank with a lawnmower attached to it, if I recall correctly. Maybe get the KV-1 a flamer and the T34-76 a minesweeper post-upgrade
Matter of fact I just found the pic
-
Hmm... That would only be effecting for clearing mines to the sides, wouldn't it? It's kind of pointless if it can just drive straight over a mine, and leave the poor infantry behind it to clear it...
-
It'd be quite interesting if after the 85mm upgrades for the T-34 and KV series the originals built before and after the gaining of the upgrade were given the option to upgrade with flame throwers and maintain a large amount of use late game (not that they dont already anyway), KV-1 to KV-8 and T-34/76 to OT-4... im just throwin it out there.
this is an awesome idea. :o
i would love to see this implemented rather than just leave the out teched tanks to become obselete in the later stages of the game.
-
That minesweeper model for T-34 and IS-2 I still believe should be attached to the gaining of Mechanics in breakthrough making that choice more uselful as I find mechanics useless tbh but mechanics and an additional (ntm much faster, perfect for breakthrough) method for mine disposal would make it far more valid. Of course the KV series would get nothing... perhaps another downside of using it over T-34, having to tech to IS-2 in order to use the minesweeper.
-
Na that would suck, giving the T34 a minesweeper and the KV nothing. Perhaps the Mechanics can gain a new role, as an upgrading unit.
Call the ability Refitt, and give the ability for the Mechanics to (for a muni cost of course) upgrade any T-34-76 or IS-2 with a Minesweeper and any KV-1 with applique armor screens for reduced chance of critical and part damage.
Anyway the Mechanics aren't useless bro, they can quickly repair almost any Soviet vehicle and they can speed production at the Tank Hall, thems some good boons, plus they are fairly cheap for all they do, sucks they can't actually fight though :(
-
I agree with the T-34/76 and KV-1 getting the Flamethrower upgrade after some requirement is met, perhaps Double Flamers from urban. Also, we can add the minesweeper upgrade if the breakthrough doctrine is chosen.
-
Sounds great, blackbishop. :)
-
I totally agree. But since we are adding upgrades based on Doctrine, then maybe we should add some sort of upgrade for the Propaganda?
I think that the KV-1 should get applique armor with Breakthrough because it would sorta fit in with a Breakthrough vehicle, to have more armor so as to survive the attack (or not get engine damage)
Anyway how about Prop upgrades?
-
^^the kv1 has the same exact hitpoints armor and modifiers as the kv-85, its upgraded counterpart. We couldnt give it anymore survivability from a balance standpoint
-
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).
But history lesson out of the way, I don't want an up-armoring, i want the applique armor to decrease the chance of getting engine damage, or similar status effects, not much else, to make sure them mines that i can't clear don't kill my engine.
-
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).
But history lesson out of the way, I don't want an up-armoring, i want the applique armor to decrease the chance of getting engine damage, or similar status effects, not much else, to make sure them mines that i can't clear don't kill my engine.
I don't believe that "Dolly Parton" applique armor would be effective to lessen engine damage. Undercarrage weldments would slow the tank down and still not lessen the concussion (not penetration), damage to sophisticated engine components. Weldments on top of the engine compartment would have to seal up the tank; which would asphixiate the crew. But engineering considerations out of the way; What has to be changed in game in order to get mechanics to repair critical damage first?
-
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 ;D
(http://i53.tinypic.com/6zynf7.jpg)
And just let the KV keep its normal gun so its less complicated and simply a straight upgrade, but thats my opinion.
-
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 :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ok i like that idea too ;D, but wouldn't that be sort of weird, I mean armor usually you know, protects, not just makes things heavier.
-
Ok i like that idea too ;D, 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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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 ;D).
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :P
-
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 :P
Amen, gents this describes it all, particularly the last sentence. Everyone says, "the Soviets won't be a copy of the Amis or Wehr", well if they have a working tank with Flamethrower, then they won't be coping the Croc in anyway, since it might just work and not be a 110 fuel chew toy.
Oh and have you ever tried Crocs vs. PE inf blobs? 2 or 3 do wonders especially in a nice closed off space.
-
I really think more than 1 Crocodile is major overkill...
-
Uh and now think they get vet O.o
-
Well a proper PE blob has at least a few Schrecks so the second one for insurance if you lack the infantry for some support
-
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 :P
coaxial is a good idea actually
-
coaxial is a good idea actually
2 PE schreck shots = down
-
^^versus t34? no, not even if they both pen ;)
IIRC t34 was the only soviet tank to be fitted with a flame weapon anyone confirm/deny this?
-
I think T-34/85 also.
-
It may of been the only one in Action, but the Soviet Union made lots of tank models with flamers.
-
Then it would be historical accurate but it would kinda fuck up the balance because the only thing the soviets don't need are flamethrower tanks!
-
As far as I have read there were T-34 with Flamers, T-34/85 with flamers, KV-1 with flamers (but with smaller 45mm gun), all of these were deployed on the battlefield at one point or another.They tried fitting flamers on BT-7s, and T-26 did have flamers, but since they aren't in game we won't discuss those last 2.
-
Then it would be historical accurate but it would kinda fuck up the balance because the only thing the soviets don't need are flamethrower tanks!
+1
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.
+1
Posted by: pariah
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.
-1 :( A special should cost less for fuel than a standard assembly line Tank? A vehicle with a muni payload of 100-150 Ls of petrol too! :D
-
Yes. A standard Sherman is good for general killing, so it should be dearer than a specialized anti-infantry and anti-armor tank. Although it's dearer than the Crocodile variant by 100 Manpower (i think), the Crocodile really should cost less Fuel, and maybe more Manpower. But that's just my opinion.
-
The problem is that the Sherman is really good at killing infantry already, but can kite and do it at long range rather than enter optimum shrek range like the croc must. This is the main reason I use the Sherman 105 over the croc. It's also very effective against bunkers which will take crocs an age to bring down.
I think the idea of the croc costing loads of fuel is if you have a mostly infantry force but are having trouble breaking a grenspam. You don't have much MP to spare because you are so heavily focused on infantry but have loads of fuel spare. So you supposedly tech to these. Flames are better against elite armour remember.
-
@GLD:
+1 mate. I have long believed every Faction should have one or two units available for a higher FP costs relative to MP costs. I have never been able to express the reasoniing as cogently as you have.
-
Flames are better against elite armour remember.
...So how do you tell what armor any given infantry unit has? ???
-
Through just knowledge of the game or being able to use corsix. Ask me any unit in the game and I'll tell you its armour type. Brits and PE generally have soldier armour. Units that can take several sniper shots (KCH/Lts) have heroic armour. Rangers, most vet2/3 axis infantry, guards etc. have elite armour. Airborne have airborne, snipers have sniper armour duh... The rest usually have infantry armour.
Infantry armour is the basic armour type, with no modifiers generally. Soldier armour takes much less damage from enemy bullets, especially BARs and other special weapons. Elite armour takes less damage and is harder to hit than infantry armour. It takes more damage from flames and snipers cannot miss it, even while retreating. Heroic is like elite armour but takes much less damage from snipers. Airborne is like soldier, but additionally is harder to hit while the unit is moving.
Elite armour is one of the most important concepts in the Wehr/US matchup. Grenspam is so powerful because grens change their armour from infantry to elite at vet 2. This makes them take 25% less damage and are 25% harder to hit. Obviously this is a huge benefit. Against vetted grenspam, you have to use artillery, flamers, snipers and tanks to do real damage because riflemen are just too weak against the strong armour.
-
I don't have Corsix. It should be stated somewhere in the game and/or manual. Otherwise how the fuck are you supposed to figure this stuff out?
-
Mostly because the actual mechanics aren't usually that important to the average player. For instance, while I know that MP44s do full damage against all armour types because they have a flat 1 modifier for their damage against all of them, the average player will just think to themselves those stormies with MP44s are pretty good against rangers. Snipers are especially vulnerable to bikes and SMGs because of their armour type but most people will instinctively know this anyway.
-
Mostly because the actual mechanics aren't usually that important to the average player. For instance, while I know that MP44s do full damage against all armour types because they have a flat 1 modifier for their damage against all of them, the average player will just think to themselves those stormies with MP44s are pretty good against rangers. Snipers are especially vulnerable to bikes and SMGs because of their armour type but most people will instinctively know this anyway.
1+
-
grens change their armour from infantry to elite at vet 2.
riflemen are just too weak against the strong armour.
also remember dont let rifle squads get to vet 2 or higher, if their vet3 then nothing, not even KCH or storms will stop them
it changes the whole complexion of the game you will have to tech, or you will be stuck usually on the losing end of infantry battles