Three suggestions

Hi! I'm a fan of the Eastern Front. And I would like to write a few suggestions:

1. What about the truck for the Red Army? For more rapid movement of infantry. There are moments when the enemy attacked a checkpoint. In this case, the enemy forces exceed the protection sector. Reinforcement is required immediately. But the only transport that can carry the Red Army troops are landing the T-34. What about ZIS-5?

I think many players would agree with this proposal.
2. Can replace the guerrillas? Guerrillas - it's not part of the Red Army. Can replace them? What about the saboteurs? I would like that they had a function as a British commando. Place the dynamite in any place. Otherwise they will not be able to deal with enemy tanks.
3. Soviet troops is a powerful 120mm mortar. Which simply break apart enemy infantry. Very effective use of mortar, together with a machine gun. But the Red Army does not have a machine gun. And she had nothing to suppress enemy troops. Meanwhile, the Germans could get to the mortar and destroy them. It would be desirable that the Russian would have wheeled DShK. During its development would have no problem with the animation. Because it can take animation from rolling the gun.

That's all ;)
With the best wishes, snakefun.

P.S. Sorry for bad english:)

Last edited February 3, 2011 at 10:23 PM by snakefun

1. Soviets don't need transport. Just because they don't need it.
2.Those are called "partisans" - guerilla is solider fighting with guerilla tactics, while partisan is former civilian, who picked up weapon to fight with occupant. Saboteurs fit to Germans.
3. Soviets with machine gun...  :o I just can't imagine more OP faction ever. If you need mg, steal one from Germans  :P

cephalos, why they do not need to transport? When I play for the other factions, I always use transport. It helps to quickly achieve the goal of the infantry.
I know who are the partisans. Because I study the history of World War II. But the partisans are not part of the Red Army.
Again. Why they do not need machine gun? Grab a machine gun of the enemy is very difficult because the players (and bots too) do not send a machine gun without cover. Because the guardsmen can ignore it.

Soviets wont have an MG nor a transport, because its part of their design.

I have nothing to say about partisans, they are fine!

how Red_stinger said: MG and transport will screw entire originality of Soviets. They don't have Mgs and transport like other factions, but have some other stuff. I'd hate to play another similiar army to Whermacht.
Also, imagine godlike soviet blob on trucks.... that's scary. Mg and transport wasn't given to Soviets just because. it's very important matter of balance. And it's cool though.

Partisans - well, in CoH there is a lot of ahistorical stuff - Pershing, Rangers ( I've read book about 'em and they were elite infiltratingunit), etc. Also you must remember that patisans activity was very high on soviet and polish ground - that's where Soviets fought.
Actually, I'd rather see Black Marines as reward unit for them... but it's up to devs.

Want an MG as the Soviets? Look in your tankhall, there are some tanks which make for pretty good infantry shredders.

Ah, de ja vu. All this has been metioned and explained in the past, there are perfectly good reasons why these items have been forgone.

snakefun wrote:
Hi! I'm a fan of the Eastern Front. And I would like to write a few suggestions:

1. What about the truck for the Red Army? For more rapid movement of infantry. There are moments when the enemy attacked a checkpoint. In this case, the enemy forces exceed the protection sector. Reinforcement is required immediately. But the only transport that can carry the Red Army troops are landing the T-34. What about ZIS-5?
I think many players would agree with this proposal.

Crappy troop transport was left out of the Soviets since they weren't intended to be highly mobile. With the addition of 'Retreat to medic truck' coupled with an outpost, there's not much need for a transport atm since your troops can retreat and regroup nearer the battlefield unlike the Axis.

snakefun wrote:
2. Can replace the guerrillas? Guerrillas - it's not part of the Red Army. Can replace them? What about the saboteurs? I would like that they had a function as a British commando. Place the dynamite in any place. Otherwise they will not be able to deal with enemy tanks.

Soviets are a mix of the Red Army, NKVD and other elements that fought on the Eastern Front. Hence why they are called 'Soviets' not 'Red Army'.
Besides, there are a lot worse crimes against realism in the Soviets and CoH as a whole.

snakefun wrote:
3. Soviet troops is a powerful 120mm mortar. Which simply break apart enemy infantry. Very effective use of mortar, together with a machine gun. But the Red Army does not have a machine gun. And she had nothing to suppress enemy troops. Meanwhile, the Germans could get to the mortar and destroy them. It would be desirable that the Russian would have wheeled DShK. During its development would have no problem with the animation. Because it can take animation from rolling the gun.

Soviets don't need a mobile Machine Gun, seriously. Wheeled DShK would not be a viable option because the animation for the troops firing would not fit.

BurroDiablo wrote:
Soviets don't need a mobile Machine Gun, seriously. Wheeled DShK would not be a viable option because the animation for the troops firing would not fit.

I heard in an other thread about a rework of the MG dugout - are you planning to change this? Sorry to be off-topic, just wanted to know  :)

BurroDiablo wrote:
Ah, de ja vu.

==> Deja (or déjà) vu  ;D ;D

Yes, my French sucks :P

Dugout, we're adding in the Maxim MG whenever the hell it's finished (needs a texture still I think)... as for the model itself, there was a model mix somewhere of the wooden bunker, but that was made over a year ago by MrScruff, so its time for addition seems to have passed.

Last resort but most likely option, a new model will be made. We'll replace all reskinned buildings in the future with our own, it's just with a lack of modellers, skinners and animators, I am personally solely focussing on getting Ostheer vehicles finished before I even touch them.

Ok, thanks for the quick answer  :)
I hope nevertheless that the mg dugout will receive proper attention, as its a terribly useless thing atm.But I understand that the Ostheer should be on the priority list.

BurroDiablo wrote:
Yes, my French sucks :P

Mine also suck, just kidding  :)

I would support the MG as a replacement unit for the Mortar or AT Gun or something else that would be a fair trade-off.

Mr. wrote:
I would support the MG as a replacement unit for the Mortar or AT Gun or something else that would be a fair trade-off.

Probably it will be a Doctrine Unit. ;)

Mr. wrote:
I would support the MG as a replacement unit for the Mortar or AT Gun or something else that would be a fair trade-off.

Nah suppresive MG combined with the "Doom Mortar" / Katyushas for Prop, is an instant (and OP) counter to any infantry and is most likely the reason it will only make its way into bunker form in the future (no argument to that here).

NTM AT-Gun is far too necessary whilst it is a trade off (inf dominance for severe lack of AT, bar Tankhunters) its too large.

Last edited February 5, 2011 at 4:15 PM by Raider217

The only thing I would like to change in MG dugout properties is to add the possibility of changing its aiming direction (like british AT installations), and I'm pretty sure, it's quite possible.
Really hope, the Dev. team will consider such change.