Trying to model the unit after ISU-152 is step in the wrong direction imo.
In addition the unit was far inferior in real life and there is little need of reason for the unit to compete with ISU-152 in game.
Imo if one removes the penalties, lower the CP to 12-10 and the price to 600-650/180-200 the unit might offer an alternative as early "mini" Super heavy, less powerful but more accessible.
The indirect fire support unit is the other option that could also work for Dozer (even brumbar).
I get that it was based on the obsolete chassis of the KV tanks and that it's gun was inferior to that of the ISU-152 and the turret was a bit of the wrong design but I don't see what that has to do with my suggestion into making it into a hybrid Self-propelled gun.
Urban Defense Units KV-2
Apart from fact that this unit is not good for the commander as I have explained the changes made to unit are also in the wrong direction.
KV-2
In reality the KV-2 was more of self propelled gun providing indirect fire and although the gun of the same caliber as the ISU it was the M-10 and not ML-20 and was inferior. The unit become obsolete as soon 75mm gun become available to the German and it was a far less successful design than the ISU-152.
In game the unit has several difference from ISU-152. The idea of modeling the KV-2's after ISU-152 is problematic for a number of reason.
Comments:
Bugs:
The unit still gets a red icon over it while switching modes indicating a penalty although those have been removed.
(?)The uni does not have an option to attack vehicles in siege mode only to attack ground.
The idea of giving the same AOE profile as the ISU-152 is bad for number of reason. ISU HE munition have very low penetration and the chance to do AOE damage to tank is very low. KV-2 with an AOE 6 combined with the lower scatter be able do AOE damage to tanks far more often.
In addition KV-2 get 120!!! deflection damage when ISU-152 get half that, the value is simply way to high.
Further more KV-2 can fire behind shot blockers, has lower reload and has a turret that allow to better track enemy targets.
Finally KV-2 has increased range with veterancy to 80 which even longer than the Elephant.
When comparing the 2 units ISU is more difficult to use since it requires open space and can be flanked (although its rear armor is a bit high at 155) while KV-2 is easier to use and much harder to flank with 180!!! rear armor and a turret.
If one really wanted to follow the ISU-152 solution one would give the unit two types of munition maybe general purpose munition for tank mode and HE for siege mode.
The idea behind the vision penalty was that the commander would go into the tank to help with reload and thus the animation. Although the 0 vision in siege mod is wrong one could make use of the idea and animation with either making the penalty smaller (20?) or having the commander as an upgrade or vet bonus.
Replacing the vet 1 bonus is a good idea but "inspiration" is badly designed ability that promotes blobbing and allow PTRS Penal to protect the Tank very effectively. CD increases PTRS DPS vs Vehicles allot and sprint allow easier use of satchel charges.
The damage reduction at vet 3 is simply over the TOP, I am not sure why some many units are given that ability. Having a deadly 300/180 armor unit with effectively 1300 HP makes little sense.
Suggestions:
The unit in siege mode has a minimum range of 25 that is apparent to users especially since they cannot manually target enemy unit and can only fire on the ground. Maybe reduce that minimum range to 15? and/or give some indicator of that limitation.
Lower the rear armor value of the unit 180 is simply way to high for the unit
If the unit need more armor or HP that should come via veterancy since mobility should not included as vet bonus for this unit.
If the unit need addition firepower that again should come with veterancy.
Instead of trying to replicated the ISU-152 and creating another Soviet super heavy, reduce CP and price to lower level even than IS-2 and balance the unit accordingly.
Alternatively redesign the unit so that once is siege mod can fire a 3 shell barrage or give switchable munition to the unit similar to the Sherman (maybe for tank and siege mode).
Maybe turn it in a Soviet self-propelled gun like our ideas for the Sturmtiger?
Siege mode becomes Artillery mode, gives a far greater range but instead of auto fire you have a barrage ability of a few shells like you suggested.
That would make it a unique vehicle and at the same time have a specific role to fill that no other unit can.
The mortar HT was not used by British forces in WW II as far as I know.
One idea would be for the Valentine to lose barrage and spotting and to be have clear role either as light tank or medium tank or infantry support tank.
Once that is shuttle the unit in Royal artillery could have an upgrade available to upgrade to Forward observer Tank gaining abilities that allow it to synergies with sexton. The trade of would be to lose some of its damage similar to command vehicle. The upgrade should also be limited to 1.
The same Valentine could also become available to Tactical support without the FO upgrade and become a good candidate for a command vehicle.
M-10, Shermans or Sherman dozers could also work for Tactical support.
Considering that they had no Halftrack and used the M3 one (Like in Special Weapons) I don't see a problem in using a bit of fantasy with the mortar HT.
I mean they now have the M1 81mm Mortar in the air supply operation drop, you could just say that it didn't need a genius to figure out how to make it a bit more mobile by mounting it on a Halftrack.
The option to stay lower tech so one can call in Sexton earlier?
I would actually add it to tactical support instead of croc so tactical support had a decent command vehicle, instead of making croc one of the most common UKF abilities.
Wait with the Valentine becoming a mini-Churchill is it going to keep it's Sexton Victor Target?
And yeah I also thought about a Sherman/M10 duo or separate vehicles being added to Tac Support instead of the Croc as well, maybe the Brits could use the M10 since the Firefly is a bit meh right now?
But it still doesn't answer the question what to replace it with in Royal Artillery, the USF M21 Mortar HT maybe.
It need a redesign not buffs. The unit is simply extremely mobile.
The unit has too much armor and HP for light vehicle, but little damage, come too early, has too low armor and HP and it is way to mobile for medium tank.
In other words it suffers from an identity crises and id should be redesigned with specific role in mind.
Imo it should be slow and well armored acting more like mini Churchill, sine it was a infantry support tank in reality.
Agreed but then what's the point of it being in the Artillery doctrine?
And why does USF deserve a 0min light vehicle? Brits have one because no mobile mortar. SU have to lock themselves in spec rifle building.
It can be locked behind the weapon rack unlock to balance it out, it's just your own assumption to be a 0m light vehicle, I only said for it to become a stock unit.
And I don't think the UC can provide smoke or survive after the mid game so it doesn't replace a mobile mortar, it's just a micro intensive anti-garrison tool because the Brits otherwise lack one non-doctrinally.
The Soviets on the other hand are the best and most popular Allied Army right now as the stats prove from the recent GSC2 tournament.
Awful idea. That would make USF over the top. There's mech doctrine for a reason. And if you're removing the carrier from UKF, UKF would be useless against mgs.
WC51 becomes a stock unit, can be upgraded to a .50 cal, Ambulance or Weapons Carrier able to deploy on the field with weapon racks, solves a design flaw of the USF.
M3A1 replaces it in Mech Company along with the M3 HT.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
