Valentine

I was wondering if the devs (when they get a chance of course) might be willing to consider replacing the Staghound of the RMC with an early Mark Valentine tank. Not as a option like the Comet but as a permanent replacement light tank.

Dont comment if all you're going to say is "why", I want one thats why! >:(

I like it :P. Now you mention it @DMz has plans to release that tank for the Community Project. Probably we will add it. Nice suggestion @DrRockzo1986.

Did the Valentine see action on the west front ??? Im just curious. I know it saw action on the eastern front :P

@fishhunterx It was mostly in North Afrika, but Im sure it saw plenty of action on all fronts since it was in service till the end of the war

@Blackbishop right on man :D

I was going to suggest a Matilda but I couldnt think of what it would replace :-\

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 7:36 AM by DrRockzo1986

Matilda has strong amour and weak gun, so it would best fit replacing the Churchill.

DrRockzo1986 wrote:
@fishhunterx It was mostly in North Afrika, but Im sure it saw plenty of action on all fronts since it was in service till the end of the war

Yes, with Lend-Lease Program it saw action also on the EF.

Seeme wrote:
Matilda has strong amour and weak gun, so it would best fit replacing the Churchill.

The Valentine is a heavy tank, too ;) - okay... a heavy armoured infantry tank. So it is a stupid replacement for a small and fast recon weapon like the Staghound.

About combat records:
Valentines were at the wester front from 1944 till 1945.
BUT!!! not in a combat role. A number of Valentines were
reconstruction as pioneer respectively as armoured vehicle launched bridge [Brückenlegepanzer xD].

I didn't know that the valentine was a heavy tank :-[.

Well in that case the Valentine could not replace the Stag as Rommel said.

Inclusion of the Valentine to replace the Staghound would be excessive. If we include the Valentine it's only realistic role would be with the Soviets as some kind of LL vehicle... but since the Soviets have enough stuff as it is, the inclusion of a Valentine tank is doubtful, doesn't matter how much 'You want one' :P

I dont understand how it would be excessive its gun is only 40mm which is only 3mm bigger than the Stuart, but also only weighs 2 tons more, and is only slighty slower. I dont exactly think that qualifies it as a heavy tank. It seems to have had several engines used so Im not sure how fast it was.

Compared to the Stag the gun is 3mm bigger, the tank is 2 tons heavier, but is slower with slightly more armour

Personally I think It could easily take over the role. In addition this was the UKs most produced tank of the war you cant tell me it wasnt used on the Western front in combat.

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 6:25 PM by DrRockzo1986

Stag is armoured car. Valentine is a tank. It's huge difference mate :)

cephalos wrote:
Stag is armoured car. Valentine is a tank. It's huge difference mate :)

Maybe in real life where you can just shoot out tires on an armoured car but in CoH you literaly cant tell the difference especially if their armour and armament are so much alike

@DrRockzo1986
Looks like the Valentine is not going to be on EF, as it's a heavy tank it cannot take the place of the Stag. Its like if you want to replace PE armoured car with the Pz. IV IST.

Aw come BB you goin to let these guy fill you head with BS like that, I posted a perfectly legit argument a couple of posts ago that I doubt anybody even bothered to read. The just of it was Its not a heavy tank its stats are on par with the Stag except speed but who needs a fast recon when you have all the SAS recon units.

OMG Im goin insane this is such a home run and nobody even wants to consider it

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 6:57 PM by DrRockzo1986

Even if he Valentine ws a heavy tank maybe we could just change up its stats a little so that even though it was a heavy tank (apparently. I never knew that) it would still be a good replacement. COH stats don't have to EXACTLY match up with the historical accuracy of a unit.

In comparison to the Stag it would cost more, be slower. But heaver gun, more armor, and maybe make it vunerable to gunfire alittle, like the Churchill(A Flak 20 and a puma managed to suck a good portion of my health out.)

OMFG its NOT A HEAVY TANK.  >:( >:(

Lets compare it to a MEDIUM tank, the M4 Sherman
The Val gun is half as big, the Val itself is half as heavy overall, and the speed should be on par, and the armor slightly weaker.

Where are you guys getting this Heavy Tank BS from?

Well, I don't know too much about tanks, so if our historian says that is a heavy tank...

About CoH not being faithful about stats ingame and real life, well, that might be considered. IMO if its not a heavy and can nerfed appropriately and Zerstörer (the father of RMC, wants it) why not ;D.

EDIT: Just read that is based on the A10 chassis, and that model is a heavy tank.

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM by blackbishop

blackbishop wrote:
Well, I don't know too much about tanks, so if our historian says that is a heavy tank...

About CoH not being faithful about stats ingame and real life, well, that might be considered. IMO if its not a heavy and can nerfed appropriately and Zerstörer (the father of RMC, wants it) why not ;D.

If you want another Tank in T2 then devs have to accept our changes or RMC will be truly broken...sorry to be blunt but that's the way it practically is.

Yes do that. Im absolutly sure it can be realisticly nerfed to meet the specs needed. I whole heartedly feel that this tank is perfect for the role

@Cranial, in all honesty I feel that the Field support truck is T3 for the RMC because of the cost and the whole SAS glider literally being T2, but I wont argue about that its not important

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 7:33 PM by DrRockzo1986

Time for the Valentine to get hit by: the Nerf bat ;D

Fishhunterx wrote:
Time for the Valentine to get hit by: the Nerf bat ;D

LOl thanks I needed some comic relief

DrRockzo1986 wrote:

Fishhunterx wrote:
Time for the Valentine to get hit by: the Nerf bat ;D

LOl thanks I needed some comic relief

LOL NP ^^

blackbishop wrote:

EDIT: Just read that is based on the A10 chassis, and that model is a heavy tank.

Well considering British dont use the Light Medium Heavy tank designation IDK how you can classify it this way. The only thing you should be doing is comparing it to other tanks to get an accurate designation

Try to compare it to other Medium and Heavy tanks and you'll see it doesnt come close

---

Post Merge: [time]1315338551[/time]

---

Actually since some of you guys are opposed to this I want someone to tell me in what aspect is this tank too OP for the position. Do this for me and Ill tell you how you can fix it .

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM by DrRockzo1986

DrRockzo1986 wrote:
I dont understand how it would be excessive its gun is only 40mm which is only 3mm bigger than the Stuart, but also only weighs 2 tons more, and is only slighty slower. I dont exactly think that qualifies it as a heavy tank. It seems to have had several engines used so Im not sure how fast it was.

3mm didnt tell very much about the strengh of the canon ;)
The english 2prd gun (your 40mm) wasnt good. Bad armour penetrating data. No HE rounds.
Next point: The Valentine had a 65mm front armour. Thats i quiet heavy for a 1940 design tank.
About the qualification; Well. U are right. Heavy is a problem but all in all english tank classification is different. England used cruiser and infantry tanks. This classification cant be find anywhere else.
So it is quiet heavy to classify these tanks.

DrRockzo1986 wrote:
Compared to the Stag the gun is 3mm bigger, the tank is 2 tons heavier, but is slower with slightly more armour

Same like the Stuart gun; 3mm isnt the important point ;)

DrRockzo1986 wrote:
Personally I think It could easily take over the role. In addition this was the UKs most produced tank of the war you cant tell me it wasnt used on the Western front in combat.

Well. I can tell u that is wasnt used on western front. Neither 1940 nor 1944. Valentine saw combat in Africa and a small number in Italy. In 1943 Valentine was replaced with Churchill and Sherman tanks ;)

as far as participation I know you said thats how it is, but I have a hard time believing they had thousands of Valentines sitting around and didnt use them. But if they didnt, they didnt we wont have it then

Last edited September 6, 2011 at 11:56 PM by DrRockzo1986

blackbishop wrote:
@DrRockzo1986
Looks like the Valentine is not going to be on EF, as it's a heavy tank it cannot take the place of the Stag. Its like if you want to replace PE armoured car with the Pz. IV IST.

Or like replacing a P4 with a Hotchkiss. Insanity! :P

It doesn't belong with the Soviets. RMC T3 does have a space though.

Lol then use the Matilda II but then again It probably wasnt used on the western front

The Matilda II was used on the western front.  ;D

Well then there you got your tank for T3, now if you can only find a role for it.

The problem with putting a tank in that spot is that it somewhat invalidates Churchills even more than they already are. A slow, infantry tank is all we can really put there too, so RMC T3 doesn't become much better than T4. An M3 Halftrack is something that could fit in that tier though but Brits won't just get a copy/paste of that.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
A slow, infantry tank is all we can really put there too, so RMC T3 doesn't become much better than T4.

Well Technically speaking a Matilda is a slow infantry tank (trust me I used one in WoT) but the only thing being it may be OP as far as armour goes.
Its specs go something like this:
Armour: 20-78mm
Gun: QF 2 pdr (40mm)
Speed: 14-26 kmh (Slow)

I dont think people would spurn the Churchill that much. The situation is much like the M4 and the Jumbo it would add just that extra kick to your armour forces especially the Churchill Croc. But thats just me.

---

Post Merge: [time]1315420725[/time]

---

OK you guys can lock this one ill just start a new about the matilda

Last edited September 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM by DrRockzo1986