Poll: Soviet Sherman?

I would like to know how EF players see new Soviet Lend-Lease Sherman unit. Please do not consider the current stats of the Sherman which for sure will be changed (like HP, cost, damage etc). Just think about role of the Sherman and how it fit into Soviet Army as medium tank similar to T34.

Last edited May 26, 2010 at 6:35 AM by wordsmith

I can point out what we want it to act as and what the correct stats will reflect.
Its an early AT unit with a long range gun. Poor vs infantry compared to a T34 and fragile, but a bit better vs tanks. The main feature of the design is the increased sight and gun range. Those will increase with vet once introduced.
It is also an 'awww shit button' when you're caught off guard by early axis vehicle strats...or things don't turn out the way you expected and you find yourself needing good, fast to build AT.

Where should be Soviet Sherman placed?

My vote is  "It should not be part of the Soviet Army."

I like it in the breakthrough tactics

AT unit?
Sherman is a do it all unit just like T-34.

Id rather see tank riders at 4CPs.

Anyway Soviets dont need an 'awww shit button'. No mather if you get - Mortar+Tank Hunters or Sharpshooter+AT gun (cheap upgrades) youll have an AT unit.
No mather if you get ligkt tank support or heavy tank support youll have SU or T-34.

Zerstörer wrote:
I can point out what we want it to act as and what the correct stats will reflect.
Its an early AT unit with a long range gun. Poor vs infantry compared to a T34 and fragile, but a bit better vs tanks. The main feature of the design is the increased sight and gun range. Those will increase with vet once introduced.
It is also an 'awww shit button' when you're caught off guard by early axis vehicle strats...or things don't turn out the way you expected and you find yourself needing good, fast to build AT.

I understand this point but the thing is that there is different opinions about Sherman here on forum so this poll should sumarize those. Now in Breakthrough doctrine there are 2 similar armor vehicles. And moreover when you compare Breakthrough to other CoH doctrines there is always some other ability which is usefull with so-called "oh shit" armors: Marder could have APCR rounds, Churchill could Hull down, Stuh42 has Blitzkrieg assault. My point is that there are some complementary abilities to call-in units - which I miss in Breakthrough now (before it was wreck salvage). Instead there is another medium armor which IMO is redundand. As I wrote before, some ability would be more suitable f.e.:

- Armored charge (2CP) - player active, cooldown, all vehicles receives +3 speed for 30sec. but also 1.2 received accuracy and 1.1 received damage
- Steamroller (3CP) - player active, cooldown, all medium/heavy tanks receive 0.5 damage for period of 30sec. but also receive half speed
- Close combat experts (3CP) - player active, cooldown, all tanks have 1.5 damage bonus when firing at close range for short period 20sec., but also deals 0.9 damage at medium range and 0.5 damage at long range
- Armor fighting spirit (3CP)... from my concept :) - unit passive ability, all tanks now act as veteran sergeant of PE, giving all nearby surrounding infantry units 0.75 received suppression and 1.25 received experience

EDIT: One solution could be also to replace Tank riders with some ability and put Tank Riders into Tank Hall as non-doctrinal unit. Tank riders would be buildable and cost more than T34 but less then T34+Guards together. And T34 upgrade will upgrade both of those. Prerequisite to Tank riders could be need to build all 3 buildings + Heavy tankovy upgrade.

EDIT 2: As long range cheap "oh-shit" AT gun I find Su-76 to be more appropriate and it wouldn't collide with T34 Tank riders. I voted for Sherman as Reward unit - it is nice model and more units the better but it should be in different position than it is now.

Last edited May 27, 2010 at 6:12 AM by wordsmith

TBH I'd rather an ability that let Strelky/Guards mount tanks, called say "Tankovoy Desant", than have a Sherman in at all. If the unit absolutely must be in the game then let it be a reward unit replacing one of the Soviet light tanks - if that's not possible due to balance reasons then just get rid of it. CoH has too small a unit selection per faction already and introducing an American Lend-lease vehicle over other potential Soviet vehicles/abilities doesn't jive well with the faction.

I agree with the poster. Now when the L-L Sherman is so easy available I bet we'll see much less T-34's and Tank Riders (the most awesome unit in the game) on the battlefield and probably all players who choose breakthrough doctrine will have the Sherman as their first armor on the field. That's just NOT how Eastern front was or should be played!

Just because of the nice model I say keep it, but only as a reward unit.

It should not be part of the Soviet Army.

i voted other because i think the sherman would be of greater value in propaganda doctrine instead of breakthrough

I also thought that perhaps the sherman can replace the doctrinal mg and instead engineers be able to build them as soon as they choose propaganda doctrine.

i don't mind there being a lend-lease vehicle, however, i which it wasn't a Sherman tank. The Sherman made its appearance in the US and British arsenal, so how about some other commonly lend-lease vehicle, i do believe the British sent in a vehicle that was as good as the Sherman, and it was where 60% of that vehicle went, into the Soviet union.
  Another idea is to replace the Sherman with a KV-1 tank, it was a good tank and it could be like the T-34/85, just with more armor, slower, and a little bit more manpower.

I, like others found favor in the " It should not be a part of the Soviet Army" Option as it is the option I have the most belief in.

wordsmith wrote:
EDIT 2: As long range cheap "oh-shit" AT gun I find Su-76 to be more appropriate and it wouldn't collide with T34 Tank riders.

Exellent idea.

Personally id rather see the SU-76 or KV-1 in the soviet arsenal as well and the Sherman not be in the soviets if I want a Sherman I play US easy as that

Edit: If Su-76 and KV-1 were put in one would be a reward unit so you had the choice of early AT or early Anti-Inf, but thats just me

Last edited May 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM by Raider217

I like the Lend-lease Sherman a lot, the more variety at the battlefield the better! Making it buildable from the Tank Hall wouldn't make much sense.
So keep it I say but I think it should come after the iconic T-34.

There is no reason for the Sherman to be fielded in a Soviet army and it dilutes the uniqueness of the faction.

I agree with Saavedra, you all must realise the Sherman is in Every Faction, it gets a little old.

My friend suggested this.

put it in after the mechanics and give the mechanics back their repair dead vehicles ability. Just keep the sherman a little later on.

There's no need to ever call in a unit cost of 300mp cost when i could call in two units of ingenery to repair for the same price. and without their repair dead vehicles they're a useless unit. ooh they can plant mines however so can tank hunters and tank hunters are cheaper and can actually hold their own.

Quotegive the mechanics back their repair dead vehicles ability

Never gonna happen, this is PE only ability...like their G43 slowdown and incendiary rounds etc...

Whilst I do like the idea of having an "awww shit" unit for anti-armour, and the Sherman is filling the role nicely at the moment I do think it would be more fitting with the faction to have the SU-76 instead.

Like someone has said before, Sherman does get a little old, same reason why I'm hoping that the Ost don't get the Panzer IV..but that's another argument  :)

Cheers

Last edited May 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM by luz777

I agree with raider

Instead of a lend-lease vehicle there should be an ability to improve what is already there. I agree with preserving the t34 as the main battle tank

luz777 wrote:
Whilst I do like the idea of having an "awww shit" unit for anti-armour, and the Sherman is filling the role nicely at the moment I do think it would be more fitting with the faction to have the SU-76 instead.

Like someone has said before, Sherman does get a little old, same reason why I'm hoping that the Ost don't get the Panzer IV..but that's another argument  :)

+1
Even when nerfed Sherman is still too early.
SU-76 with Marder armor would be great. Both StugIV and Puma should win or loose a fight depending on users micro.
Like all SU its gun should have a range of 45 (longer renge than 85/100 would be wierd).

Maybe there should be some upgrade in the Armory: "Lend lease act" and after it would be possible to build Sherman in Tank hall, and it would give some minor weapon upgrade to some infantry (Conscipts with american rifles? f.e.) and/or make available some Jeep from Support barracks. It could be like another tech possibility from tech tree which would give quick weapons but will be not so suitable from long perspective since it will give no more. It would be like "oh-shit" upgrade which would cost no fuel only MP and Ammo :)

- Im agaisnt the sherman:

1.Its already in CoH; Ef is so unique, with plenty of variety in the Russian arsenal, why devolve back to an existing unit?
2. Shermans sent to Russia were not considered very good by the Russians

I agree with representing the Lend-lease act - but I believe a much better unit would be a transport truck.

i.e the Dodge 3/4 Ton truck - can carry troops, or be converted to a medic truck, whatever.

HDLK

Last edited May 31, 2010 at 10:37 PM by Headlock

Im against the soviet sherman as well.
We got that sherman already in 2 factions, we dont need a third one with this tiny cute vehicles.

I mean give the russains a tank not a sherman.
The SU-76 would be really a very nice choise. Some kind of weakened marder.

And there is a model already :) - did it make any trouble?