Russian Unit Roster Holes

[Kerensky]

I would say the German units looks pretty complete. I'm sure some people will disagree, and modders will add things like the Goliath, Coelion, volksturm, panzer grenadiers, 12.8cm PaK ATG, Maultier, FW-190A-3 and FW-190A-8, he-111 zwilling, et cetera eventually, but I feel there is a good enough stock variety of German units to compensate for any holes.

I can't really judge the British or American units yet, but just looking at the editor place holders, they seem okay, but we won't know for certain until we see them in action.

The Russians, however, I feel are lacking too much.
I can easily forgive some of the gaps, such as the T-28, T-35, T-40, T-50, BA 6, BA 20, IS-3, super heavy artillery and mortars, LA-9 fighter,and so on. These are units that are almost completely unnecessary and would only be nice bonuses.
There are some items I'm on the fence over though. Such as: ALL Lend Lease equipment, SMG Infantry, Mountain Infantry, 100mm BS-3 ATG, 85mm ZP-39 ATG, I-15 fighter, ZiS-30 SP ATG, T-44, OT-34, KV-8s Flamethrower, and so on. These are units I feel should have a presence in the game, but I'm not going to really argue for because they aren't vital.
However, there are a few units I feel are critically lacking. To be exact, these units are: KV-85(And/OR IS-1), light air-defense units(ZP-39 37mm AA, ZP-40 25mm AA, Zis 42 w/37mm AA Guns), transport choices (currently they only have the one single truck).

I mentioned the Tank problem, but I'll repost it here too:

I implore you to add the KV-85, not just because I adored the tank. Definitely my favorite Russian tank of the war. The big turret on a little T-34-85 body never looked right to me, and the stronger and larger KV frame fits the turret in a much more aesthetically pleasing way. Plus in terms of game play, I already dread the idea of 'what high defense value unit can I use against German armor' because my the only tank option is going to be the IS-2, which is near worthless, as far as I'm concerned, because of it's pitiful ammunition supply. The standard choice of SU-85, SU-100, ISU-122, all have the same problem as the IS-2, terrible ammunition reserves, in addition to the other drawbacks of being assault guns.
From an art standpoint, the KV-85 wouldn't even be hard to make. Chop the turret off of a KV-1 chassis, grab the turret on a T-34/85, make it a tiny bit larger, and paste it back on. That's essentially what the KV-85 was, same chassis with a different turret.


Good KV-85 literature:
http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-devel ... -kv85.html
Opening sentence:

The KV-85 Heavy Tank was not an epochal machine in the history of Russian tank design and construction. Although it was not produced in the thousands, this tank still made a contribution to the victory over fascism.

The (lack of) light air-defense units:
When every single AD unit the Russian AI floods the battle with are 85mm units, even in Barbarossa 1941, that does just not sit right at all. Even if the whole AD unit class is rebalanced to be less of an impenetrable air umbrella and extremely potent anti-ground defensive unit, we're still talking about a gun that is nearly the equivalent of an 88mm being the basic, best, and only, choice for Soviet Air Defense. At some later point, they get the T-90 SPAAG, which I'm fairly certain the AI is going to avoid anyways. The idea that pretty much every single Russian AD unit the player will encounter from 1941 to 1945 being an 85mm stuns me.

Compared to the lack of well protected, high armor value Soviet tanks, and the lack of light AD units, the lack of choices for transport really isn't all that important. More of an annoyance, but then historically I don't think the Russian motorized many of their units, I mean how many times have we seen pictures of infantry riding on top of the tanks as a means of transport? If the Russians could 'load' infantry units on to their armor units, that would be amazing and perfect, but I'm not holding my breath for that. If you devs are open to the idea of that being a Russian specialty, I'd enjoy the opportunity to convince you of it's merits, as well as balance it to be useful but not overpowered.

[boredatwork]

If the Russians could 'load' infantry units on to their armor units, that would be amazing and perfect, but I'm not holding my breath for that. If you devs are open to the idea of that being a Russian specialty, I'd enjoy the opportunity to convince you of it's merits, as well as balance it to be useful but not overpowered.

I'm not sure how easily you could simulate tank riders as actual on map mechanics.

Allowing tank units to "pick-up" infantry units and move them around the battle opens up a whole pandora's box of problems in the context of a 1UPT combat system

I suppose you could make T-34s a transport option to russian infantry however that wouldn't fully give the behavior desired - the infantry would be too protected while mounted, the T-34s would be too vulnerable while dismounted. Not to mention the complaints "how come I can't give Panther transport to my Pioneers?"

IMO the best option would be give all late(1943+) russian tank units much higher close defense values and maybe little men perched on the back. AFAIK that would probably simulate the effect of tank descent infantry and allow the russian player to throw tanks at entrenched units without actually adding any complexity to the game.

[Kerensky]

I wouldn't mind seeing like something that, perhaps a more expensive version of the same tank with better close defense values, visually different with the addition of infantry sharing the hex in some way. I have some ideas for making tanks 'pick up' infantry, but I'm waiting to hear back a response on the entire idea before I take the time to really explain specific mechanics. The central idea is that infantry can 'hop on' to a tank as their action, 'hop off' as another action, and while they are 'hopped on' they are extremely vulnerable (take twice as many causalities as the tank does if the tank engages in combat) and provide no combat benefit.

While we're talking about Russian units though, the KV-2 looks wrong. Turret isn't square enough, it should look more like the square shape of the KV-1, barrel is way too long, and barrel is also too thin.

VSand

[uran21]

I made a mistake and provided blueprint for KV-5 instead of KV-2.

[Kerensky]

I made a mistake and provided blueprint for KV-5 instead of KV-2.

Now that you mention it, yea that's totally a KV-5. The in game unit even has that little mini-turret. lol

Rather than delete the KV-5 and make a new KV-2, any chance you can just leave the KV-5 in game as another unit, and then add the KV-2 as well? Would be a waste to just throw away a perfectly good unit PNG.

Any thoughts on KV-85 or light AD units though?

[comradep]

Preferably, no side should get too many ahistorical capabilities. The Soviets were really lacking self-propelled AA units, self-propelled non-rocket artillery, "build in the USSR" trucks* and mobile heavy tanks with a good gun until 1943-1944.

In PG2, some e-file mods included infantry with a T-34 as its transport to model infantry riding shotgun on tanks. However, I disagree that infantry on tanks should give a better close defence value. A few MG sprays and most of the infantry riding the tanks would be dead or wounded. It was a convenient transport option when trucks were lacking, but it didn't provide protection to the infantry or the tank. A game like SPWWII models it quite well.

* Soviet truck production essentially imploded during the war as truck factories switched to light tank production. Soviet trucks were in many cases inferior to the higher quality US or German designs in any case, which was modelled well with a decreased movement rate compared to the trucks of other nations in previous PG titles.

[Kerensky]

Steel Panthers? Tankodsantniki were my favorite infantry. That's more or less what I had in mind, if that's what you are referring to.

And 1943-1944 is exactly when the KV-85 showed up. Late 1943 to early 1944 to be more precise.

[uran21]

KV-85 is an interesting design. Actually early on it was on the list for consideration but removed for rationalization.

By its armour it is between IS-2 and T-34-85, it has same firepower as T-34-85. Ammo load is slightly better from T-34-85 and much better than IS-2. T-34-85 for thinner armour compensates with higher speed (movement). In prospect of time only scenario where it could be used as a stopgap is Moscow 43 (but in that parallel history Soviet armour is destroyed at Kursk ). So the only real advantage to IS-2 is actually ammo load. Which lead us to question about ammo.
Ammo is one of statistics that can represent flow of particular unit but it should not be element of frustration and reason not to use such unit at all. In other words either resupply either minimum ammo load will be reconsidered.

Production of 3D models is over and I am afraid we will need to live with some existing flaws. To do some changes with 2D icons there is a problem because unit will also be represented in purchase screen under different angle. And an all that graphic section is currently overloaded with work. So no big hopes for this sequel.

In the case of KV-85 I think there will be enough compensation not to make it more potentially important unit than it was historically.

As a side note you noticed double role 88. It is actually experiment for "transformer" units. There is a button in UI which purpose is to transform particular unit to serve in a different role for that turn. So there will be no two different units but one unit with ability to serve in different roles. Such feature will be used for Soviet assault guns as well.

I agree that without light AA Soviet roster looks incomplete comparing to others. (Reason for it is perception they favoured higher calibre weapons in all segments.)
Probably we should have 37 mm type. Maybe it can be solved trough Bofors icon. Do note that in some cases icon used is not the same as real weapon. Reason is of course rationalization.Mostly found in minor nations and Italy.

[Kerensky]

Not just ammo load, but price tag as well. But if you guys are done with models, then there's no point in arguing anymore.
The Bofors wouldn't bother me personally. It's more of a game play point that Soviets have a form of light AD, so I encourage it to be implemented in.

[Dragoon24]

In PG2, some e-file mods included infantry with a T-34 as its transport to model infantry riding shotgun on tanks. However, I disagree that infantry on tanks should give a better close defence value. A few MG sprays and most of the infantry riding the tanks would be dead or wounded. It was a convenient transport option when trucks were lacking, but it didn't provide protection to the infantry or the tank. A game like SPWWII models it quite well.

comradep there is a very large difference between tank riders and tankodesantniki. The standard TO&E of a Russian Tank Corp had a 'motorized' Rifle Brigade whose job was to aid and support the tank brigades and clear out infantry positions. Since transports were hard to come by (especially in '41 and '42) this force often deployed as tank-riders and fought in a similar fashion to other tank-borne infantry namely they would dismount before the actual engagement area and fight dismounted, they only used the tanks as strategic transports. This is the same way the British, Germans, and Americans used tank-riders. However separate from those troops Russian Tank Brigades had their own imbedded infantry (the tankodesantniki) whose job was to stay on the tanks during combat and specifically engage enemy infantry and anti-tank positions while mounted on their tanks. This tactic was very unorthodox and it was effective in surprising the Germans as it removed a tanks biggest weakness in assault, it's ability to be blind-sided and surprised.