since we are adding prototype tanks in game

No, he's right. A total production run of 91 is not mass produced by any stretch. They defeated around 320 allied vehicles out of probably 200,000 total. It's such a miniscule percentage that Germany would've been better off just building a bunch more PIV's or Panthers.

Also, only 13 out of the 91 were lost in combat. The others were lost due to lack of spare parts or fuel. If you factor in the other losses, it's K/D ratio is more like 3.5 to 1, which probably isn't any better than a Panther.

learn to read my good friend
Combat History of Elefant

I personally could care less if it was never deployed as long as they had a prototype. My concern is the same as yours, once you let one random make believe unit in you let them all in and it is an easy way for relic to implement pay to win.

This thread is weird though as people want historically accurate but this game is not accurate in the slightest. Panthers should not be diving with their weak side armor, KV series should not be competing with late war tanks. Hell, right now the P4J is probably one of the best meds competing with the T3485 and E8. When it was first introduced it had horrible turret rotation to simulate german late war lack of resources. It was buffed since it sucked because balance. Similar situation with ISU152/IS2 stun mechanic, the gun wouldn't penetrate as often but the stun mechanic kept them in the fight allowing for support to come in and do their job. This game doesn't even attempt to simulate the upkeep of fielding heavy tanks, the closest was the Tiger ACE.

For real bro are you not tired of spewing the same bullshit again and again?

We all know COH2 is not "realistic" by the standards of military notation since in actual military world even the most light operation can take up to 5 days to succeed (or fail) when in the game you must give as much content as you can to a player playing for 1 to 1 1/2 hours. Get real. Nobody said COH2 is WW2 simulation.

BUT, all the units ever used actually EXISTED.

NObody can blame the design team for ALTERNATE HISTORY scenarios, since even the most unicorn tank in existence (Sturmtiger) actually had a sizeable combat history.

Putting a blueprint tank on it sets a dangerous precedent.

And believe you me, Nazi paper tanks were way better than Allied paper tanks. So if push comes to shove, don't cope yourself too much.

No, he's right. A total production run of 91 is not mass produced by any stretch. They defeated around 320 allied vehicles out of probably 200,000 total. It's such a miniscule percentage that Germany would've been better off just building a bunch more PIV's or Panthers.

Also, only 13 out of the 91 were lost in combat. The others were lost due to lack of spare parts or fuel. If you factor in the other losses, it's K/D ratio is more like 3.5 to 1, which probably isn't any better than a Panther.

all you history negaters connect everything to nazis losing the war whils at the same time forgetting that the military, civillian and intelligence help USA gave to its worst enemy, USSR was so overstretched and overwhelming that the most famous USA general (arguably of all USA History) uttered the phrase "We went after the wrong enemy" and the most succesful field marshal of USA wanted to nuke Moscow to deter further USSR aggression.

So yea, how about taking that into account when talking about how "stupid" elefant was when in all actuality USSRS was building T34s by the busload of steel, oil and aluminum given to them by USA.

For real bro are you not tired of spewing the same bullshit again and again?

We all know COH2 is not "realistic" by the standards of military notation since in actual military world even the most light operation can take up to 5 days to succeed (or fail) when in the game you must give as much content as you can to a player playing for 1 to 1 1/2 hours. Get real. Nobody said COH2 is WW2 simulation.

BUT, all the units ever used actually EXISTED.

NObody can blame the design team for ALTERNATE HISTORY scenarios, since even the most unicorn tank in existence (Sturmtiger) actually had a sizeable combat history.

Putting a blueprint tank on it sets a dangerous precedent.

And believe you me, Nazi paper tanks were way better than Allied paper tanks. So if push comes to shove, don't cope yourself too much.

Bro, your autism is showing. This is my first post in this thread. If your talking in general can you show me the last time I spoke about realism, the only time I can think of is complaining about OKW having any sort of late game air support.

I AGREED with the fact that adding blueprint tanks was a bad idea.

I guess I will cope hard as OKW used to be my favorite faction before the tech change. Shit, I used to build VG into mechanized and prioritized fuel to get flak out quick. Then build Battlegrouppe for JP4 with Falls providing elite infantry. I stopped playing OKW because they changed it to a crappy version of OST.

I personally could care less if it was never deployed as long as they had a prototype. My concern is the same as yours, once you let one random make believe unit in you let them all in and it is an easy way for relic to implement pay to win.

It does not necessarily have to be "pay to win", but it would just be vehicles that really only have been prototyped and then scrapped. For the Black Prince that was based on a heavily used tank, we can at least estimate how the performance maybe >could have been<. Still, it would be mostly made up, even if you have some performance data sheets. And to take the fully over the top example of the Maus tank prototype:

This thread is weird though as people want historically accurate but this game is not accurate in the slightest. Panthers should not be diving with their weak side armor, KV series should not be competing with late war tanks. Hell, right now the P4J is probably one of the best meds competing with the T3485 and E8. When it was first introduced it had horrible turret rotation to simulate german late war lack of resources. It was buffed since it sucked because balance. Similar situation with ISU152/IS2 stun mechanic, the gun wouldn't penetrate as often but the stun mechanic kept them in the fight allowing for support to come in and do their job. This game doesn't even attempt to simulate the upkeep of fielding heavy tanks, the closest was the Tiger ACE.

What people see as "acceptable" will depend on how much they are into history and therefore obviously cover a very wide range. As you said though, CoH was never accurate or realistic. Instead, it was more "authentic". At least most weapons follow somehow the behaviour you would expect, given some gamification and balance circumstances. Everyone has their personal shtick though, and that's what they will pay attention too. I find it tedious to argue about complete historical accuracy though. The tank/gun/whatever does not need to be modeled perfectly, even less it SHOULD be.
In the end what most people can agree on is that the CoH series claims to tell the story of historic events. And as such, it should stick to its time frame. Implementing units that have actually been used in WW2 and had at least some tactical significance is a decent guideline I guess.
Of course there can and should be some more crazy and fun stuff, but there is already enough to work with within the WW2 time frame.

Regarding the Black Prince, I find it baffling why Relic actually tries to push for it. Yes, it is somehow unique, but in the end investing resources into creating the Black Prince means not creating another model that could have been accurate and opened up its own strategies.

I can live with the Black Prince in the game. I don't have enough of a shtick to rage about it. And since it looks like a Churchill, I can mentally easily label it as one. But this doesn't mean it should be there, if only for the reason to prevent Relic from introducing stuff that stretches the "WW2" theme even further.

It does not necessarily have to be "pay to win", but it would just be vehicles that really only have been prototyped and then scrapped. For the Black Prince that was based on a heavily used tank, we can at least estimate how the performance maybe >could have been<. Still, it would be mostly made up, even if you have some performance data sheets. And to take the fully over the top example of the Maus tank prototype:

I think in Relics case it would be pay to win. They don't have good history of adding units to the game and not being OP on inception. Between factions, commanders and units almost each time something new was added Relic made a couple bucks and the units took over the meta. After a few months it did get toned down so their is that.

The 88-mm guns in the USSR were met on the Tigris, but it was 8,8 cm KwK 36. The Elephant was a surprise for the Soviet military (no intelligence was received about it), and it was the meeting with Elephants and the long-barreled Kw.K. 43 88-mm guns that raised the level of military demand to tank protection. Since it was perhaps the most powerful of the commonly used guns, it was the protection of long-barreled 88 guns that became the standard for designing new tanks.

Probably correct, not that I would know much about it


If it makes the soviets feel better, Porsche (the designers of the ferdinand) basically forced it into service some time before the battle of kursk

learn to read my good friend
Combat History of Elefant

Nothing wrong with my reading ability.......
Just because some "genius" edits a Wiki page and makes the ridiculous claim that 91 vehicles is "mass produced" doesn't mean people should mindlessly parrot it.

Also, the claims about the miraculous performance of the Elefant seems a little incongruous to the fact that nearly half of them never left Kursk. This is just another variation of the supremacy myth. Had it really been very good, the Germans wouldn't have developed the Jagdpanther.

There are two surviving Elefants. One is in Russia. The other is in Fort Lee, Virginia. The one in Fort Lee was abandoned in Anzio. They showed the restoration on "Tank Overhaul". The best thing about it was that they found the left track was bound up. Some Yank with a lowly 75mm Sherman put a shell between the track and the hull which crippled it and caused the crew to abandon it.

Thinking about what Relic said: -that we want more cool stuff. I thought why the Black Prince and not for example Valiant? Or TOG II? I think it's just lazy design. We know that the Black Prince is the wrong model - it's just a Churchill in a 17 pounder, this is a minimal alteration of the Churchill model, unlike the Valiant or TOG II which look just as cool and fit this role. The Relic cannot even constructively justify the appearance of this tank in the game.

Nothing wrong with my reading ability.......
Just because some "genius" edits a Wiki page and makes the ridiculous claim that 91 vehicles is "mass produced" doesn't mean people should mindlessly parrot it.
...

PLS do not make unsupported accusation of "edits" on wiki page.

Here is the link to the wiki page and here is the quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

"Conclusions

The Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful mass produced tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss[citation needed], reaching an average claimed ratio of approximately 10:1. During the Battle of Kursk, sPzJgrAbt 653 claimed to have knocked out 320 enemy tanks, for the loss of 13 Ferdinands.[10] This impressive average ratio was due to its superior firepower and protection, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in head-on combat or a static defensive role (however note that claimed tank kills are well-proven to invariably greatly exceed actual kills, and different organizations have different standards of defining a 'kill'). However, poor mobility and mechanical unreliability greatly diminished its operational capability.

The Elefant and Nashorn were both superseded by the Jagdpanther. All three vehicles mounted the same gun, with only some minor differences between them. The Jagdpanther—a true jagdpanzer—was a successor to the other two, combining acceptable mobility and good, sloped armour while retaining the excellent gun, mostly solving the reliability, mobility, and/or protection problems that the earlier vehicles had. "

There has been no edit it is wikipedia which talk about mass production and not me , so pls stop defaming other forum members by accusing them of "editing" quotes.

PLS do not make unsupported accusation of "edits" on wiki page.

Here is the link to the wiki page and here is the quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

"Conclusions

The Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful mass produced tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss[citation needed], reaching an average claimed ratio of approximately 10:1. During the Battle of Kursk, sPzJgrAbt 653 claimed to have knocked out 320 enemy tanks, for the loss of 13 Ferdinands.[10] This impressive average ratio was due to its superior firepower and protection, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in head-on combat or a static defensive role (however note that claimed tank kills are well-proven to invariably greatly exceed actual kills, and different organizations have different standards of defining a 'kill'). However, poor mobility and mechanical unreliability greatly diminished its operational capability.

The Elefant and Nashorn were both superseded by the Jagdpanther. All three vehicles mounted the same gun, with only some minor differences between them. The Jagdpanther—a true jagdpanzer—was a successor to the other two, combining acceptable mobility and good, sloped armour while retaining the excellent gun, mostly solving the reliability, mobility, and/or protection problems that the earlier vehicles had. "

There has been no edit it is wikipedia which talk about mass production and not me , so pls stop defaming other forum members by accusing them of "editing" quotes.

I didn't accuse anyone here of changing anything on Wiki. Stop making defamatory claims about me.

You still don't understand the basic point that 91 of anything does not equal mass produced. It is barely beyond a prototype.

I didn't accuse anyone here of changing anything on Wiki. Stop making defamatory claims about me.

Nothing wrong with my reading ability.......
Just because some "genius" edits a Wiki page and makes the ridiculous claim that 91 vehicles is "mass produced" doesn't mean people should mindlessly parrot it.

You have accused someone of editing a wiki page and others of "mindlessly" parroting.

You still don't understand the basic point that 91 of anything does not equal mass produced. It is barely beyond a prototype.

91 vehicles that went on fighting for two years are way beyond a "prototype" that was not produced in an assembly line.

I have to guess that the reason the article talks about "mass production" in a factory, is exactly because there might have been vehicles developed in small numbers (like the 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H)) not produced in an assembly line that might have achieved better kills ratios.

But all these are beside the point Elefant made use of rejected chassis of a tank and yet had an excellent kill ratio as TD.

...

You're taking things too literal. Editing also means adding info. You can even literally edit any page on wikipedia, and the review process there is often not competent, so a ton of none sense comes through regularly.

If it was "mass produced" or not is a matter of where you personally draw the line. Objectively, we can say that the project was scrapped early and the that those tanks would not have existed if the company had not overinvested into building chassis during development. Production numbers are far from other standard tanks and tank hunters.

I wouldn't call it mass produced. The Ferdinand was not planned from the beginning, they had those chassis lying around and had something to do with it. The Ferdinand was basically developed after the the base of the tank, it was not a straightforward decision and production process, which would usually be the case for anything you'd call mass produced.

You're taking things too literal. Editing also means adding info. You can even literally edit any page on wikipedia, and the review process there is often not competent, so a ton of none sense comes through regularly.

If it was "mass produced" or not is a matter of where you personally draw the line. Objectively, we can say that the project was scrapped early and the that those tanks would not have existed if the company had not overinvested into building chassis during development. Production numbers are far from other standard tanks and tank hunters.

I wouldn't call it mass produced. The Ferdinand was not planned from the beginning, they had those chassis lying around and had something to do with it. The Ferdinand was basically developed after the the base of the tank, it was not a straightforward decision and production process, which would usually be the case for anything you'd call mass produced.

I wouldn't chose to say Elefant mass produced either.

Point here is that Elafant had probably the best kill ratio (around 10) (for TDs that went beyond prototype).

The 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H) seems to have had a better kill ratio of above 11 but was only build as prototype and only 2 where ever build.

I am not sure why some people choose to argue semantics about mass production when the point was the actual great record Elefant achieved and not weather it was mass produced or not.

onga bonga

The elefant has an impressive amount of kills and on paper would be considered "the best tank destroyer". But if you actually dug around and looked at the tank design themselves, you would realize that it was only the "best" tank on paper



Yes, obviously the most powerful cannon fielded on a tank in the entire world (so far) and 200mm of armor are really fucking good. But then you don't read wikipedia (that ITSELF SAYS "CITATION NEEDED") and instead the reality, which is that the elefant/ferdinand TD was REALLY awful at mobility and reliability. This means that it knocked itself out with mechanical failures way more than being destroyed by enemy means, barely even drivable (and unable to go even up hill, according to a ferdinand crewman) and so on. If it actually managed to fire, it was devastating, but it barely managed to do so. A big gun and lots of armor don't mean that the tank is magically good.


You didnt bother actually reading my last post anyway so i dont know why i replied

The elefant has an impressive amount of kills and on paper would be considered "the best tank destroyer". But if you actually dug around and looked at the tank design themselves, you would realize that it was only the "best" tank on paper

Tell that to people who fell prey of the Elefant that it was "good only on paper" because I pretty sure it felt differently to them.

Elefant killed nothing "on paper" on the contrary it killed lots of things on the battlefield.

Yes, obviously the most powerful cannon fielded on a tank in the entire world (so far) and 200mm of armor are really fucking good.

Elefant did not have the "most powerful cannon fielded on a tank", it was not even a Tank.

But then you don't read wikipedia (that ITSELF SAYS "CITATION NEEDED") and instead the reality, which is that the elefant/ferdinand TD was REALLY awful at mobility and reliability. This means that it knocked itself out with mechanical failures way more than being destroyed by enemy means, barely even drivable (and unable to go even up hill, according to a ferdinand crewman) and so on. If it actually managed to fire, it was devastating, but it barely managed to do so. A big gun and lots of armor don't mean that the tank is magically good.

It track record proves it worthiness and that is not base on Wikipedia. When it was deployed in a suitable environment like the Russian steps the unit was extremely effective.

You didnt bother actually reading my last post anyway so i dont know why i replied

If you have no reason to replay pls do not.

I wouldn't chose to say Elefant mass produced either.

You are simply wrong.
Elefant was the most successful mass produced TD in kill ratio with around 10:1 score.

Which one?

Point here is that Elafant had probably the best kill ratio (around 10) (for TDs that went beyond prototype).

The 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H) seems to have had a better kill ratio of above 11 but was only build as prototype and only 2 where ever build.

I am not sure why some people choose to argue semantics about mass production when the point was the actual great record Elefant achieved and not weather it was mass produced or not.

That's also not the point.

This part of the discussion originated from the question if and to which extend rare vehicles should be represented in the game as an extension of the whole discussion around the Black Prince. Since CoH allegedly aims to be authentic, the battles it shows and units within them must be authentic too. All of this was basically embedded if unicorn units should be in CoH3 because the weird designs obviously kick the door open for interesting mechanics and unit designs, or if CoH3 should rather stick to the most prevalent vehicles since it is not very believable that in the specific skirmish that you fight, a huge portion of very rare vehicles will take part and duel each other.

A prime example of this for me would actually be the Ostwind, I am amazed that no one mentioned it so far. The FlakpanzerIV was a late development as well. However, Relic not only decided to make it a stock option for Ostheer, but also chose the Ostwind, which was the least numerous of all Flakpanzers. They could have taken at least the Mobelwagen for that purpose. They didn't, and yet, no one seems to complain about it in this discussion. It slightly feels like people would just randomly pick what they care about and then press through all of it.

In my opinion: As long as a vehicle has been used in WW2, they can take it. "Rarer" vehicles should be bound to doctrines so that you don't see more of them in a single battle than have been built in the first place. But they can add a lot of different strategies to the game, because let's face it: If you strip away all the details that a CoH game cannot represent, many of the most produced tanks over the course of the war just fall into the same category with different flavors of "strong".

Which one?

I am not sure why you keep at this wording that is not actually mine but can be found on more than one sites, at this point it feels more like you arguing semantics than anything else.

As I have pointed I would not have chosen the particular wording since it can lead to some misconception. I have used because other did before me and anyone who does not like the term can take it up to them and not me. I did not claim that the unit has been produced in massive numbers.

As I have clearly explained imo the term "mass produced" here is not used here to describe a vehicle that was produced in massive numbers but to describe a vehicle produced in an assembly line as in contrast with vehicle that was produced only as prototype and to explain that vehicles like the 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H) might actually achieved a superior kill ratio but they never where in production.

That's also not the point.
...

And I was responding to claim that Elfant was crap which was not.

On the theme of thread I personally do not like prototype units that never saw action like the Black Prince to be in the game even more so since the vehicle even if deployed would be crap yet it will probably be portrayed like a Tiger/IS-2.

Now, if Relic decided to add the USSR and give the ZSU-37 (which was produced by 4 pieces before the end of the war) and not, for example, the GAZ-AAA with a 25-mm cannon, then this would be a claim. And it is clear why they would do so - an easy way to balance.
As for the Ostwind, it is most likely just a popular tank like the Tiger, I personally would like to see the Flakpanzer 38 (t) in the game. And if we take the number of produced flakpanzers, then they were all produced in a limited number.

You're taking things too literal. Editing also means adding info. You can even literally edit any page on wikipedia, and the review process there is often not competent, so a ton of none sense comes through regularly.

If it was "mass produced" or not is a matter of where you personally draw the line. Objectively, we can say that the project was scrapped early and the that those tanks would not have existed if the company had not overinvested into building chassis during development. Production numbers are far from other standard tanks and tank hunters.

I wouldn't call it mass produced. The Ferdinand was not planned from the beginning, they had those chassis lying around and had something to do with it. The Ferdinand was basically developed after the the base of the tank, it was not a straightforward decision and production process, which would usually be the case for anything you'd call mass produced.

This...

Mass-produced normally also means that someone develops a production line specifically for the item being produced, not utilizing a product of another production line and modifying it on an ad-hoc basis.

Adding heavies to the game is just the WWII version of all of the fantasy RTS's with "heroes" that absorb tons of damage. Fans usually want them and it doesn't necessarily make the RTS worse.