"БДШ" for T-34-85

I offer after improvement of the T-34 (1939 year) to T-34-85, to add a smoke screen. ::)

"...Means of statement of smoke screens...."
http://www.gamer.ru/world-of-tanks/legkie-i-srednie-tanki-sssr-kak-eto-bylo-trafik

"...On the top fodder sheet... Smoke candles..."
http://hobbyport.ru/armor/t_34_7705.htm

"...By all cars... Means of statement of smoke screens..."
http://www.xn----8sbnladcie3adxoacu.xn--p1ai/index/tank_t_34/0-37

It's good that all your links are russian. <sarcasm>

Seriously, i don't think so that T-34 or T-34/85 need smoke screen. These tanks are already good, for what making them better? M4 Sherman has it and i think that this ability should stay for US tanks.

And say, why we should add it to T-34?

So that we can make RedGuard happy?

TheDzierzanPL wrote:
It's good that all your links are russian. <sarcasm>

Seriously, i don't think so that T-34 or T-34/85 need smoke screen. These tanks are already good, for what making them better? M4 Sherman has it and i think that this ability should stay for US tanks.

And say, why we should add it to T-34?

Americans do not have monopoly for a smoke screen.<sarcasm>
Seriously:
1.We have such trifle, as history. ;)
2.Essential technological difference of the tank (except 85мм a gun and some changes the device of the tank).
3.When say that EF doesn't answer a reality-it offends, probably such details as this will destroy similar thoughts.
::)

It's always better to assume something is unnecessary until it is proven necessary in things like this. Soviets already have access to smoke mortar rounds as well as multiple methods for breaking/avoiding suppression, doctrinal and otherwise. Americans are the only ones with the ability to produce smoke from their tanks and I see no reason to change this. Historical accuracy is not a good enough reason. If you have a good reason for this change which is based on gameplay, present it.

Last edited December 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM by SnappingTurtle

Its more for balance than historical accuracy I guess  :-\

@SnappingTurtle: I like your icon  ;D

Balance>Historical accuracy

SnappingTurtle wrote:
It's always better to assume something is unnecessary until it is proven necessary in things like this. Soviets already have access to smoke mortar rounds as well as multiple methods for breaking/avoiding suppression, doctrinal and otherwise. Americans are the only ones with the ability to produce smoke from their tanks and I see no reason to change this. Historical accuracy is not a good enough reason. If you have a good reason for this change which is based on gameplay, present it.

Agree.

Fishhunterx wrote:

@SnappingTurtle: I like your icon  ;D

It's called avatar, not icon AFAIK but call it as you want :).

Fishhunterx wrote:

@SnappingTurtle: I like your icon  ;D

LOL +1

SnappingTurtle wrote:
It's always better to assume something is unnecessary until it is proven necessary in things like this. Soviets already have access to smoke mortar rounds as well as multiple methods for breaking/avoiding suppression, doctrinal and otherwise. Americans are the only ones with the ability to produce smoke from their tanks and I see no reason to change this. Historical accuracy is not a good enough reason. If you have a good reason for this change which is based on gameplay, present it.

Please think about your changes before you suggest this. Soviet tanks in the game are designed to be a little more reckless than US tanks.

Tankbuster wrote:
Balance>Historical accuracy

Certainly: Balance> History, but I think this introduction especially it will not be reflected in these criteria, and it will be probably possible even to put ">" -> "=". ;)

SnappingTurtle wrote:
It's always better to assume something is unnecessary until it is proven necessary in things like this. Soviets already have access to smoke mortar rounds as well as multiple methods for breaking/avoiding suppression, doctrinal and otherwise. Americans are the only ones with the ability to produce smoke from their tanks and I see no reason to change this. Historical accuracy is not a good enough reason. If you have a good reason for this change which is based on gameplay, present it.

My offer:
Respected, let's take away from others all that there is at Americans-it on yours a gameplay. ;D

I want to ask you:
1.Funny, in what then features of Americans, the USSR, Englishmen will be expressed...?
2.You asked yourselves a question, than EF it is better CoH pure?

allright, it's again all about realism and rest of this stuff...  :-\

@777Mais777 - why do you think t-34 needs smoke? Gameplay-wise, not historical "but they had" - if t-34 in your opinion is too weak, just write it down, without proposing things without saying why particular unit needs it. Sherman has smoke, but it's gameplay-wise, becasue it would be outclased by any Axis vehicle it faces. T-34 is more tough, faster, reliable than M4 Sherman. I don't see why it should get smoke canisters - it's fine as it is.

Unfortunetly, I dont understand more than 50% of what 777Mais777 is usually saying :-\. I think he wants smoke. But the thing is, T-34 doesn't necessarily need it :P

cephalos wrote:
allright, it's again all about realism and rest of this stuff...  :-\

@777Mais777 - why do you think t-34 needs smoke? Gameplay-wise, not historical "but they had" - if t-34 in your opinion is too weak, just write it down, without proposing things without saying why particular unit needs it. Sherman has smoke, but it's gameplay-wise, becasue it would be outclased by any Axis vehicle it faces. T-34 is more tough, faster, reliable than M4 Sherman. I don't see why it should get smoke canisters - it's fine as it is.

Respected cephalos you shouldn't and are not obliged,to add a smoke as Sherman, but as you have noticed Т-34 not perfection, to perfection it doesn't have not enough this small detail. ::)

Fishhunterx wrote:
Unfortunetly, I dont understand more than 50% of what 777Mais777 is usually saying :-\. I think he wants smoke. But the thing is, T-34 doesn't necessarily need it :P

Respected Fishhunterx, why you so think? (except: balance> history) :D

777Mais777 wrote:
[...]
Respected Fishhunterx, why you so think? (except: balance> history) :D

Adding smoke to the T-34/85 would make it OP, besides it is a capable tank, thus it doesn't need it. From that point of view, you don't even need to discuss anything else, if it breakes the balance>history equation it doesn't need any further discussion. T-34/85 is fine as it is, it doesn't need new stuff just for the sake of it or for becoming "perfect". We don't need to add anything else to scramble balance.

In other words, T-34/85 will never throw smoke screen for Eastern Front. The only way this could be implemented would be in the campaign, if the other devs think is OK.

blackbishop wrote:

777Mais777 wrote:
[...]
Respected Fishhunterx, why you so think? (except: balance> history) :D

Adding smoke to the T-34/85 would make it OP, besides it is a capable tank, thus it doesn't need it. From that point of view, you don't even need to discuss anything else, if it breakes the balance>history equation it doesn't need any further discussion. T-34/85 is fine as it is, it doesn't need new stuff just for the sake of it or for becoming "perfect". We don't need to add anything else to scramble balance.

In other words, T-34/85 will never throw smoke screen for Eastern Front. The only way this could be implemented would be in the campaign, if the other devs think is OK.

Your will-law. :-X

Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either :P). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no :-\.

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason ;D. They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank ;D

Fishhunterx wrote:
Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either :P). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no :-\.

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason ;D. They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank ;D

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses. ;)

777Mais777 wrote:

Fishhunterx wrote:
Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either :P). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no :-\.

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason ;D. They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank ;D

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses. ;)

LoL, I can't imagine "smaller losses" or "equipment preservation" in soviet style  :P

cephalos wrote:

777Mais777 wrote:

Fishhunterx wrote:
Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either :P). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no :-\.

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason ;D. They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank ;D

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses. ;)

LoL, I can't imagine "smaller losses" or "equipment preservation" in soviet style  :P

Just b/c the Soviets lost the most people during the war, doesn't mean they dont like to keep their outfits and the equipment shiny and new ;D

They just replaced it, I guess :P

Fishhunterx wrote:

cephalos wrote:

777Mais777 wrote:

Fishhunterx wrote:
Its would be nice (esstetically) but other than that it'd probably be OP. T-34 is already cheaper than Sherman, possibly perfom better, and the Sherman must pay for smoke (and its not cheap either :P). Unless T-34 had to pay for smoke like the Sherman, than the answer is most likely no :-\.

And besides T-34s were mass produced for a reason ;D. They aren't suppose to live they're suppose to give their lives for the motherland destroying the Tiger tank ;D

You are probably right, if speak about 1941-1942. But (1943-1945) I consider the following period it is possible to characterize as the best equipment of armies at smaller losses. ;)

LoL, I can't imagine "smaller losses" or "equipment preservation" in soviet style  :P

Just b/c the Soviets lost the most people during the war, doesn't mean they dont like to keep their outfits and the equipment shiny and new ;D

Probably...:P...We  weren't then... ;)