Sneaky Peaky for the next update!

But the Pershing was not only manufactured by the end of the war, it also saw combat. Therefore, that argument is invalid. ;)

yeah, just like that IS-3 :o  ;) :P

Any reason for the short and long barreled version of the PzIV?

short barrel pz4 was just the older model, while longer barrel was newer. And of course the longer barrel was more powerful :)

Fair comment on the King Tiger with Henschel turret i wasn't debating that, i knew they were produced and used in battle, i think you may have took my idea about the Panther Ausf. F the wrong way i just thought because they had a similar turret it would have been good to see them together on the game, plus i'm not sure what you make of this website i found http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1827788 it seems to suggest that the Panther Ausf F may have been built, i know that the Schmalturm (narrow turret) was definetly produced because two were shipped back to Britain and one is now in Bovington tank museum. PS if link doesn't work i will endeavor to get some pics up.

sniper_bow wrote:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1827788

none of the panthers has any sort of damage or hits which makes it very unlikely that they were used. looks more like prototypes and the last picture is in a museum. camo on tanks mean they were used in combat?! no, look at the maus prototype (with camo). and most of the tanks that were brought to museums were repaired and repainted.

@Tico_1990:
it's like RedGuard said, the first versions of the PzIV were designed as infantry support tanks while the PzIII should attack tanks. but soon they realised that bigger guns were needed to defeat russian tanks like T-34 and the PzIII could not use these guns so they started using the PzIV vs. enemy tanks (with long barrel gun).

RIP Panther Ausf F you are not wanted or needed lol...... Anyways update 1.40 looks awesome keep up the good work devs.

RedGuard wrote:
short barrel pz4 was just the older model, while longer barrel was newer. And of course the longer barrel was more powerful :)

Perhaps I should have made my question more clear. What I meant was why there is a sturmpzIV in the OP with both a long and a short barrel. Is the short barreled one a replacement for the Stubby?

Jagdpanzer IV commander and barrel are  different upgrades for the unit

Now the SU have their own arty and a new-shining AT emplacement *bling bling

stavka88 wrote:
Now the SU have their own arty and a new-shining AT emplacement *bling bling

It's anti infantry and anti light vehicle not AT, just so you dont get confused.

Raider217 wrote:

stavka88 wrote:
Now the SU have their own arty and a new-shining AT emplacement *bling bling

It's anti infantry and anti light vehicle not AT, just so you dont get confused.

He meant the M-30 as well XD... but  that doesn't counts, like the SU-76, their old models were placeholders afaik :P.

Hmmm... In the picture of jagpanzer IV, there are two kinds of them :|. One with muzzle break and one with longer barrel and a tank commander. Why?

Jagdpanzer now has access to its own upgrades. One is the fully upgraded version the other is the base model.

Last edited May 10, 2011 at 6:54 AM by Raider217

The zis emplacment looks cute :D.

It's a beast! :)

EF roxx.

Hi all! :)
Grand thanks for your work!
But some defects there is for me(or not only for me? ???). They concern the Red Army:
A very big difference/gap between infantry and vehicle. Tanks available after very long time and a path to the creation of their very expensive (improving, herself price etc.). Infantry can't fighting with enemy armored vehicles and from there goes weak of Red Army. For example, when you are in war with USA, Britans and USSR the latest power - USSR - you simply not see at battlefield (recruits not count). Some problems you have with play Reds too. So, what I propose:
1) Add a light tank BT-7. It will be a connecting link between infantry and tanks.
2) Just a little lower the price of improving that gives possibility to build tanks, recruitment infantry and, may be, price of the tanks.
3) In contrast to this increase the power of guns Tigers(especially King Tiger) and Panteras.
May be all...The latest and 2part of second not so critical, but first must be, else USSR, after adding Ostheer, will be the weakest element of Allies(however, even now).

^^ you need map control to roll out armor, so if you're not utilizing soviet battle doctrine correctly by being aggressive and taking and denying resources your not going to benefit from their mid-late game units/upgrades.

step your early game up and your problem will go away

My problems are small, big problems have AI ;) In addition, BT-7 was a very spread in ed Army, so introduction his in USSR forcer will be historically truthful :)
Again, USSR need one more vehicle for bridging the gap between infantry and tanks

Last edited May 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM by Shwepps

Bridge the gap between infantry and tanks, by adding in another tank? That doesn't make much sense. Wait until the next patch, there's stuff I don't think we've announced yet.

So will the soviets now have a mobile AT and a static AT? That's kinda stupid because the brits only have a static AT and it's enough for them.

@ Shwepps
Every faction has disadvantages for soviets it's the leak of ammo and the ammo upkeep cost.

ZiS-3 seems to be something more than just AT emplacement. ZiS-2 got better AT properties, so ZiS-3 is going to be all-purpose gun. Am I right?

ZiS-3 has much longer range, is hardier, does slightly less damage to vehicles and is very accurate against infantry. It has a decent splash, able to kill a couple men with each shot. Obviously though, the downside is that it can't move.

So the best counter to it are mortar or MHT, right?

It's still an emplacement so flamers, shreks, AT nades and Stukas are the most effective against it. It's pretty similar healthwise to a 17lber or bofors.

BurroDiablo
BT-7 it is very light tank, such a armored vehicle with a cannon)

Shwepps wrote:
BurroDiablo
BT-7 it is very light tank, such a armored vehicle with a cannon)

Yes, is a light tank, like T-70 or T-90... soviets don't need a unit like this.

Oh, the point is not this is the tank or not, but the fact that the Soviet Union in the early stages of the war hasn't motorized units and because it is absolutely not a mobile army.
and...That's a very bad bug :(

Hope, you in next patch kill him

Last edited May 13, 2011 at 10:09 PM by Shwepps

What bug?

If it's something written, i cannot read it.

1sec...
made the improvement for the snipers - the evocation of art support
2 times use this option, save game and close EF
Then again load this game -> option to call the art of support is no longer available
And this is not the first time
As you can see, after Необходимо(it's necessary) nothing else what necessary
Trouble :(

Last edited May 13, 2011 at 10:17 PM by Shwepps

Shwepps wrote:
1sec...
made the improvement for the snipers - the evocation of art support
2 times use this option, save game and close EF
Then again load this game -> option to call the art of support is no longer available
And this is not the first time
As you can see, after Необходимо(it's necessary) nothing else what necessary
Trouble :(

I think that was fixed. Didn't notice that was fixed but looks like it was XD... Sniper arty had a bugged requirement and was fixed. In either case I'll check it later.

The same problem with Voroshilov shooter - first level, but art support is not available.
Version - 1.31

Shwepps wrote:
The same problem with Voroshilov shooter - first level, but art support is not available.
Version - 1.31

He does, but you have to uncloak him first - artillery call-in order works only when the sniper is uncloaked.

He does, when he don't hidden?
blackbishop
So, it has been fixed or will be fix? :)

Shwepps wrote:
He does, when he don't hidden?
...

That's correct.

Shwepps wrote:
He does, when he don't hidden?
blackbishop
So, it has been fixed or will be fix? :)

Fixed :). Thanks for your cooperation (I thought it was fixed, because the weird condition had a wrong reason, but in the end i just delete the weird condition because i realized it's not needed).

Last edited May 14, 2011 at 9:02 PM by blackbishop

IJoe
Thanks, now I know

blackbishop wrote:
Fixed :). Thanks for your cooperation (I thought it was fixed, because the weird condition had a wrong reason, but in the end i just delete the weird condition because i realized it's not needed).

Always glad to help, looking forward Ostheer :) ( when can we expect release?)
May be at some maps this trouble I have...
And in next patch fix small mistakes in map Stalingrad: 6 and 4 position confused(6 position top in the map at small map, but really at below); mistakes in title of map [EF] Stalingrad (4) - really 6; and very unstable map - many flights to the desktop(especially
when the restart the map)

Shwepps wrote:
looking forward Ostheer :) ( when can we expect release?)

Oh, god, you weren't serious, were you?

Stalingrad is nasty buggy map, I never play it. Think I last played it with Apex when 1.0 was released... we'd played like 3-4 games flawlessly, then Stalingrad came along... bang, crash to desktop.

...So are you guys going to fix Stalingrad, or completely remake it, or what? I only played 1 or 2 games on it, since 6 players + such a big map = single-digit framerate on my computer. >:(

Remake it. A map with a name like 'Stalingrad' deserves better. Any takers? If not, I'll do it :P

You work so hard, man. Wish i could help ya out. :'(

By the way, where exactly is Stalingrad? I had a look in Google Maps, but it takes me to Volgograd. ???

pariah wrote:
You work so hard, man. Wish i could help ya out. :'(

By the way, where exactly is Stalingrad? I had a look in Google Maps, but it takes me to Volgograd. ???

The city was renamed, after Stalin passed away.

IJoe wrote:

pariah wrote:
You work so hard, man. Wish i could help ya out. :'(

By the way, where exactly is Stalingrad? I had a look in Google Maps, but it takes me to Volgograd. ???

The city was renamed, after Stalin passed away.

I was wondering that too. What about Leningrad?

Same - it was renamed to its previous name. It's St. Peter's burg now.

Kaliningrad is what Konigsburg was right? What's that named after?

HyperSniper999 wrote:
Kaliningrad is what Konigsburg was right? What's that named after?

It's simple:
grad is city, more precisely it is a fenced/walled settlement by origin,
Kalinin is a second name this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kalinin

I can understand not knowing Stalingrad but I'm honestly surprised you guys don't know St Petersburg.

The actual Stalingrad map is awful. It's buggy as hell and is really just a boring map all round. Poor resource layout and way too big. I hope you do remake it reasonably soon Burro.

Well, there's Ostheer's to be makin', but If I get bored of modelling I usually pick up WB for a bit.