Add T-34 M1943 with Hexagonal Turret
- Thread starter HSCN-II-gd1944
- Start date
No, I see no crack.......
The Russian armor is rough in the surface, because it's casted, but it's not cracked. Actually, the armor steel is stronger than the Germans', especially in the late days.
I'd wager in the early days the German armour quality was much above that of the early Russian armour. Tanks like the early Tigers and Panthers were famous for their armour quality (and infamous for the huge cost of said armour). Russian armour was still rather prone to spalling even at the end of the war.
That said.. as the war progressed I'm very certain Russian armour quality surpassed Germany.
Upvote
0
Newsflash: it's ALWAYS been gameplay oriented.
The M38 and M44 have significant differences from the 91/30, which directly affect gameplay and in a noticeable way.
The universal carrier was a necessity because the Russians in game didn't have ANY kind of armored troop transport.
By contrast, the version of the tank that you want to have added basically has a cupola.....and that's about it. Cupolas make almost no difference in tank combat usually, at least in this game. If the turret from the 1942/1943 models had higher armor it really doesn't mean squat because the game doesn't MODEL turret armor independently from hull armor. Ever notice how you can shoot a tank on the front (most armored) part of the turret, but because the hull's facing sideways you kill it in 2 shots? Whereas when the hull's angled perfectly, even if you shoot the tank in the BACK of the turret, your shot will glance off? That's because turrets don't seem to count in the armor system.
So, basically, adding this stuff to the game amounts to a whole lot of work to basically make something that's already there. the only difference is cosmetic. Period.
In the meantime, you could take the same developer resources and put them towards making OTHER models, like, say, a T-28, T-26, Pz II, Pz 38(t), BT-7 or a number of other early-war tanks which would play COMPLETELY differently from the mid- and late-war tanks. If you're as much of a tank afficionado as you seem to be, I'm sure you recognize the considerable differences in terms of strategies required to be effective using early war equipment vs. mid-to-late war equipment.
So basically, this shouldn't be done BY TRIPWIRE beacause it's: (a) more of the same (IE: no gameplay differences in driving a hex turret vs. driving a pre-hex turret), and (b) it's purely cosmetic.
We could probably also petition Tripwire to add in a female sniper model and voices, because the Russians had female snipers....but why? why spend the time? Why use the dev resources for that when they could be working on other things that will be FUNCTIONALLY different in addition to merely COSMETICALLY different?
Also, I'm not saying NO ONE should make this. If some enterprising modeller out there wants to build and skin a T-34 1943 model, hey, great. I'm all for it. I'd love to see more models. I just think Tripwire's in a better position to use its resources to expand on the gameplay experience, rather than to simply make functionally identical, cosmetically different stuff. Let the community pick up the slack when it comes to adding in every little variant of every piece of equipment.
Upvote
0
It would bring better gameplay because: Bigger ammoloadout(100 maingun rounds sand 3600 rounds of MG ammo stowed) as opposed to the 77 maingun rounds and 2275 MG rounds carried by the Model 42, stronger turret armour and better view from the unbuttoned turret due to smaller hatches or even by use of the periscope(which sadly is not represented in the present T-34) all of which translates into better survivability and staying power of the Model 43 when compared to the Model 41/42 and thus it provides the Russian side better gameplay.
Upvote
0
First, let me address the gains to gameplay you mentioned:
1.) Greater ammo: A minor improvement at best. I almost never run out of ammo before I die. This is like saying "We should add [insert argued-for realistic bandolier here] to German troops because they had it and it would allow them to have 10 magazines instead of 9." Yes, the extra magazine would be great, but how often is it even really an issue?
2.) Better view unbuttoned: This is true to some degree, but again, a minor improvement. Based on the pictures, the hatch still opens to the front to obscure the commander's vision (while presumably protecting from small arms fire).
3.) Better turret armor: I've addressed this already, several times. The game does not seem to model independent turret armor. It's a flaw, I agree, but there it is. When I shoot from a perfectly angled tank, no matter where my turret is oriented, the shots will bounce off. When I shoot from a vulnerable hull orientation, even if my turret is angled perfectly, I'll still take damage whereas otherwise it'd ricochet off. IF the turret armor was modeled properly, this MIGHT be a justification for adding this model, but only as an answer to the Pz IV H.
4.) Better survivability: They said the same thing about the Pz IV H. I don't find it any more or less survivable than the Pz IV F2, honestly. When you're not properly lined up you still seem to take two shots to die. When you are properly aligned, you can withstand quite a beating for a while -- just as you could with the F2. I rarely encounter PTRDs, and I almost NEVER encounter PTRDs used effectively or properly (it's always some guy chipping the paint, rather than lying in ambush and shooting at close range). The range of "good angling" might've increased slightly, but for the most part, it didnt' seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference. It's a nice little cosmetic addition and it shut up some of the German fanboys, which is nice. I still question whether it was worth the time and effort.
Likewise, I don't see the 1943 model as being all THAT much more survivable that you'd notice it in combat. Maybe the once-in-a-blue-moon shot that you manage to survive that would've killed you in a 41/42 model, but those shots seem rare enough that I wouldn't spend the time modeling this if I were one of the devs.
On the other hand, don't let any of this stop YOU from modelling the tank if you want it that badly. I'm all for the community stepping up and filling in whatever gaps it perceives in the game's loadout. If you want the 1943 model with the circular rivets insead of the hexagonal ones, and that had the radio antenna that was 0.05 mm longer and therefore could pick up Radio Free Europe that much better, hey, go for it. If some guy wants to add the Pz XXVII Q7 with the 79.02mm cannon instead of the 78mm cannon, and that only came in a perrywinkle paint job, more power to him.
But I think Tripwire should focus on broadly expanding the gameplay elements, rather than spending a bunch of time to give us more of the same, but now with "mickey mouse" hatches. I view it as a question of diminishing returns for the upfront investment.
Upvote
0
Well, I'm all for a change in the armor system, whenever the devs have the time and resources to concentrate on it. If that changes first, then we can have all the tanks that can be feasibly represented, including this one.
And anyway, as to the rest of your argument, the PzIV H replaced the PzIV F (I think it was the F) mainly because it was more common. If it could be done for the PzIV H, it can be done for the M1943.
Upvote
0
Hear hear, solo!
I'd like to ask one thing:
Would you really want a third T-34 model...
and BEFORE YOU ANSWER, check the condition below:
if it meant that you would then not get a new tank model, like the T-26, BT-7, SdKfz-222 or the King Tiger (or whatever you might fancy)?
Because it's a fact that the devs' time is limited and thus, IMO, it would be folly making changes which are mostly cosmetic in nature, when there are dozens of tanks still not presented in the game, like Marders, Hetzers, Nashorns, Elefants, King Tigers, Brummb
I'd like to ask one thing:
Would you really want a third T-34 model...
and BEFORE YOU ANSWER, check the condition below:
if it meant that you would then not get a new tank model, like the T-26, BT-7, SdKfz-222 or the King Tiger (or whatever you might fancy)?
Because it's a fact that the devs' time is limited and thus, IMO, it would be folly making changes which are mostly cosmetic in nature, when there are dozens of tanks still not presented in the game, like Marders, Hetzers, Nashorns, Elefants, King Tigers, Brummb
Upvote
0
It is the small things that make a game worth playing for a long time and things like not having the T-34 Model 43 or Pz III L/M is a thing that will slowly but surely erode gaming pleasure and thus the enjoyment and fun of playing RO or other games..
It is true that adding the T-34 Model 43 will not change much gameplay but nor will it change the current balance of power between the two sides tanks.
Introducing the ISU 152, SU-100 for the Russian side will necessitate introduction of the Ferdinand/Elephant, Pz VI B or Jagdpanzer V if gamebalance is to be maintained meaning that by just adding the SU-100 for example the Germans will be at an disadvantadge if real life forces ratios are to be followed rigidly.
Even if early war tanks like the KV-1 is introduced the germans would have to have towed 88's in order to have a fighting chance to knock them out as most maps won't allow for the tactical manouvering that the Germans used to their advantadge in order to gain flanking positions/shots of the heavy Russian tanks.
The argument that by adding the T-34 Model 43 would only bring more, and perhaps unnecessary, work to the mapmakers I have this to say: So would the introduction of any other vehicle or gun..
Right now seeing the same two types of T-34 is like eating the same dish for dinner everyday - it tastes good but in the long run it gets tiresome and dull from lack of diversity..
It is true that adding the T-34 Model 43 will not change much gameplay but nor will it change the current balance of power between the two sides tanks.
Introducing the ISU 152, SU-100 for the Russian side will necessitate introduction of the Ferdinand/Elephant, Pz VI B or Jagdpanzer V if gamebalance is to be maintained meaning that by just adding the SU-100 for example the Germans will be at an disadvantadge if real life forces ratios are to be followed rigidly.
Even if early war tanks like the KV-1 is introduced the germans would have to have towed 88's in order to have a fighting chance to knock them out as most maps won't allow for the tactical manouvering that the Germans used to their advantadge in order to gain flanking positions/shots of the heavy Russian tanks.
The argument that by adding the T-34 Model 43 would only bring more, and perhaps unnecessary, work to the mapmakers I have this to say: So would the introduction of any other vehicle or gun..
Right now seeing the same two types of T-34 is like eating the same dish for dinner everyday - it tastes good but in the long run it gets tiresome and dull from lack of diversity..
Upvote
0
Well, as long as we're using culinary analogies, think of it like this.
You plan a meal and decide to serve a nice Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon. You pick a label that you like, and select their 2002 bottle. The 2002 will go great with your main course, and you know everyone will like it (they've had it before).
Now, while you're at the liquor store, you are planning your starting course as well. You happen to have a fairly versatile starting dish that actually can take red or white. You decide that you can either serve the 2003 cabernet sauvignon from the same vintner as the 2002....or you can go with a white wine and serve a Russian River Valley chardonnay. But here's the catch -- you can only afford two bottles and you know you're already serving the 2002.
The 2003 tastes pretty much the same as the 2002. It's got a different label design, and maybe it's got a little less body than the 2002, but basically the two wines are the same. Certainly your guests won't be able to distinguish between the two (their palatte is nowhere near as refined as yours).
On the other hand, you can give them an entirely different experience by pairing your starting course with a white wine. Not only is the white drastically different from the 2003 red, it'll also bring out completely different flavors from the starting dish.
So, what to do....what to do.... Go with the red that tastes pretty much the same as the one you'll serve with the main course? Or go with the white that'll be a completely different experience for everyone?
That's the kind of choice I think the devs looking at here. Sure, they can add a nearly identical variant of a given tank for either side (1943 T-34, Stug IIIg, Panther B, etc.). Or they can add vehicles that will provide a completely different experience from what we have now. So, which would YOU rather have? More of the same, or something totally different? You mention that eating the same meal gets boring after a while. I agree completely, and it's why I suggest a focus on early-war tanks rather than "me too" mid/late-war tanks.
Tank combat between medium tanks and heavy tanks is already well represented. Are there missing models? Sure. But we've got a pretty savvy community here. Let them pick up the slack and add the endless german and russian variants if those tanks will pretty much play the same way as the ones we have. It's just a skin/model job then, and maybe a few minor tweaks to performance.
But tank combat with cavalry tanks, infantry tanks, scout tanks, etc. -- the early war stuff -- is completely different. Tank doctrine had begun to change for the Germans in Poland and France, and definitely changed on the eastern front. Russian tank doctrine had started changing during the winter war and changed further when the Germans showed up. We've already got the "after" of this change. I'd personally like to see the "before" because it's REALLY different. BT-7s, T-26s, and the occasional T-28 would play VERY differently against a force of Pz 38(t)s, Hetzers, Marders, Pz IV Ds, and earlier model Pz IIIs.
So, given the limited resources, I'd rather have a game that plays like new than a game that plays like "Same great taste, brand new can!"
You plan a meal and decide to serve a nice Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon. You pick a label that you like, and select their 2002 bottle. The 2002 will go great with your main course, and you know everyone will like it (they've had it before).
Now, while you're at the liquor store, you are planning your starting course as well. You happen to have a fairly versatile starting dish that actually can take red or white. You decide that you can either serve the 2003 cabernet sauvignon from the same vintner as the 2002....or you can go with a white wine and serve a Russian River Valley chardonnay. But here's the catch -- you can only afford two bottles and you know you're already serving the 2002.
The 2003 tastes pretty much the same as the 2002. It's got a different label design, and maybe it's got a little less body than the 2002, but basically the two wines are the same. Certainly your guests won't be able to distinguish between the two (their palatte is nowhere near as refined as yours).
On the other hand, you can give them an entirely different experience by pairing your starting course with a white wine. Not only is the white drastically different from the 2003 red, it'll also bring out completely different flavors from the starting dish.
So, what to do....what to do.... Go with the red that tastes pretty much the same as the one you'll serve with the main course? Or go with the white that'll be a completely different experience for everyone?
That's the kind of choice I think the devs looking at here. Sure, they can add a nearly identical variant of a given tank for either side (1943 T-34, Stug IIIg, Panther B, etc.). Or they can add vehicles that will provide a completely different experience from what we have now. So, which would YOU rather have? More of the same, or something totally different? You mention that eating the same meal gets boring after a while. I agree completely, and it's why I suggest a focus on early-war tanks rather than "me too" mid/late-war tanks.
Tank combat between medium tanks and heavy tanks is already well represented. Are there missing models? Sure. But we've got a pretty savvy community here. Let them pick up the slack and add the endless german and russian variants if those tanks will pretty much play the same way as the ones we have. It's just a skin/model job then, and maybe a few minor tweaks to performance.
But tank combat with cavalry tanks, infantry tanks, scout tanks, etc. -- the early war stuff -- is completely different. Tank doctrine had begun to change for the Germans in Poland and France, and definitely changed on the eastern front. Russian tank doctrine had started changing during the winter war and changed further when the Germans showed up. We've already got the "after" of this change. I'd personally like to see the "before" because it's REALLY different. BT-7s, T-26s, and the occasional T-28 would play VERY differently against a force of Pz 38(t)s, Hetzers, Marders, Pz IV Ds, and earlier model Pz IIIs.
So, given the limited resources, I'd rather have a game that plays like new than a game that plays like "Same great taste, brand new can!"
Upvote
0
What "new" experience will any new addition of tanks really provide? - They can shoot a cannon at other tanks or infantry and the coaxial MG and perhaps even a bow MG at infantry and lightly armoured vehicles. They will also be able to destroyed themselves by other tanks or infantry Anti Tank weapons like the Panzerfaust etc etc. Bringing new vehicles will not add any new experience but it will add to the flavour of the game and that alone is reason enough for adding the T-34 Model 43, Pz III M, StuG IIIG etc. etc. Having a 100 mm gun on a SU-100 will not change the game in a dramatically new way as we already have the 122mm maingun for the IS2 nor will introducing the Tiger II.
In short any new addition of vehicles to RO will not change in how the game is played or the balance of power but it will make the game more diverse for the mapmakers.
In short any new addition of vehicles to RO will not change in how the game is played or the balance of power but it will make the game more diverse for the mapmakers.
Upvote
0
And how does that help your cause? How does what you just said make the Mickey Mouse model of the T-34 any better than the numerous tanks that are not in the game? Which is your opinion: are you for adding new tanks or against adding new tanks?
In short: you're contradicting yourself.
A new tank is a welcome sight on the battlefield, because people need to learn how to fight with them and against them, and I bet the Marder is a much different experience from the StuG despite their rather similar roles, but I doubt that yet another T-34 model would be that much different!
You refuse to understand the idea of having variation. How exactly will the Mickey Mouse hatches and a hexagonal turret, that can't even be implemented in the game, add more flavour to the game than a brand new tank model with a varying speed, armour, shape and armament?
You seem to have an answer to everything so, please, share it with us.
In short: you're contradicting yourself.
A new tank is a welcome sight on the battlefield, because people need to learn how to fight with them and against them, and I bet the Marder is a much different experience from the StuG despite their rather similar roles, but I doubt that yet another T-34 model would be that much different!
You refuse to understand the idea of having variation. How exactly will the Mickey Mouse hatches and a hexagonal turret, that can't even be implemented in the game, add more flavour to the game than a brand new tank model with a varying speed, armour, shape and armament?
You seem to have an answer to everything so, please, share it with us.
Upvote
0
I'll try to explain this here. When I say it'd be a different game experience, I don't simply mean the "Tanks shoot at other tanks". Although that in and of itself is something pretty different about early-war tank doctrine -- the ROLES of the tanks were much more varied than the mid and late war tanks. Bear in mind that role aren't always identical. You can have a heavy infantry tank or a light infantry tank, for example.
Early in the war, armored forces were pretty heterogenous. I'll use some examples from the German tank forces. Take the Pz IV D (which is similar in many ways to the F1 in game). The Pz IV D has a short barreled 75mm cannon. It's designed primarily as an anti-infantry platform, as evidenced by the fact that it shoots shells at a lower velocity than its counterpart, the Pz III. The Pz III is primarily designed for anti-armor work. It shoots a smaller, but higher velocity round. Early in the war this was a 37mm round, but it gets upgraded to a 50mm round by the time of Operation Barbarossa. As I understand it, both tanks had a similar top speed, and were designed to operate alongside each other. Both were of "medium" weight, and the Pz IV, as you know, was later redesigned to operate in a more "universal" role where it could take on both enemy infantry and enemy armor.
That division of labor alone -- the difference between an anti-infantry tank and an anti-armor tank (not necessarily a tank destroyer, though) is drastically different from the mid-war "Medium tank" that simply does it all (or at least does a lot of the work equally).
By contrast, consider the following two types of tanks, which were more prevalent in the early war:
Infantry tanks: generally slower-moving, heavily armored tanks designed to move alongside the infantry, and to provide anti-infantry and anti-fortification support. They were designed to punch holes in enemy lines.
Cruiser/cavalry tanks: Lighter armored and with somewhat lighter weaponry, these tanks were supposed to move quickly (as the name implies), and to take advantage of the existing holes in enemy lines that had been created by the infantry tanks and infantry.
Now, bear in mind that, as I said, you can have both light infantry tanks (IE: T-26) and heavy infantry tanks (IE: KV-1, KV-1S, KV-2).
All of these tanks have very different strengths and weaknesses that a competent tanker must play to. For example, the BT-7 tank has a very high top speed, but relatively light armor and a 45mm main cannon. That's drastically different from a T-60 which has somewhat heavier armor, but a slower top speed, and which mounts a 20mm cannon.
If you try to drive EITHER of those tanks the same way you do, say, a Pz IV H, you'll end up getting yourself killed quite a bit. On the other hand, if you use the tanks in their intended roles, or play smart and use them to take on the right targets (IE: take a BT-7 up against Pz IIIs and Pz IVs using flanking maneuvers and capitalizing on its speed; take a T-60 and put it in an anti-infantry or anti light vehicle role) you may do pretty well. Some of this will also depend on the forces you face.
But like I said, you can't drive these vehicles like the standard medium tanks we have and expect to do well. THAT's where the difference comes in -- in the way the player has to adjust their tactics to suit the equipment, rather then "Oooh, look. It's a T-34 with a different shaped turret." Or even "Hey, look, it's ANOTHER big heavy German tank that parks somewhere and shoots at stuff".
Upvote
0
The hexagonal turret was not better. It was cheaper. It had more places for crew. In 1940 T-34 was not cheap. It was very expensive . All changes up to 1943, is attempts to make it more cheaply , increase a mechanical resource and to clean bugs. It had million bugs.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If you really want to introduce tanks which maybe or maybe not will provide a "different" game experince may I suggest that you try to create them yourselves so you can make them the exact way you want them to be and also design the maps that needs to made in order to be able to use the new additions of vehicles in the most effective and realistic way. The game could benefit from more additions of all kinds from vehicles to new uniforms and argueing about which new addition is better is both futile and pointless. This thread is about the T-34 with the hexagonal turret and not everything else so please if you have wishes for introducing early war tanks or other vehicles nor presently in game make a thread concerning that and we can discuss that subject there instead of here.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's the point though: it's an either/or decision. You can either add one tank or you can use those same resources and add another. I'd be delighted if we had every variant of tank from the eastern front to choose from. We don't, and we won't. So which is a better expenditure of Tripwire's resources? Making a "me too" model of the T-34 that has no functional difference to speak of, or making tanks that'd play differently? I think it's a waste of time and resources for TRIPWIRE (not the players) to make a tank that has cosmetic differences and little else to distinguish it.
Instead, I'd prefer tanks that provide a more varied gameplay experience. Something that goes beyond "ooooh pretty". All of this is entirely and directly relevant to the topic at hand.
Instead, I'd prefer tanks that provide a more varied gameplay experience. Something that goes beyond "ooooh pretty". All of this is entirely and directly relevant to the topic at hand.
Upvote
0