Login

russian armor

Gaurds Assualt Troops

14 May 2020, 00:18 AM
#61
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


Due to the semi exclusive nature of the ass guards (HT fuel cost) I'd like to see them as LITE officer style units. Maybe vet 1 gives activated Aura like ost arty officer has? Something that if you lose the squad it makes you consider calling in another and something that makes the fuel cost call in possibly more than just a one time shock cavalry doc slot.


That's an interesting route to take. You could go even further and do something to the HT to distinguish it from the stock one. Give it medkits at vet 1 or something

I like the idea cause you're right it already has an artificial limit of 1
14 May 2020, 05:59 AM
#62
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



Use a the DShK inside a building or trench. It becomes a god tier weapon.


I know about the building but not always there are buildings near the right points. Plus, the Soviets don't know how to build trenches. For this you need a British ally. So DShK still meh. Therefore, I would like to seeing Bofors instead of the DShK - since the Soviets have no opportunity for the construction of defensive structures, even with the commander + Bofors corresponds to the Lend-Lease theme.
14 May 2020, 06:27 AM
#63
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



The M4C does not fit the Soviet roster whatsoever so it hinders lend lease doctrine and thus I think it should be replaced.

/discussion


Theoretically, M4C can be replaced by Valentine. But with some features:
- In the USSR, Valentine reinforced additional armor. Since we do not have a model with additional armor. Increased armor will only be in the characteristics
- Often Valentine was used as a command tank, so I propose to give him a commanding aura and the ability to cause an artillery strike.
- and of course have Soviet camouflage
14 May 2020, 09:07 AM
#64
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 783

While I like this doctrine theres a lot I'd change.

M4C is fine, I think its underrated by a lot of people. It has the highest rate of fire of any generalist medium which really helps its AI, good base penetration and great AP penetration. This allows it to stand toe to toe with the ostheer P4 and put up a good fight vs the P4j, something the T-34/76 cant really do.

The air dropped fuel is boring but fine.

The DSHK should be replaced with a M2 50cal air drop similar to the dshk air drop in airborne doctrine. This fits the theme better and would be more unique.

Conscript repairs could be replaced with an M1 carbine package upgrade(or drop) that gives rear echelon carbines to conscripts and/or combat engineers, and yes, RE carbines are better then conscript mosins. The only thing that may be adjusted is the upgrade would have to give additional moving accuracy as the RE carbines have horrid moving DPS.

The M5 halftrack combat group could either be replaced with 2cp assault guard callin, or 2cP M3 halftrack like US gets.
Personally I think the m3 halftrack would be cooler though...
14 May 2020, 21:48 PM
#65
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

The Halftrack call-in is fine in 1v1. It's underpriced for the units in it, so if you pull the timing off you get a big power spike when the Assault Guards and very early meat chopper hit at CP3.

It's pretty trashy in team games, but there are plenty of other commanders geared towards those modes.
14 May 2020, 22:21 PM
#66
avatar of Stein Grenadier

Posts: 69

Methinks it would be better for it to be an M3 call in HT with Guards inside and give it some niche ability like the Ost 250s.

Fits with the theme. Makes it unique. Justifies the price. Doesn't change anything else in the doctrine. Which imo, is iffy for various reasons.

M2HB Browning is functionally a better DshK if you allow soviets to get their mitts on it. All the benefits of DshK sans the sprint, with a more generous arc, similar suppression and damage, and more importantly, a 6-man crew. Thematically works, yes, but removes the tradeoff between the Browning and Dshk, for balance reasons.
14 May 2020, 22:35 PM
#67
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

6man .50 cals. This is the worst suggestion I've seen since that reddit guy who wanted 5man usf crews.
15 May 2020, 04:55 AM
#68
avatar of Toxicfirebal

Posts: 66

Methinks it would be better for it to be an M3 call in HT with Guards inside and give it some niche ability like the Ost 250s.

Fits with the theme. Makes it unique. Justifies the price. Doesn't change anything else in the doctrine. Which imo, is iffy for various reasons.

M2HB Browning is functionally a better DshK if you allow soviets to get their mitts on it. All the benefits of DshK sans the sprint, with a more generous arc, similar suppression and damage, and more importantly, a 6-man crew. Thematically works, yes, but removes the tradeoff between the Browning and Dshk, for balance reasons.


6 man 50.cal would be broken.
15 May 2020, 07:05 AM
#69
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351



Theoretically, M4C can be replaced by Valentine. But with some features:
- In the USSR, Valentine reinforced additional armor. Since we do not have a model with additional armor. Increased armor will only be in the characteristics
- Often Valentine was used as a command tank, so I propose to give him a commanding aura and the ability to cause an artillery strike.
- and of course have Soviet camouflage


"In Soviet service, the Valentine was used from the Battle of Moscow until the end of the war, mainly in the second line. Although criticised for its low speed and weak gun, the Valentine was liked due to its small size, reliability and good armour protection. Soviet Supreme Command asked for its production until the end of the war (...) Red Army received 2,124 British-built and 1,208 Canadian-built Lend-Lease tanks. 270 and 180 lost during transportation" (wiki)

I'd feel it could be a great t-70 alternative with more aura, vehicle commander abilities than raw performance of t-70. I wouldn't buff the armour though. It was probably the most numerous tank delivered via lend-lease to USSR and it would be nice to have it in one of the commanders.

But to the topic. Maybe a good idea would be build those half-track from one of the structures and call in just guards. Generally, I feel the ability to build, rather than call-in vehicles with troops might be a better option in general, especially if such troops cannot be bought separately. You could just call in guards and build the halftrack. You could have more of such infantry units this way, without the need to have a few halftracks instead of one.

15 May 2020, 08:12 AM
#70
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



"In Soviet service, the Valentine was used from the Battle of Moscow until the end of the war, mainly in the second line. Although criticised for its low speed and weak gun, the Valentine was liked due to its small size, reliability and good armour protection. Soviet Supreme Command asked for its production until the end of the war (...) Red Army received 2,124 British-built and 1,208 Canadian-built Lend-Lease tanks. 270 and 180 lost during transportation" (wiki)

I'd feel it could be a great t-70 alternative with more aura, vehicle commander abilities than raw performance of t-70. I wouldn't buff the armour though. It was probably the most numerous tank delivered via lend-lease to USSR and it would be nice to have it in one of the commanders.

But to the topic. Maybe a good idea would be build those half-track from one of the structures and call in just guards. Generally, I feel the ability to build, rather than call-in vehicles with troops might be a better option in general, especially if such troops cannot be bought separately. You could just call in guards and build the halftrack. You could have more of such infantry units this way, without the need to have a few halftracks instead of one.



The reason why the main gun was considered weak is that the British ignored the HE shells for their guns. And even when the 57-mm gun appeared, the British did not produce high-explosive shells. Deliveries of 57-mm high-explosive shells did not start until March 1944. And the tankers themselves installed an additional 30 mm armor on the lower frontal part and on the frontal one near the driver’s sight. Armor was installed on all modifications of the Valentine tank. For example:
Valentines with full extra armor:

And Valentine with just the lower frontal part:


About the game: I think Commander Valentine is an interesting alternate M4C. The question is what should be the commander's tank: Should he give an aura? To whom? Tanks, infantry or all together? Or another kind of commander’s tank - it will have air reconnaissance and artillery strike, for an alternative waste of ammunition. After all, in a very large option, a fuel plane is simply shot down and you accumulate ammunition that you can’t spend.

About the Guards - the ability to purchase them separately should be required. For the game I need two squads of Guard and one squad of Conscript for support. I called two Guard units. Okay, I’ll use one M5 as M17 or as a reinforcement. The second M5 is unnecessary to me. I have lost one unit and I call one more Guard. And get third M5, two of which I do not need, spend foolishly on fuel.

15 May 2020, 08:49 AM
#71
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

just put a buildable guards on T0 just like other commander units behave (Jeep, 250HT etc) and keep the halftrack combo if you want to call in clown car.

also the 250ht that comes with grens/Pgrens need the same fix, I hate being forced to call a combo unit when I want only one.
15 May 2020, 22:29 PM
#72
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

6man .50 cals. This is the worst suggestion I've seen since that reddit guy who wanted 5man usf crews.

6 man 50.cal would be broken.


Not that it's needed, but I can confirm it would be broken. My friend and I drop .50 cals for each other all the time if someone goes US airborne while the other is soviets. They are ferocious with 6 men
15 May 2020, 23:59 PM
#73
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

soviet recrewing is finicky since the crew retain their DPS so you can a mg that is essentially a 5-man vet0 shock or penal squad.
16 May 2020, 09:06 AM
#74
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post15 May 2020, 23:59 PMzerocoh
soviet recrewing is finicky since the crew retain their DPS so you can a mg that is essentially a 5-man vet0 shock or penal squad.

And HF ruining your popcap and bleeding like a pig.
As fun as shock crewed ZiS is for example, its extremely stupid idea.
18 May 2020, 19:47 PM
#75
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

jump backJump back to quoted post16 May 2020, 09:06 AMKatitof

And HF ruining your popcap and bleeding like a pig.
As fun as shock crewed ZiS is for example, its extremely stupid idea.


not always, if the enemy is infantry heavy a shock crew will die way less than other squads. but yeah, in general it's a bad idea.

still, crewing with combat engies is way better now since they have the same rifle as conscripts but target size 1.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

467 users are online: 467 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49063
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM