Unit - Reward suggestions thread:

Cozmin95 wrote:
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.

Cozmin95 wrote:
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

Last edited October 9, 2010 at 9:28 AM by Raider217

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.  :)

Aouch wrote:
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?  ;D

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?  ;)

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

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??

neosdark wrote:
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!  :P

-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

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.  8)

Quote-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:

QuoteA 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. ;)

Panocek wrote:
...
-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?

Xeones wrote:
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.

Last edited October 18, 2010 at 10:54 PM by blackbishop

blackbishop wrote:

Xeones wrote:
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.

blackbishop wrote:

Panocek wrote:
...
-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 :)

Panocek wrote:
-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!  ::)

Cozmin95 wrote:

Panocek wrote:
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

Panocek wrote:

blackbishop wrote:

Panocek wrote:
...
-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.

Panocek wrote:
...
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.

Cozmin95 wrote:

KV-1, i totally agree and like Xeones said it should be 3CP and stats/prices similar to Churchill, maybe a bit better gun!

Actually, I said that it should be at least 3CP. If its at the beginning of the doctrinal tree, I'd say it would have to be 4CP. Now if Mechanics were first, and the KV-1 second, then I'd be fine with a KV-1 only costing 3CP. That way, it still effectively costs 4CP to tech to a KV-1, which would keep it from coming out too early for a heavy tank.

I'd still prefer one of the Valentines --probably the IX now that I've done a bit more research on them--since it would have a 6-pdr and a coaxial MG.

blackbishop wrote:

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.

Yes, T90 is excellent at suppressing infantry, but in terms of killing speed its low. T90 + infantry wins, but, soviet armor, alone, is inferior to American/German counterparts, who have a mg (.50 or MG42), that can do some damage, especially at close range.

But, this is the so-called "IMHO".

Between 1943 and 41 only difference is turret, remaking entire tank is not necessary.

Aouch wrote:
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.

EF Kangaroo is balanced. It just needed some nerfs that Relic didnt care to make. I still dont understand why ToV Roo is the cheapest of all troop carriers.

Xeones wrote:

Cozmin95 wrote:

KV-1, i totally agree and like Xeones said it should be 3CP and stats/prices similar to Churchill, maybe a bit better gun!

Actually, I said that it should be at least 3CP. If its at the beginning of the doctrinal tree, I'd say it would have to be 4CP. Now if Mechanics were first, and the KV-1 second, then I'd be fine with a KV-1 only costing 3CP. That way, it still effectively costs 4CP to tech to a KV-1, which would keep it from coming out too early for a heavy tank.

I'd still prefer one of the Valentines --probably the IX now that I've done a bit more research on them--since it would have a 6-pdr and a coaxial MG.

Hmmm KV1 for breakthrough? Why not. But I would still prefer replace the IS2 with KV1 (with possible upgrade to 85mm in armory) and make IS2 only for breakthrough doctrine. And the LL sherman is so boring, why not instead a sort of bonus for armored unit?
Wordsmith had some really good idea to do that, plus "staline's speech" is really... useless  ;D

And I love the idea of soviet marines "black jackets", but I wonder how add them to the game? Special defensive unit for Propaganda? Or replacement for guards?

T44 and IS3 would be a good idea though, but we need to create a model and animate it... :-X not possible for a while, and I want the Ostheer to be released in the faster way (I dont mean for the next month, but dev shouldnt wast their modding time in this kind of details).

Well, some units are just to fill the place. I.e. sherman L&L, brit's nests & mortar are just placeholders for the soviet units that should be there; as they aren't finished something appropriate should be used...

Hi fellas,
I'd really like to see naval infantry ingame, as was mentioned before, but somehow unfairly forgotten.
Those heroic men were very common during the defence of Leningrad, Sevastopol, etc in the first phase of Great Patriotic War (the purely defensive one). In fact, if Devs won't consider adding them as a reward unit, I'll be fairly dissappointed and shall settle down on replacing one of the infantry skin for theirs anyway.

Just trying to keep it warm 'bout those mariners.

I also would like to see the Black Demons.

HyperSniper999 wrote:
I also would like to see the Black Demons.

If i remember correctly we have skins for them. If we make a sub for an exsisting unit it would probably Guards. Although i don't really see a purpose for this switch except aesthetics.

Although we can always switch their roles, Guards are long to mid range, so we can make the Soviet Marines more Close Range oriented by giving them some Fedorov Avtomats or perhaps the AVS-36 (both of which I see as an early attempt at an Assualt Rifle), so as not to reuse the same old PPSh/ PPS CQB system. 

neosdark wrote:

HyperSniper999 wrote:
I also would like to see the Black Demons.

If i remember correctly we have skins for them. If we make a sub for an exsisting unit it would probably Guards. Although i don't really see a purpose for this switch except aesthetics.

Although we can always switch their roles, Guards are long to mid range, so we can make the Soviet Marines more Close Range oriented by giving them some Fedorov Avtomats or perhaps the AVS-36 (both of which I see as an early attempt at an Assualt Rifle), so as not to reuse the same old PPSh/ PPS CQB system.

Why necessarily guards?
Black coats could be an awesome replacement for tank hunters,  but:
1. having AT grenades instead of ptrd and
2. give 'em molotovs against infantry,
3. cut the ambush ability, 'cause they are quite easy to notice in those adorable fancy clothings.
4. Make 'em slower, so they'd be useless against fast-moving light armour, but
5. add some health, so that they would become a dreadful defensive unit,
= effective against heavy tanks and infantry.

Last edited November 16, 2010 at 11:37 AM by IJoe

You cannot replace tank hunters with those marines because they will rely on their AT grenades with muni-based cost ability to fill the AT role... that doesn't sounds good.

Looks like you want a guard like unit to replace AT infantry. Sounds like the hotchkiss.

blackbishop wrote:
You cannot replace tank hunters with those marines because they will rely on their AT grenades with muni-based cost ability to fill the AT role... that doesn't sounds good.

Looks like you want a guard like unit to replace AT infantry. Sounds like the hotchkiss.

I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.

IJoe wrote:

blackbishop wrote:
You cannot replace tank hunters with those marines because they will rely on their AT grenades with muni-based cost ability to fill the AT role... that doesn't sounds good.

Looks like you want a guard like unit to replace AT infantry. Sounds like the hotchkiss.

I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.

Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer.  ::)

Last edited November 16, 2010 at 5:03 PM by Paciat

IJoe wrote:
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.

You are wrong with that... if you replace a unit with the wrong one you'll unbalance the game.

Paciat wrote: Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer.  ::)

Not funny! AT ALL !!!
Many heroic soviet men sacrificed their lives in that sacred war (virtually for soviet people it was not a fight for the freedom but for mere survival, for fascist pigs were not only anti-semit and anti-communist, but slavianofobic (hated the noble slavic people) as well, and considered SU population as untermenshen. Millions of soviet people of non jewish origin died or were executed in nazi concentration camps and even on the spot).
SU history books, as well as participants of the GPW I personaly know, tell that during the fierce fights over various soviet port-cities naval infantry not only took part, but was one of most motivated, heroic and thus effective part of soviet defence forces, that fought basically anything they had to, including armour. The only minus of naval infantry as a fighting force was their relatively small number.
And yes, officers too can throw AT grenades in real life.

---

Post Merge: [time]1289934002[/time]

---

blackbishop wrote:

IJoe wrote:
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.

You are wrong with that... if you replace a unit with the wrong one you'll unbalance the game.

What is that particularly wrong about my suggestion, may you thoroughly explain, if you don't mind.
I'm proposing an anti-light armour unit to be replaced by anti-heavy armour one, adding also an ability to throw AP grenade (which molotov in this game is). Cool-down for molotovs could be increased comparatively to that of penal squads.

Last edited November 16, 2010 at 7:00 PM by IJoe

IJoe wrote:

Paciat wrote: Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer.  ::)

Not funny! AT ALL !!!

Sure its funny, no mather how many Soviets will die to prove me wrong. Marines are well trained, light infantry, not anti armor infantry. Its also funny that you dont understand that.

wow calme down its a topic about soviet reward unit not about noble soviet sacrificing their noble live to definitly liberate europe from nazis...
And anyway, every infantry are good vs tanks if in a proper environment... Plus dev stated many times that "realistic" things are irrelevant to the mod. If soviets marines are added, it will be in a balanced way!

Red_Stinger wrote:
wow calme down its a topic about soviet reward unit not about noble soviet sacrificing their noble live to definitly liberate europe from nazis...
And anyway, every infantry are good vs tanks if in a proper environment... Plus dev stated many times that "realistic" things are irrelevant to the mod. If soviets marines are added, it will be in a balanced way!

+FKIN-1

Paciat wrote:

IJoe wrote:

Paciat wrote: Since when did marines fight (and were good at it) heavy armor?
Its like suggesting an anti tank officer.  ::)

Not funny! AT ALL !!!

Sure its funny, no mather how many Soviets will die to prove me wrong. Marines are well trained, light infantry, not anti armor infantry. Its also funny that you dont understand that.

"Marines are well trained, light infantry,..." so are rangers, however in this game they are somewhat as meat tanks.
And about that "joke" of yours, I don't give a crap what is in-game, but darkening the memory of heroes of our (my) people makes you a little different from a lowly animal (say a swine).
Show some respect, and don't take it out of the game into real life, which you, apparently, know little about.

IJoe wrote:
[...]

blackbishop wrote:

IJoe wrote:
I didn't say anything about muni cost, because I don't see it that way. All their abilities should be charge-free on munitions, just add an upgrade (or use the one that is already in the armory) to activate 'em.
But even with that muni cost on, which I think would be way too OP ('cause in that case you should cut on a cool-down time). you still can do it. Why? - because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.

You are wrong with that... if you replace a unit with the wrong one you'll unbalance the game.

What is that particularly wrong about my suggestion, may you thoroughly explain, if you don't mind.
I'm proposing an anti-light armour unit to be replaced by anti-heavy armour one, adding also an ability to throw AP grenade (which molotov in this game is). Cool-down for molotovs could be increased comparatively to that of penal squads.

Let's see, Tank Hunters are dedicated AT, if you replace that for a T2 guards squad, you no longer will have a reliable AT infantry. Just an Infantry squad with AT ability available, lets say every 2~3 minutes.

Marines fits as guard's replacements or even to Strelky more than TH one.

And you are wrong with this as well:

Quote
because it's a reward unit
I mean, you are free to use it or not. If you're talking multilayer, then too the use of a reward unit is a subject of arrangements and rules.

I don't want to replace tank hunters just to use marines. I would ask to replace something else. The fact that is a reward unit doesn't mean that you put it and that's all... if you like it good and if not don't use it; you need to look what are you replacing... it should has sense and for me it hasn't.

You can see an example of this case with Hotchiss to Pz IV or Stags & Roos to Cromwells.

Also there's no need to be patriotic and insult other users.

P.S. Btw rangers aren't AI infantry until you give them thompsons.

Last edited November 16, 2010 at 9:26 PM by blackbishop

@blackbishop

Well, it's just an idea. After all, you've mentioned yourself that some of vanila RU are not matching your concept.
Besides I thought of AT grenades as of a global upgrade (instead of additional PTRD one).
Anyway, thanks for a discussion, and still hope you'll find a place for NI as a soviet reward unit. :)

IJoe wrote:
@blackbishop

Well, it's just an idea. After all, you've mentioned yourself that some of vanila RU are not matching your concept.
Besides I thought of AT grenades as of a global upgrade (instead of additional PTRD one).
Anyway, thanks for a discussion, and still hope you'll find a place for NI as a soviet reward unit. :)

You can be sure about it ;).

funny that people keep confusing an unrealistic game like CoH with real life. Ever seen how an M8 kites Panzergrenadiers? I doubt that ever happened in RL. Anyone renember Psychopath? he was from rumania and keept ranting about rumanian troops....

Back on topic: I support the idea of Black sea marines, just make the guard skin different (as a reward unit)

First of all, I respect what happened in real life but it has absolutely no bearing on the gameplay.

You cannot change a reliable, long ranged light AT squad for a heavy anti-inf squad with AT nades. The most logical replacement is clearly guards but it may also be worth it to replace strelky as a similar unit to a gren squad out of the box, with nades (not AT) and the option for Avtomats after red banner is upgraded. This might work well for players who prefer a more elite, lower number main infantry rather than the sheer numbers we often see at the moment.

My ideas:
KV-85 as replacement for IS-2---> to one of doctrines as call-in
Marines could replace Partisans - because they fought mostly in urban areas, like Sevastopol or Leningrad.

I would also like to see paratroopers as a call-in for breakthrough.

Marines replacing partisans is a good idea; different style, armament, combat fashion... yep its a good idea! And I want to keep my guards alongside with them.

Btw, it would be more logical if guards start with mosin-nagant, and replace them with SVT40 when upgrade.

Red_Stinger wrote:Btw, it would be more logical if guards start with mosin-nagant, and replace them with SVT40 when upgrade.

You have already the Riflemen that start with Mosin-Nagant (with the upgrade of PPh41 or DP28); Guards are an Elite infantry (look the cost and how many upgrade of the buildings you must do before you can deploy it) they need immediatly a good weapon.

It's like Iron Cross Knight, they can't start with Kar98.
;)

Red_Stinger wrote:
Marines replacing partisans is a good idea; different style, armament, combat fashion... yep its a good idea! And I want to keep my guards alongside with them.

Nice idea, but what about camouflage (obviously their look doesn't appeal too much to that ability) and booby-trapping checkpoints (which, without camo, appears to be more than problematic), and also the decision has to be made on what kind of weapons should they carry, for partizans'  ones don't fit 'em very well.

Last edited November 18, 2010 at 5:47 AM by IJoe

If the soviet MG-Team wasn't shot down, I would have suggested that USSR Marines with a Maxim-MG (or whatever communist Russia had) replace the Mortar-Team, since in soviet propaganda those men where shown as some really bad-ass badasses.

However, I think they shouldn't replace Partisans, it would have some really bad influence on gameplay. Those Marines just doesn't fit in that role and therefore the whole doctrin-idea is gone. It's the same problem as when replacing tank-hunters (which are AT) with some guys throwing nades and destroying tanks = will look stupid, since they weren't AT-infantry at all.
(Sorry if I insulted your country, but after all I don't have to respect someone's who doesn't respect mine.)

@Aouch
If you disagree with him about that I suggest to use PM instead of making this thread a flame war.

Aouch wrote:
(Sorry if I insulted your country, but after all I don't have to respect someone's who doesn't respect mine.)

Jesus, help me! You, people, are so annoying!! Let it go already!!!
However, I do agree on the partisans.

Aouch wrote:
will look stupid, since they weren't AT-infantry at all

Not much more stupid than stashes of fuel and ammo, scattered across the battlefield, since there weren't any such things at all.
And, after all, I didn't call, nor was suggesting them as pure AT, my idea was about more or less all-around unit, replacing PTRD teams on the terms of the reward unit.
Relent...

Last edited November 19, 2010 at 12:42 AM by IJoe

Wow, a flame war. I thought we all were too mature for this...  ::)

IJoe wrote:

Aouch wrote:
will look stupid, since they weren't AT-infantry at all

Not much more stupid than stashes of fuel and ammo, scattered across the battlefield, since there weren't any such things at all.
And, after all, I didn't call, nor was suggesting them as pure AT, my idea was about more or less all-around unit, replacing PTRD teams on the terms of the reward unit.
Relent...

Adding more Stupid things wont make the game less stupid.
COH game mechanics (gun ranges, gathering resources and costs) were allways stupid but the role of the unit on the field usually is as historically was. That (and ballance, and unit varaity too) made COH fun.

Quote
However, I think they shouldn't replace Partisans, it would have some really bad influence on gameplay. Those Marines just doesn't fit in that role and therefore the whole doctrin-idea is gone

Marines were used in defending cities like Sevastotol (like any other infantry in USRR pushed to the front line just becouse they were there) and they are too elite to show up on the map after just 35 fuel (Tank Hunters). But replacing Partisants would mean changing the urban tree (booby traps for Parisants)...

Thats why they can only replace Guards or T-90.
But having 2 similar units that can be build at the same time (if they were to replace the T-90 from the tank hall) is just wrong.

IMO USRR dosnt need Marines. Guards are Elite enough (more elite and cheaper than Rangers, have nades after no upgrades and benefit from CS global vet). How elite can the USRR constript army be?
If you want Marines than replace Guard skins with Marine skins (if they exist).

Last edited November 19, 2010 at 7:30 AM by Paciat

Paciat wrote:IMO USRR dosnt need Marines. Guards are Elite enough (more elite and cheaper than Rangers, have nades after no upgrades and benefit from CS global vet). How elite can the USRR constript army be?
If you want Marines than replace Guard skins with Marine skins (if they exist).

+1  ;D

Paciat wrote:
...they are too elite to show up on the map after just 35 fuel (Tank Hunters). But replacing Partisants would mean changing the urban tree (booby traps for Parisants)...

I must admit it, you have a point there.

Paciat wrote:
That's why they can only replace Guards or T-90.
But having 2 similar units that can be build at the same time (if they were to replace the T-90 from the tank hall) is just wrong.

Well, that's the kind of replacement, I would favour the least, 'cause the guards as a battle unit, are just as dear to my heart as I would want to see NI in the game. However, if that is going to be the choice, I'd prefer to have NI as a reward unit replacing guards, rather than not having them at all, for mere sake of aesthetics and,  my personal deep admiration of the immortal exploit of their RL prototypes.

For the latter, I should say, I hope, the Devs don't share your views on including them as a part of the in-game soviet army.

Last edited November 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM by IJoe

Here are revamps/improvements of some ideas from this thread:


T-90 -> BA-64

BA-64 should have higher accuracy, but significantly lower suppression (no insta-pin). Also, his armor is so thin that it can be pierced by rifles. Can seize (do NOT capture) sectors.

Partisans -> “Black coats” (NAVY infantry)

Cannot emerge from buildings (only off-map). 6-man squad, armed mostly with SMGs and few rifles. Have very high suppression resistance, which becomes 100% at vet3. At vet2 receive skill “Charge!” [insert better name here], on activation it relieves suppression, makes them run fast and gives debuff to enemies in shot range (minus accuracy, minus movement speed). After acquiring “Booby traps” [can be renamed to “explosives supply”] receive ability “Grenade assault” [similar to those of Stormtroopers and KCH]. Have higher cost than Parts.