Tank suggestions

[TT33]

Once the Ferdinand was taken out, it wouldn't respawn and the Germans would only have Panzer IIIs to fight the rest of the battle (obviously, to balance out the Ferdinand's effectiveness)

T-34's vs the Panzer III's available in 1943 for Kursk should be pretty well matched. So once the Ferdianand is taken care of you'd still need team work to comeout on top.
I'd throw some KV-1s to B's in since they would be difficult for the Germans to knock out with out the help of the Ferdinand.( the Panzer III would need to be at 500m for its apcr to penetrate the Kv-1s in game atm.)
The ferdiand's sides and rear are 80mm thick so if you got close enough with a T-34/76 you could penetrate it on large German offensive maps I think this wouldn't be too hard. since the ferdiand is pretty slow and had limited gun traverse

for combined arms:
- Random spawing and hard to hit AT-guns( more models needed) would provide the Russian side with more guns some of which could penetrate the side of the Ferdinand up to 1000+meters or cause armor sprawling if repeated shots are made with large caliber guns.
- Russian AT soldiers

roof armor?

I meant the roof of the hull m8

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a tank map with KV-1Ss and BT-7s going up against Pz IIIs and Pz-IV F1s.

We'd need some early Panzer III's and IV's for the BT-7/T-26 to have a chance from the front. I'd say the Panzer IV D( short 75mm but lightly armored), Panzer III F(37mm ),Panzer III G (short 50mm but pretty lightly armored),ect.

The Kv-1s was a 1942 tank Bt-7's started to become slightly rare at this point.
Currently the Kv-1s is a paper tank in realife it was a good tank the most common German tank the Panzer III J/1 needed apcr to kill it and I believe it could only do so at 500 meters or so. The long nose 75mm Panzer IV could counter it but well it could also counter the heaver KV-1's as well.-

 

[Tank!]

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a tank map with KV-1Ss and BT-7s going up against Pz IIIs and Pz-IV F1s. If we could flesh that out to include Marders, Pz IIs, T-26s (with the 45mm gun), etc. it would make for a matchup of radically different tank doctrines wherein success would depend far more on maneuvering, clever use of terrain, and combined arms, instead of simply "park and shoot" gameplay

The Panzer IV F1 in the game is kind of useless without its HEAT round. Also check out the FKR server #3. Last time I looked (2 weeks ago) it was running a Orel Day 1 or Day 2 map that has Panzer III L vs T-60 and BT-7. Unfortunately that map is a bad joke as the T-60s and BT-7s completely outclass and destroy you even though the Panzer III L in that map is the upgunned/uparmored version.

 

[Solo4114]

It's not useless as an anti-infantry platform, which is its intended role (a holdover from the original doctrine of using the Pz IVD for anti-infantry, and the Pz III models for anti-armor).

TT33, I was actually talking about stock RO values where the Pz III is outclassed by the T-34. And unless you're planning on modding bazookas or other more effective weapons, Russian AT troopers wouldn't be any used against the Ferdinand with their PTRDs. Regardless, perhaps a better example would be that you have a team of German Pz IIs or 38(t)s and Pz III Fs going up against a team of Russian T-26s and a single KV-1B. The whole map would revolve around taking out the KV-1B, and once it was gone, the Russians would be toast. That's the problem with balancing uber weapons. You end up having to either make them weaker than people think they should be (right or wrong, accurately or inaccurately), or you have to handicap the team in ways that make playing the map a drag.


Now, that's not to say it CAN'T be done properly. I think it can. But it takes a mapper with a serious understanding of how the game is played on pub servers to do it. You need a SERIOUS in-depth understanding of all the equipment used, as well as the various ways you can balance a map (IE: terrain advantages, reinforcement advantages, time advantages, what equipment can counter other equipment and at what engagement ranges, etc., etc., etc.). In my experience, most mappers don't have that depth. That's not to say they can't make good maps. Many of them can. But it does mean that a lot of them lack the ability to balance out the more complex issues in maps. Just to be clear, that's not a slight against the mapping community. These issues are HARD to deal with and require MANY revisions for balance, a ton of playtesting, in-depth nuanced understandings of the game and game mechanics, AND an understanding of player behavior on pub servers. That's a lot of balls to juggle and I don't envy any mapper who takes on such a challenge.

 

[TT33]

It's not useless as an anti-infantry platform, which is its intended role (a holdover from the original doctrine of using the Pz IVD for anti-infantry, and the Pz III models for anti-armor).

Well yes m8 but it was also heavily used against tanks when the lesser calibers such as the 37mm could not penetrate they would used the short 75 to destroy it. It was very effective in France, Afrika in the begining, the first part of Barbarossa seeing as most of the tanks the russians used in 1941 were light vehicles. In fact the Panzer IV D-F were considered "Heavy tanks" by the germans early in the war. Also it recieved HEAT rounds later to conter the new tank designs like the T-34 it was alot cheaper to make a new HEAT rounds rather and scraping the entire gun and modifing the turret it was also a lot quicker for example The first long 75mm Panzer IV's(G) were always in short supply until 1943.

TT33, I was actually talking about stock RO values where the Pz III is outclassed by the T-34.

Precisely! In stock RO the Panzer III's armor values are messed up for the model being depicted (Ausf L). As someone else put it: "It acts like a BT-7 clone...". A peashooting light tank such as the T-60 can take it out frontally at extended range with a handful of shots. AB's and the RMF mod's Pz3 verison is more accuarte.

And unless you're planning on modding bazookas or other more effective weapons, Russian AT troopers wouldn't be any used against the Ferdinand with their PTRDs.

The Ptrd was an obsolete weapon. If we had some earlier stuff modeled the PTRD would be more effective. The current German tanks and most of the Soviet tanks modeled in game should be invulnerable from the front to the PTRD.
There is no need to model the Bazooka(hint, hint). Anyway it was pretty rare and the Allied bazooka was a 66 mm round which had trouble with the German armor. What the Russians need in my opinion for the AT class is some AT grenades, perhaps some mines, the PTRS only because then when you get an opertunity to shoot at the thin sides or rear of tanks such as the Panzer IV it would be ideal to put off as much rounds as possible into the vulnerable areas, and lastly I think the Russians need a lot more strong AT-guns like the 76.2mm Zis-3 which btw is currently modeled by the good people at the AHz

 

[Slyk]

Why don't we do this. Someone make an early-war Pz III and II. If CC will share the T-26, there you go. Get the Panzers modeled and Teufel can be forced/coerced to code. As for the KV-1B, I believe it will be coded up pretty accurately, or tweaked up to overcome any engine factors allowing frontal penetrations from less than an 88. We will see and I am sure TT33 will be all over the alpha testing once the code is further polished.

My solution for the KV-1B as for balance would be to place the spawns further back from the front. In this way, the destruction of a KV penalty is that it takes longer to re-enter the battle and thus the Germans get a short advantage to advance. We'll see how it tips Berezina when I retrofit that map, but I will drop one of the two KV-S versions and add another BT7.

 

[Tank!]

It's not useless as an anti-infantry platform, which is its intended role (a holdover from the original doctrine of using the Pz IVD for anti-infantry, and the Pz III models for anti-armor).

Actually it kind of is because due to the fact that in game obstructions like fences and walls block the HE blast and if you are behind them then you are safe. On top of that it lacks the essential HEAT round for self defense against enemy tanks. One can only wonder why this particular tank was added to the game.

 

[DevilDog (Teufelhund)]

Why don't we do this. Someone make an early-war Pz III and II. If CC will share the T-26, there you go. Get the Panzers modeled and Teufel can be forced/coerced to code.

Great, the one time, I have time to read the forums and this is what I'm treated to....making promises I have to keep or barely can.

With the whole Arty vs Tanks discussion, has anyone mentioned that an HE round will cause spawling inside the tank? I'm not sure how suseptible WWII tanks were to this, but I'd have to imagine that they were to some extent.

 

[K Rohm]

Regardless, the issue that originally brought this up -- that artillery shouldn't "kill" tanks in the game -- is just flat-out wrong. While it's possible for a tank to survive an artillery barrage, for game purposes, you can assume that the artillery isn't just 60mm mortars. It's heavy enough artillery to kill tanks.

I concur- It's not necessarily the 'direct hit' that kills, it's all those 'near misses' that beats the tank to a pulp and shakes the crew so badly they're combat ineffective. If you pick up a Pz3 and shake it enough the crew might as well be dead and the tank unserviceable, hence it's destruction in the game- otherwise we'd have a half-dozen tanks sitting idle, smoking in the field with crews unable to respawn.

 

[Solo4114]

My solution for the KV-1B as for balance would be to place the spawns further back from the front. In this way, the destruction of a KV penalty is that it takes longer to re-enter the battle and thus the Germans get a short advantage to advance. We'll see how it tips Berezina when I retrofit that map, but I will drop one of the two KV-S versions and add another BT7.

I think that could work. Berezina already has long respawns for the tanks (or reasonably long respawns). The Germans also have plenty of artillery to take out the KVs. One thought, however: given that BT-7s only spawn for two points in the map, and not for the second half of the map, what use will the Pz III be on the map once it's facing nothing but KV-1Bs? It has limited anti-infantry potential and it might as well be firing spitballs against a KV-1B. Unless the APCR ammo could penetrate or the flanks are vulnerable.


As for TT33's points about Russian AT troops, I agree that AT grenades would be useful, but then they'd lack any kind of effective long-range AT capacity without modeling the static AT guns. And the problem with those is, well, they're static. Play the map once and now you know exactly where they are.

 

[Sidus Preclarum]

It's also that I hate the look of the wheel arrangement on that porsche vk4501 chassis.
Yeah for me too, the jagdtiger's far better looking, despite being similar in it's boxyness as you say.

But to be honest it still looks a bit like this,

<snip>blocky Volvo Sedan pic </snip>

..but at least it's better than the ferdinand......

<snip>blocky Volvo estate pic </snip>

Compared to these two however, the elegant jagdpanther was this....

<snip> Sleek lowprofile sportscar pic </snip>

best
comparison
ever

 

[TT33]

what use will the Pz III be on the map once it's facing nothing but KV-1Bs? It has limited anti-infantry potential and it might as well be firing spitballs against a KV-1B. Unless the APCR ammo could penetrate or the flanks are vulnerable.

Well m8 the late Panzer III in game which is armed with the 50mmL/60 which with APCR ammuntion could penetrate 130mm of armor at 100m at 30 degrees. Not too shabby for a spitball since this can penetrate the front of an IS-2-not sure what the Kv-1b's armor is though. Although I know the long 75 and 88mm guns was much better against it the Stug III ausf F ( not F/8 thats a different model) gained distinction for destroying KV tanks for example.

As for TT33's points about Russian AT troops, I agree that AT grenades would be useful, but then they'd lack any kind of effective long-range AT capacity without modeling the static AT guns. And the problem with those is, well, they're static. Play the map once and now you know exactly where they are.

Theres a random spawn option for the AT guns after playing alot you should have some general idea where they might be but your not 100% certain which is realistic I would expect AT guns around trenches and important areas but I wouldnt know exactly where they are postioned. True the Russians Lack a weapon like the panzerfaust but I dont think is much of a problem due to two reasons number one the current model panzerfaust in the game is the panzerfaust 60 which was produed in the last 2 years (1944-45) of the war and two its effective accurate range is about 100 meters not excatly long range y not just run up the extra 80 or so meters to throw ur satchel/grenade-

Why don't we do this. Someone make an early-war Pz III

I would do it myself if I had the time-
There are really 2 main early war German tanks:
There is uparmored verison and the pre-uparmored verisons
The later uparmored verisons had 50mm FHA frontal armor which was proof against pretty much anything below a 76.2mm round. The other had pretty thin frontal armor, usually 30mm which was about the same as most Russian light vehicles. Keeping this in mind I think the best early war candidates which would be realistic and balanced would be:
the Panzer III F and the Panzer III G

 

[koalorka]

We seriously need the T-34 Model 1942/1943 series tanks implemented, the earlier and late 85 mm models are overrepresented.





The tank damage model needs to be revised, it still seems to use a hit point type model instead of a proper damage model, i. e. if a Tiger gets hit enough times in the engine deck it will eventually destroy the tank instead of just disabling it. There also need to be mobility kills, taking out the running gear or tracks. I really hope we get a proper tank sim to compliment the excellent infantry combat model.

 

[TT33]

Like this?:




This was a nowhere near finished T-34/76 1942 (mickey mouse tank) hardedge turret I think the other "chKz" turret was rare I did this for fun awhile ago I ment to finish this off alas I do not have time atm.
Still have to find some good refy pics especially for the interior. I was... before I became so busy gonna do a map with this T-34/1942 vs the Panzer III J/1 on a map... I hope I can go back to this soon still try to figure out uvunwrapping though I think Im getting the hang of it.

 

[K Rohm]

Okay, let's gin up a map with 'heavy armor' loaded up on one side- say Tigers, Panthers, and the proposed Ferdinand/Elefant, with a sprinkling of StuGIII's and PzIV's. On the other side, let's level the playing field, discarding the armor option: All Soviet infantry, combat engineers, and AT guys with a parking lot full of Clown Cars.

Put them on a map like Ogledow or Berezina.

Now watch the howls of "Unbalanced!!! Haxzorz!!!" come from...which side?

So far we've seen plenty of nominally 'balanced' armor vs. armor maps, why not any of the now all-important 'asymetrical' combat engagements? Surely there were plenty of areas of the Eastern Front where Rus grunts faced off against German armor.

 

[Solo4114]

On Ogledow, you'd see the Germans complaining because they'd have to send their tanks into environments that favor infantry, and (at least in stock RO), they'd still be vulnerable to satchels.

Same thing with Berezina. Without infantry support, the Germans would lose simply because they'd refuse to get into the cap zone and the Russians would just hide if the Germans started firing off HE.

 

[MAXX]

Yes it would, although that isn't a problem in RO these days. The M-10 was also open-topped, but crews would sometimes fit plates across the top anyway.


At any rate, while I think it's POSSIBLE to balance out the effect of, say, a Ferdinand/Elefant, or a KT or whatever other uber weapon you want to include, the things you'd have to do to balance it would make the map not very much fun.

Here's my thinking. In any situation where you have a single supremely powerful weapon or advantage, the side with that advantage needs corresponding disadvantages, or the other side needs a correspondingly powerful advantage.


This results in several possible (bad) scenarios:

1.) The map turns out NOT to be balanced, and one side really IS in god mode. This is, obviously, the worst scenario. For example, see "Orel Redux" or other similarly pointless fanboy wankfests.

2.) The side with the super-armor (or weapon or whatever) goes into the map with the expectation of pwnz0r1ng j00 a11, only to be disappointed by the fact that, no, the map really IS a balanced affair and the other side can fight back on equal terms. Typically, the requests (not from the realism people, necessarily, but rather from fanboys) are more about dreams of basically playing in "god mode." When it turns out they're not in "god mode" because the map is balanced, they get pissy about things, so it's better to just not bother trying to model it -- at least not when other stuff is needed more.

3.) The map is so delicately balanced that it becomes what I refer to as a "see-saw" map. Or, think of it as a "binary state" map -- you're either winning or you're losing. There's never a middle ground where things are undecided and team skill/tactics end up being the deciding factor. Maps like these basically revolve around a single aspect of the fight. IE: "Take out the KT and we win the map" or "Capture this point and we win the map." Once in a while that's fun, but generally speaking I find maps like this intensely boring. They involve, basically, one side or the other being incredibly frustrated at one point during the map. An example of this would be if the Ferdinand was in, it'd be basically indestructible without being taken out by, let's say, six satchel charges. Up until that point, Russian armor would be utterly annihilated and the map would be extremely frustrating for the Russians. Once the Ferdinand was taken out, it wouldn't respawn and the Germans would only have Panzer IIIs to fight the rest of the battle (obviously, to balance out the Ferdinand's effectiveness). So, once the Ferdinand is dead, the map becomes frustrating for the Germans.

Maps like that suck, in my opinion. They also are often incredibly one-dimensional because all of the focus revolves around the one side's incredible advantage and neutralizing that advantage. Then once the advantage is gone, to balance things out, the side who had it is basically left undefended. I used to see this alot in Forgotten Hope maps where one side would have a massive terrain advantage or the Germans would have some incredibly powerful armor that when killed or stolen would result in a guaranteed Allied victory. Like I said, maps like that are a real drag to play, in my opinion.



Regardless, while I'm not against having these things added, there are (to my view) far better choices like the Marder III that could be added to really flesh out the game in a way that DOESN'T require "see-saw" balance on maps. Likewise, I don't think we should be adding stuff that adds very little by way of different gameplay. Right now, tanking is pretty much a "drive, park, and shoot" affair. Only on the 88 v. 76 matchups does maneuvering really count for anything. Late war (and a fair bit of mid-war) armor would result in more of the same style of gameplay. On the other hand, early war fighting, due to the drastically different nature of tank combat, could get really interesting.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a tank map with KV-1Ss and BT-7s going up against Pz IIIs and Pz-IV F1s. If we could flesh that out to include Marders, Pz IIs, T-26s (with the 45mm gun), etc. it would make for a matchup of radically different tank doctrines wherein success would depend far more on maneuvering, clever use of terrain, and combined arms, instead of simply "park and shoot" gameplay.

Arad recon is kind of a maneuverfest. I like it if only for the fun of driving the BT7. One of those early war Leningrad area battles where lots of Russians hit the German flanks might be fun.

 

[TT33]

Ogledow, you'd see the Germans complaining because they'd have to send their tanks into environments that favor infantry, and (at least in stock RO), they'd still be vulnerable to satchels.

..and its way too small I do not even have to move my range dial, the Russians get the overpowered PTRD which the side skirsts of the IV can not stop for some reason and lastly the panzerfausts are made easily accessable to the Russians which is not right. Perhaps in the very late war in 1945 the Russians may have gotten the Panzerfaust in a illdistrubuted handfuls but that was 1945 not 1944- and it was a battlefield rareity . So there really wouldnt be an unlimited panzerfaust spawn hidden in a barn more like a single panzerfaust maybe.

All Soviet infantry, combat engineers, and AT guys with a parking lot full of Clown Cars.

Ok if you think Russian armor is not as good as clown cars.
Anyway m8 it is unrealistic and well unnessessary-the clowncar typically in Stock RO takes 2 shots( Ive also had weird times when it deflects even an 88 round) to kill it has a self-righting ability, and the infantry can get out of the Clowncar blow a tank and speed away in seconds, not to mention the fact that people can easily get on it and and throw satchels with out getting out of the vehicle, oh and the ninja ability where you can not hear it coming until after it ran you down. Thats not a fun map everyone would leave after a bit what we need is a nice big full-blooded tank map with nice big vehicles that would be fun. Clowncars + satchels should never be put in any map!! Even the clowncar by itself is not a good idea. One lone guy in that thing can recap most obj in Ro-orel for example before someone manges to kill it or even win the map if he can evade pretty good even when the real russian tankers are all supressed at the last point. This vehicle is very detrimental to tanking in RO. Its why I dont play the orignial "Orel" anymore.

 

[elenboreth]

As for TT33's points about Russian AT troops, I agree that AT grenades would be useful, but then they'd lack any kind of effective long-range AT capacity without modeling the static AT guns. And the problem with those is, well, they're static. Play the map once and now you know exactly where they are.

To me, the whole point of an infantry is that he can't take out a tank at long range. From what I know of WW2, the maximium range you could expect a guy on foot to take out a tank was 30 meters, I actually own a book on World War 2 infantry anti tank tactics.

From reading that, it under, lines how much all armies relied on short range combat, throwing molotovs/sticky bombs, mines, even logs that have been thrown across a road.

Anti-tank rifles have been covered, they were obslete by the end of the war, and were mainly used to shoot the crewman. An Anti-tank rifle shoots a big bullet, not an exploding shell or anything else like that.

I'd like to take a minute to explain how infantry anti-tank tactics worked (acording to the osprey book I own). On several places mines have been mentioned, normally as a booby trap or other weapon. Infact, they weren't used to kill, they were used to deny a route, just the same as placing 10 or so big logs across a road.

By denying these routes, you could funnel the enemy tanks into terrain where you could get closer than 30 meters. Then you'd throw grenades, captured panzerfausts or molotovs.


The problem with infantry fighting against tanks is that you need to be up close and personal, when I use a panzerfaust, I never shoot it on anything other than the 30 mark, because I don't trust it to penetrate any further away. However, when I do shoot it, I am close enough to aim for a kill spot.

As far as tanks shooting against tanks, I would like to see more kill zones, and a more accurate penetration system. Being able to kill crew would make the anti tank rifles be able to work more like real counter parts.