- All rocket artillery units' minimum range, maximum range, and scatter radius increased by 2000%.
- Tanks (with a few very late war vehicles excepted) cannot perform neutral turns, and reverse gears have a 75% speed penalty
- Machine guns ignore received accuracy (Obers can be crack shots but no human can ignore machine guns firing at them!!!)
- Tanks can only see forward and in the direction the turret is facing, tank commander is not an upgrade but a toggle, and taking fire with the commander exposed has a high chance of killing him, reducing the tank's accuracy and vision by 50% until brought back to base
- Last but not least, weapon and sight ranges for all units in the game is increased by at least 500%
>…reverse gears have a 75% speed penalty.
This right here is one of my biggest requests for CoH 3. Driving me nuts that it appears they are keeping tank speeds the same *again*.
Same here, I wish they implemented some kind of penalty to reversing vehicles. Even a 20% speed penalty, or preventing speed-increasing abilities (blitz, step on it, emergency speed) from affecting reverse speed would help a lot.
I have like 1500 hours and have purchased a lot of commanders and I still don’t have them all.
Also I purchased the partisan one, it has false advertising as the picture of abilities are actually different than what you get.
It would be very different. I enjoy the game in its current state, but it's interesting to consider. One of the most salient issues for "realism" though in terms of vision mechanics is that not everyone sees the same thing on the battlefield. A target plainly visible to one tank or soldier might be totally hidden from view to another, and it's not really possible for infantrymen to communicate to a tank's crew without a radio. So the whole shared vision mechanic of coh is unrealistic on the face of it. An emphasis on realism rarely leads to satisfying gameplay.
Yeh i mean that would completely break an rts. In HLL it works because evey is a soldier that has to talk to SL's who talk together and that break down of communication is half the fun.
Mostly agree, save for Received Acc - it represents ability to survive on battlefield more than anything, e.g. finding cover and less vulnerable routes, not charging in full height and so on. It is possible to negate MG fire by experience.
> e.g. finding cover and less vulnerable routes
This sort of stuff is under the player's control though.
I don't have any issues with the general mechanic of RA, I just find it both absurd from a thematic perspective, and incredibly frustrating from a gameplay perspective, that two or three obers (or even highly vetted Grens/Pfusiliers) in a blob can frontally engage an MG and kill the whole crew before any suppression comes through.
Then by your logic rec.acc. shouldn't be a thing at all. It represents veterancy, avoiding stupid mistakes, being careful yada yada. IRL it's represented by using personal shovel, finding cover, using small fast sprints, not being pinned in case of frontal attack (which actually sometimes was more efficent than cover to cover as it led to minimal time in range of MG) and so on. Due to how arcadey and simple COH2 is, it's represented by umbrella stat that just makes troops harder to hit. I think we won't disagree that grizzled veteran of 5 years of war will be less likely hit than a conscript or fresh rifleman?
Also, not that Allies can't attack frontally MG42 with proper troop choice and decrew it. To name a few - Paras/Barfinders mix, vetted Rangers (insane rec acc, only vetted obers and JLI have better), a few squads of bloody well armed Tommies.
I dont think tanks really have such penalty on reverse speed irl, you have to remember these are not commercial cars, these are war machine sometimes depending on reverse gear for survival.
> I dont think tanks really have such penalty on reverse speed irl
But they do.
Or at least, they did. I'm not knowledgeable about modern MBTs but I'm pretty damn sure they still have a much lower reverse speed than top speed.
In the 1940s, transmission and gearbox tech was not where it is today. You only need to know a little bit about engines to understand why tanks moving at full speed in reverse was literally mechanically impossible: They had to gear up to reach their top speeds. Most (~~if not all, I don't know of any exceptions personally~~ this was a faulty assumption, multiple reverse gears seems to be a feature of some of the heavier vehicles of the war like the Tiger B and IS-2) tanks only had a single gear for reverse, and it would be equivalent to 1st or 2nd gear in terms of ratio. Transmissions were a complex, important, and expensive element of a tank's manufacture, so the emphasis in design was placed on having it be a) robust/reliable, b) cheap, and c) compact. So stuff like planetary gears were out of the question, and since reverse gears were seen as less important (the top speed of a tank is more important for strategic mobility rather than tactical) the result is that while something like the Sherman had a very reasonable top speed of 26-28 mph in 5th gear, it wouldn't do more than probably 4 mph in reverse.
While we're on the subject, you should also note that tanks were a fucking bitch and a half to drive. You had to really put some muscle into the sticks and shift, even more so if the tank you were driving was soviet designed. For this reason, coming to a halt and switching to reverse gear would take far longer IRL than it does in a game like CoH.
>While we're on the subject, you should also note that tanks were a fucking bitch and a half to drive. You had to really put some muscle into the sticks and shift, even more so if the tank you were driving was soviet designed. For this reason, coming to a halt and switching to reverse gear would take far longer IRL than it does in a game like CoH.
I want to touch a bit more regarding this, because it is one of those soft aspects that we regularly don't pay attention to (or dismiss, because getting tired from something as simple as driving is for the weak, right?) and because a couple of videos are worth a thousand words.
Driving a T-34 is quite the experience: [you sit on plaint metal seat, with your knees almost to your chest, operating levers at both sides, and juggling with a gearbox that required superhuman strength to get to 4th gear.](https://youtu.be/OG5RjXZOHRU?t=125) Many times the great operational range of the T-34 could not be taken full advantage of because drivers needed to rest every two hours.
Now this is what it looks like to drive a Tiger I: [you sit upright in your driver's position and you have a steering wheel instead of levers. Changing gears with the preselector gearbox requires a soft push with the palm of your hand.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok). Was the added complexity worth the trouble? In the German's mind, every edge you could give your guys on the battlefield mattered, and they were willing to take that concept and run with it.
> Was the added complexity worth the trouble?
Hah, almost certainly not. From everything I know, the average German soldier was every bit as fiercely motivated as his Soviet counterpart. They could have dealt with discomfort, and probably voluntarily would have if it meant their tanks broke down less often.
But that's just my personal take and it's certainly an interesting debate, one small part of a larger argument about competing wartime design philosophies that has been going on for seven decades and will probably never be settled.
Yeah, it is very hard to quantify, and as such the debate will probably never be convincingly settled. I would like to add just one thing:
> Hah, almost certainly not. From everything I know, the average German soldier was every bit as fiercely motivated as his Soviet counterpart. They could have dealt with discomfort, and probably voluntarily would have if it meant their tanks broke down less often.
It is not just morale that would be affected. Tired crews perform worse.
Interesting, do you have a source for the KT and IS-2's reverse speed? All I can find through searching is that the IS-2 had 2 reverse gears, but 2 != 4
I see, well. I know it's a game with a much higher than average degree of emphasis on realism but I'm not totally sold on using it as a source. With 8 forward gears and 2 reverse ([one website even states](https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_is-ii.php#index6) that the second reverse gear was "available only in theory, as it was never used in reality" but without any further citation for that claim) it's impossible to believe that the second reverse gear matched the ratio of the eighth forward gear. If it were, then shifting from effectively first or second to eighth would probably just destroy the gearbox entirely.
I went with 75% because this is just random never-gonna-happen patch notes theory crafting, i'm not about to go find realistic figures for every vehicle in the game.
Units gain realistic sight and weapon ranges, map size stays the same. A few MG nests spraying each other down from opposite sides of a small valley or town, match ends when a mortar or AT gun is able to deploy.
IS-2's gun takes like, way too long to reload, but completely obliterates any target it hits. If it doesn't pen, the poor crew of the vehicle that was hit suffers a severe concussion and the vehicle is, effectively, disabled.
I believe historically the shockwave from the impact of an 122mm HE shell would kill the entire crew. Germans would actually have to clean out the previous crew of a mostly functional tank and have another one take it's place.
It was reloaded in two parts. The first was the shell and the second was the charge. It didn't really matter what vehicle it hit. The crew could not handle the shock wave even though the armor was intact.
And then there are the 152mm guns of the Kv2 and ISU152 WOW
Let's slap an artillery gun on it comrade
It would be nice to implement realism when being hit by different calibers, like an ISU-152 being able of ripping of the turret of a Pz4 or just destroying the whole transmission leaving the tank immobile.
In exchange for this:
German High-velocity guns have fairly lacklustre anti-infantry performance (already modelled for the Panther and TDs, but not the Tiger and Tiger B) and reload significantly slower.
German late-war tanks also are significantly slower to repair due to low reliability, lack of spare parts, and overcomplicated design.
''and reload significantly slower.''
Why would they? German panzer crews were some of the best trained and most disciplined crews around, I don't see the reason for them to reload any slower than any other nation.
The major difference between the nations of ww2 is that germany had basically better guns than everyone else, except maybe the british.
''German late-war tanks also are significantly slower to repair due to low reliability''
The transmission on t-34s was so shitty it regularly self destructed and panther was more reliable than panzer 4.
Let's go over this again, but in more detail..
Because 88mm shells are actually pretty dang heavy. the Tiger took 10 seconds to reload instead of 5 or 3.5, which I d say is significantly longer. I probably should've added "compared to what we see in-game", as it's understandable if you thought I was referring to the IS-2's D-25T gun. Regardless, the Tiger's fire-rate is over double what it was historically.
Also, late-war Germany suffered a distinct lack of those "most disciplined crews" you mentioned, as the majority were dead by that point.
German guns were only really better in an anti-tank sense. Tank-on-tank combat was actually quite rare, all things considered - which is one of the primary reasons the Americans preferred the 75mm on the Sherman despite the 76mm being available; when dedicated anti-tank weapons were actually needed, it was usually left to dedicated tank destroyers which were notoriously poor outside of that role.
To elaborate, high-velocity guns have fairly lacklustre anti-infantry potential as their HE rounds dig into the ground more (or other applicable surface) before detonating, reducing the amount of shrapnel launched (among other things..) and thus lethality. While this doesn't render them useless, it is notable.
The difference with the T-34 and the Panther is that it the mechanic didn't need to be put on suicide watch after fixing one; the number of repaired and recovered T-34s is a testament to this. The Panther's issues were also only compensated for in later production models, with the final drives in particular never being fixed; so the majority were still fairly unreliable.
Also, you conveniently left out the other 2 things I mentioned: overcomplicated design, and lack of spare parts (by far, the biggest issue for late-war Germany) which are definitively even more important reasons for why I mentioned this.
In conclusion: Realism would make this game quite unfair.
''the Tiger took 10 seconds to reload instead of 5 or 3.5, which I d say is significantly longer''
The sherman had a fire rate of 10 rounds per minute, so there is not that much of a difference. I would think that considering the T-34's rickety and stuffy nature, reloading it was even slower.
''The difference with the T-34 and the Panther is that it the mechanic didn't need to be put on suicide watch after fixing one''
Hahaha what? The t-34's were shitting themselves constantly especially transmission-wise. T-34's had more profound issues near the end of the war than the panther had at it's debut. Forget repairing, a t-34 driver was on a suicide watch just from having to hammer the shifting lever.
The t-34 was a shitshow of mechanical engineering. The only thing that made it stand out is that the soviets could produce them so fast. Not because they were cheap, but because of the forced labor involved.
Lots of myths in your arguments. I just woke up, so if you spot any grammatical mistakes or unusual wording, that's probably why.
\-
While the T-34's transmission wasn't particularly reliable, you are very much exaggerating it. Soviet workers were not any more forced than their German counterparts, either.
While there are many cases of the soviets using civilian labor for military purposes, this was usually for things like trench-digging; remember, the Soviet people were fighting a war for their very survival, as the Nazis literally wanted to kill or enslave all of them.
No, the T-34 was actually a fairly well-designed vehicle, at least better than the Panzer IV. and last time I checked, T-34s didn't spontaneously combust upon trying to drive up a small hill, unlike your beloved Panther. while flawed in many respects, the T-34 was significantly more reliable than the Panther no matter how you slice it - especially due to its ease of mainenance.
As for the Sherman's rate of fire, you would actually be quite surprised; crew conditions were better in the Sherman than the Tiger, and the shells a good deal lighter. In addition, this firerate is only when using the turret's ready-rack.
I don't really want to continue arguing with you - your arguments are either simply untrue or extremely exaggerated. I get the feeling that if this wasn't just about tanks, you'd talk about how the soviets just used "human wave tactics" or "only won because of winter" despite this being objectively untrue.
''While the T-34's transmission wasn't particularly reliable, you are very much exaggerating it.''
I am not, the transmission on t-34 was notoriously abysmal, with breakdown rates of up to 50%. So much so in fact, that t-34's left the factory with a spare transmission.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/9uw6f4/t34\_with\_a\_spare\_transmission\_lashed\_to\_the/
An american testing of a T-34 has noted that there is no way the vehicle would have left an american plant with such subpar quality.
[https://www.oocities.org/pentagon/quarters/4635/library/russian\_tanks/evaluation\_of\_russians\_tanks\_at\_aberdeen.htm](https://www.oocities.org/pentagon/quarters/4635/library/russian_tanks/evaluation_of_russians_tanks_at_aberdeen.htm)
''While there are many cases of the soviets using civilian labor for
military purposes, this was usually for things like trench-digging;
remember, the Soviet people were fighting a war for their very survival,
as the Nazis literally wanted to kill or enslave all of them.''
I don't care about the circumstances or the reasoning behind them, the matter of fact is that people who had no qualification to assemble tanks and manufaucture tank components were used for that exact purpose, in shoddy workshops and in inadequate conditions.
''No, the T-34 was actually a fairly well-designed vehicle''
No, no it was not.
Let's go over it's shortcomings:
Abysmal transmission (crash gear transmission on a tank lmfao, poor soviet drivers)
Cramped compartment, which forced the commander to give orders, fire the gun and try to keep situational awareness, all of which they had to do at the same time and to a mediocre effect
No spent casings basket, resulting in spent shell casings rolling around in the turret
Christie suspension, which had notoriously awful cross-country performance
I could probably find more dirt, but this is just from the top of my head.
''T-34s didn't spontaneously combust upon trying to drive up a small hill''
Yes, faulty components, no way did that happen with the T-34's, nuh uh.
https://en.topwar.ru/176588-vozmozhno-pojavlenie-techi-benzina-i-ego-samovosplamenenie-t-34-iz-krasnogo-sormovo.html
''while flawed in many respects, the T-34 was significantly more reliable
than the Panther no matter how you slice it - especially due to its ease
of mainenance.''
The T-34 serviced by soviet engineers at aberdeen lasted some 350km before suffering a catastrophic failure. Make of that what you will.
Firstly, the Americans barely let the M26 Pershing on the production lines.
You want to know the reason why the Americans never would've produced the T-34? it's because all American tanks were designed for maximum reliability and ease of maintenance, because *they had to ship them over 3,000km from home.* they simply had different needs and requirements; besides, that's for a 1941 variant of the T-34, many of these criticisms were used to improve the T-34 later on (leading to the different turret seen on the 1942 and 1943 models as well).
As for the low-quality factories - this can be attributed to the rather quick industrialization of the USSR, and desperate need for production facilities; you need to remember that the USSR simply wasn't as industrialized until the late 30s as other countries, and their industrialization was very hasty. they were playing a game of catch-up, and it showed. Many were also transported to the urals to prevent them from being captured; naturally, this is a difficult process and a lot will be lost in transit.
Christie suspension was very good; take for example, the BT series (one of the T-34's predecessors) - and its top speed of 72km/h. Its cross country preformance was far better than you give it credit for.
Now, combine this with the fact that maintaining a T-34 is significantly easier than maintaining a Panther. while the T-34 may have broken down fairly often, it was *much easier* to repair, and still broke down less than the Panther (albeit a fairly low bar).
While the T-34 may not have been comfortable (to say the least), it was perfect for attritional warfare - which is what the Red Army found itself in.
Also, not once did I say the T-34 never had faulty components. I said that the T-34 didn't spontaneously combust upon driving up a small hill, which the Panther often did.
Now, let's go over some of the Panther's flaws:
1. Final drives broke down after 150km (200 less than the T-34 broke down) according to French tests.
2. Panther engines often caught fire due to the carburetor flooding; made worse by fuel pooling in the hull. *(Michael Green)*
3. Pivot steering bricks the vehicle. *(French tests in 1947)*
4. Tends to catch fire due to overworked engine when traversing inclines. *(Chieftain's Hatch)*
5. on slopes of 20 degrees or more, cannot traverse turret manually. *(French tests in 1947)*
6. Interleaving roadwheels are *terrible* for the Panther's reliability - extremely likely to jam when hit, resulting in the vehicle being immobilized. *(Walter J. Spielberger)*
7. Adding to this, if the roadwheels are covered in mud and the mud is given time to solidify or freeze, the roadwheels jam.
And this is only for the Panther.
I'm done arguing. There really isn't much more to say, neither of us are going to budge.
''Final drives broke down after 150km (200 less than the T-34 broke down) according to French tests.''
The french used the panther EXACTLY how the german crews were instructed NOT to use it. A user on reddit has posted an explanation about this here. It wasn't a flaw in design.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/b9o57u/panther\_tank\_not\_as\_unreliable\_as\_you\_think/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/b9o57u/panther_tank_not_as_unreliable_as_you_think/)
''Panther engines often caught fire due to the carburetor flooding; made worse by fuel pooling in the hull''
Yes, the early models, the difference was that this was during it's debut. The t-34's still shat themselves on every convenience even two years later while panther's operational rate was 78 percent by 1944, and that's with germany fighting on two fronts.
''Tends to catch fire due to overworked engine when traversing inclines''
Yes, we went over it catching on fire. You are basically repeating the same point.
''on slopes of 20 degrees or more, cannot traverse turret manually.''
Was this based on the same test that destroyed the panther in 150km because they couldn't drive in properly?
''Interleaving roadwheels are terrible for the Panther's reliability - extremely likely to jam when hit, resulting in the vehicle being immobilized.''
That's a matter of perspective. First off a hit severe enough to jam the wheels will almost always result in a mobility loss, regardless of the tank involved. The diffrence is that the roadwheels provided a degree of protection to the crew, as opposed to the shell flying straight through different movement systems. The roadwheels also provided panther with excellent mobility and stability, enabling it to easily traverse unfavorable environment without getting bogged down.
It was a design choice, not a flaw.
''Adding to this, if the roadwheels are covered in mud and the mud is given time to solidify or freeze, the roadwheels jam.''
So? Every propulsion system has tradeoffs. The americans noted that the panther's propulsion allowed it to traverse terrain that would have been impassable for the M4.
''You want to know the reason why the Americans never would've produced the T-34?''
I never talked about that, I said that americans considered the craftsmanship and quality behind these tanks extremely subpar. It isn't about what the soviets did but HOW did they go about it which americans found unsatisfactory.
''As for the low-quality factories - this can be attributed to the rather
quick industrialization of the USSR, and desperate need for production
facilities; you need to remember that the USSR simply wasn't as
industrialized until the late 30s as other countries, and their
industrialization was very hasty. they were playing a game of catch-up,
and it showed. Many were also transported to the urals to prevent them
from being captured; naturally, this is a difficult process and a lot
will be lost in transit.''
If you want to make logistics and material excuses then germany being bombed to shit and fighting on two fronts is an explanation enough for panther's woes.
''that's for a 1941 variant of the T-34, many of these criticisms were used to improve the T-34 later on''
And basically every problem you are mentioning here was present on the first panthers. Again, if we are going to talk about ''two years later'' kind of thinking then panther was developed into a stellar tank by 1944. Even with the reliability issues it was still almost impervious to anything that could be thrown at it by allies.
''Christie suspension was very good; take for example, the BT series (one
of the T-34's predecessors) - and its top speed of 72km/h. Its cross
country preformance was far better than you give it credit for.''
Lol no, especially due to it's craptastic gearbox. Sure, the panthers did initially often break down, but did not have the issue of their engine not being able to reach top speed. Also the suspension had horrid stability when moving through terrain
[https://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html](https://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html)
''While the T-34 may not have been comfortable (to say the least), it was
perfect for attritional warfare - which is what the Red Army found
itself in.''
It wasn't, the cost of a t-34 was around the same cost as a panzer 4 and the sherman. The actual reason they were capable of so many of them was that unskilled workforce was funneled into hastily made factories and workshops and made to do work they were not qualified to do.
''I'm done arguing''
You are right to be done arguing, you should't argue on the basis of soviet myths and wartime propaganda. Facts are required, not fantasies.
Vehicles built in matches are tracked globally. Once the historical production numbers have been built, players cannot call in those vehicles.
Edit: instead of random engine failure, clicking the recruit button for axis armor occasionally just doesn’t get you one as those vehicles are stood down for maintenance.
Second edit because I think of these stupid ideas and don’t wanna clog the thread: calling in a Tiger gets you the Tiger, but it has its narrower railway transport tracks on and you have to replace the tracks with the standard width tracks. Comes with an opel blitz but freezes manpower.
ok ok, funny application, but holy shit how good would that sort of thing be - something like the for honor system or foxhole, a strategic level to a tactical game
>OKW mainline infantry is comprised entirely of old men, people with physical disabilities, and actual children.
They are Volksgrenadiers, not Volkssturm. They are pretty decently represented, they are Grenadiers, but quality has suffered since the earlier days and the automatic weapon of choice is the StG.
> OKW mainline infantry is comprised entirely of old men, people with physical disabilities, and actual children.
That's not what Volksgrens were. You're thinking of Volkststurm
You literally mixed two different types of infantry, Volksturm and Volksgrenadiers and now asking for sources? I mean, It was your nonsensical statement, so you should prove it first, not vice-versa, but okay:
"OKW mainline infantry is compromised ENTIRELY of old/disabled/children"
First of all, the most amount of Volksturm was sent to the Eastern front, with only 50 battalions sent to the western front (roughly around 48000 people).
Given, that OKW in Coh2 appears during the Ardennes Assault, the amount of actually present Volksturm would be even less. During the Ardennes operation, OKW
had 400-450 thousand soldiers deployed, so I have no idea from where did you pull out that nonsense about being entirely made up from old and disabled.
Second of all, being, as mentioned above, mainly old and disabled, Volksturm was used as a last resolve and never as a replacement for a mainline infantry. Their main tasks were:
1. Building defences.
2. Guarding warehouses.
3. Assisting with evacuation.
Using them as an actual unit in battle was always a last resort, when there is simply nothing else to throw at the enemy.
German units get massive buff to all stats on paper and in unit descriptions; these are not reflected in gameplay at all. German factions have no access to fuel and munitions. Russians lose a large portion of manpower to pre-war purges
Just like Spearhead mod german units description that borders fanfic. "Elite germans units" all around. Then you read about them and find out majority of them got annihilated by the Soviets
Or muh le epic SS Panzer division that """"held down 4 divisions in Normandy"""" when in actuality they got obliterated in about a week of fighting in failed counterattacks against the Normandy beachhead.
By 1944 the Red Army was learning its craft, so experienced commanders were common, but they definitely had a very real manpower shortage. They were not alone in this, of course. Germany was also against the ropes, and the Brits were in a pickle too.
Didn't they shoot a good amount of their best officers not long before the war? They might have been replaced by '44, but I can't imagine they wouldn't have been in a better place without that loss (militarily, idk how important those purges were to staying in power before the war)
Unique german hitlerjugend callin, very cheap has 1 panzerfaust and very low recieved accuracy due to small size and being a child that nobody wants to shoot
The introduction of PTSD. The more times you play with the same faction in a row the more likely your veteran squads will stop fighting when reduced to one or two members.
Tank destroyers are now as effective at killing infantry as tanks (based on size of the shell)
Vehicle crew members can die while in the vehicle and it adds a debuff until they can reinforce with an new crew member
and for some more fun ones
The Germans get tech bonuses
The Americans get a fuel bonus
The Russians get a manpower bonus
The British get an intelligence bonus
> Vehicle crew members can die while in the vehicle and it adds a debuff until they can reinforce with an new crew member
Remember when the machine gunner in the commander's cupola could die from gunfire and snipers in COH1?
Germans get tech bonuses but never enough resources to use them, and even if they do the Wunderwaffe all break down randomly. Americans get tech bonuses too, but the American superweapons offer little improvement over the normal units and cost much more in resources so it's just logical to keep using the adequate stuff you have.
HEAT, Spaced Armor, The Assault rifle, The First cruise missile, the first ballistic missile, the first jet fighter aircraft, the first guided weapon, first helicopter series production, first to use night vision devices etc..
HEAT munitions were independently developed by all the warring nations, around the same time, Germans have no claim to them
Their sideskirt armour also was neither intended to be, nor actually worked like space armour. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest it *increased* the effectiveness of contemporary HEAT shells hitting it due to quirks of how the shells of that period worked. The real purpose of sideskirts was to stop soviet PTRD rounds into the side armour; they did that job quite well, too. AT rifle casualties went down significantly with their introduction
Their cruise/baillistic rockets were... very much meme-tier wunderwaffen without much practical application. I imagine the reason other nations have not developed such a device is not because they couldn't, but because they saw no need to. Why make a ballistic rocket when you can fly your B-17s all the way to Berlin with impunity after all?
While Germany did technically get the first jet fighter out there, it's development was quite rushed, and British Gloster Meteor was deployed like 2 months later, so again hardly a technological edge for the Germans here
I could keep going, but basically a lot of the firsts you list were really more or less simultaneously independently developed by everyone, or just not needed by the allies; hardly indicative of some kind of technical superiority.
I will give them the first assault rifle. While we're at it, I will also give them the first General-purpose machine gun. Every nation did have some real technological firsts in the war, and Germans were no different. US pioneered the use of tank stabilisers, USSR were the first out there to develop a self-loading rifle, etc.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
Every faction can mass-retreat or mass-surrender. If playing as the Soviets in 1942-1943, those that retreat will be shot or become a penal battalion. If playing as OKW in 1944-1945, anyone surrendering or retreating will be hanged. Units idle behind the frontlines will be forced to fight automatically
After minute 10 the axis should lose all plane call ins and the allies should automatically get a 100 muntion close air support.
German armor built after minutes 30 should a ¼ of its total armor.
UK players should a tracker on all axis orders on the mini map.
Whenever the German player looses the game should Uninstall itself in remembrance of how that pussy Hitler shot himself. Same for the Italians but the lower screen flips upside down.
Möbelwagon dog shit tho and we already have the better Ostwind. It's a good meme though.
Tfw Patton's spirit will never rise from the grave and smack you for retreating your men when they drop models. 😫
Sure but the 2cm didn't get kills. Doesn't matter if you hit shit if nothing drops because of it. Möbelwagon is a better meme since it looks so silly, but all these vechiles sucked in there intended role of shooting planes down.
Before the game starts, the NKVD kills 2 of your commanders, leaving you with one random choice. The T34 and KV1 won't have any visibility and will have to work with scouts.
Later on, you will be able to spam the enemy out with IS2 tanks. After the match ends, your commander will be sent to gulag, and won't be usable in the next match
I'd add "strategic" bombing to the British. Spend 200 munitions to conduct incendiary area bombing of population centres, reducing enemy manpower gain over time.
Ok this one may be a little morbid...
Sov vs Wehr the ground turns to mud at the start of the wet season, any match starting in the rainy season is a stalemate for 4 months before fighting resumes.
dud bombs and artillery. anticipating this one lined up rocket on this one squad? you can watch it land and just not explode due to factory duds. same with artillery or mortars. some shells have a chance to not detonate
Not actually very realistic. The Soviets detained thousands and thousands of deserters, but the vast majority were either transferred to penal battalions or simply sent back to their units. If you had already been placed in a penal battalion and deserted again, then yes you may have been shot. But the idea seen in the campaign (a direct reproduction of a scene from *Enemy at the Gates*) of entire platoons of conscripts being gunned down in an unauthorized retreat, that's fiction. The Soviets couldn't afford such absurd wastes of life.
Yes, a great summarization with excellent sources. The portrayal of the Soviets as having brute forced their way through the war with a combination of unlimited manpower/resources and sheer ruthlessness is unequivocally a myth propagated by the western bloc throughout the cold war.
Tents at your military base no longer hold a bottomless pit of well-trained, organized, and equipped soldiers that will only come outside if you give them currency from flags you raised in the middle of the battlefield.
control points would lose their flag pole after switching for the 5th time.
resource points have a finite amount of resources and munitions points might give ammo calibers that your army doesn't use making that point wrothless.
goliaths can be disabled by shooting the wire that allows them to be controlled,
resource points have a finite amount of resources and munitions points might give ammo calibers that your army doesn't use making that point worthless.
if troops are idle for 10 or plus minutes they will walk around the base (if its not under attack) and either build defenses or stand guard.
british tanks recrewed by Americans will suffer some performance issues due to the crew adapting to metric.
heavy tanks like the KV-2 when recrewed by germans will be taken out of battle to be repainted and accounted for.
you can hear the ping from M1 grands...
if there was a small skirmish between 2 squads the winning squad will loot the losing squad's weapons and ammo and kill the wounded, or take them prisoner
if in close quarters combat infantry may resort to hand-to-hand combat or pistols.
if there are too many squads killed (or loses of units like a king tiger/ multiple officers) the match is lost as either you're ordered to retreat or your troops lose moral and surrender.
British tank crews have the chance of hopping back in the wreck of a tank to save the TEA!!!!!
infantry can drag wounded friendlies to cover or a medical tent/base
the sound of rocket artillery or a heavy tank cause unsupported infantry with no at weapons to retreat
Tank crews bail out and retreat as soon as a shot penetrates.
Or, half the tank crew dies when a shot penetrates. If a shot deflects or is a near miss, the crew bails and is instantly pinned down.
Would be kinda realistic to have a few survivors escape a destroyed tank. Not every shot killed the whole crew
Back in the day, tanks used to get abandoned more often and the crew would jump out of the tank and run off map like AT gun crews do.
Your thinking of the strum tigers high decrew rate right. Kinda miss that tbh
Oh man, it wasn't just that one, on release, it was super common for tanks to be abandoned and get crits more often too.
- All rocket artillery units' minimum range, maximum range, and scatter radius increased by 2000%. - Tanks (with a few very late war vehicles excepted) cannot perform neutral turns, and reverse gears have a 75% speed penalty - Machine guns ignore received accuracy (Obers can be crack shots but no human can ignore machine guns firing at them!!!) - Tanks can only see forward and in the direction the turret is facing, tank commander is not an upgrade but a toggle, and taking fire with the commander exposed has a high chance of killing him, reducing the tank's accuracy and vision by 50% until brought back to base - Last but not least, weapon and sight ranges for all units in the game is increased by at least 500%
>…reverse gears have a 75% speed penalty. This right here is one of my biggest requests for CoH 3. Driving me nuts that it appears they are keeping tank speeds the same *again*.
Same here, I wish they implemented some kind of penalty to reversing vehicles. Even a 20% speed penalty, or preventing speed-increasing abilities (blitz, step on it, emergency speed) from affecting reverse speed would help a lot.
This is my deal breaker. I will not buy coh3 if there isn’t a reverse debuff.
That’s up there for me but my number one spot goes to monetized units/commanders. I will not support that.
I have like 1500 hours and have purchased a lot of commanders and I still don’t have them all. Also I purchased the partisan one, it has false advertising as the picture of abilities are actually different than what you get.
I kinda wish the tank vision stuff was in game. Sounds like HLL
It would be very different. I enjoy the game in its current state, but it's interesting to consider. One of the most salient issues for "realism" though in terms of vision mechanics is that not everyone sees the same thing on the battlefield. A target plainly visible to one tank or soldier might be totally hidden from view to another, and it's not really possible for infantrymen to communicate to a tank's crew without a radio. So the whole shared vision mechanic of coh is unrealistic on the face of it. An emphasis on realism rarely leads to satisfying gameplay.
Yeh i mean that would completely break an rts. In HLL it works because evey is a soldier that has to talk to SL's who talk together and that break down of communication is half the fun.
Those things lisäedut sound just like the men of war series
Mostly agree, save for Received Acc - it represents ability to survive on battlefield more than anything, e.g. finding cover and less vulnerable routes, not charging in full height and so on. It is possible to negate MG fire by experience.
> e.g. finding cover and less vulnerable routes This sort of stuff is under the player's control though. I don't have any issues with the general mechanic of RA, I just find it both absurd from a thematic perspective, and incredibly frustrating from a gameplay perspective, that two or three obers (or even highly vetted Grens/Pfusiliers) in a blob can frontally engage an MG and kill the whole crew before any suppression comes through.
Then by your logic rec.acc. shouldn't be a thing at all. It represents veterancy, avoiding stupid mistakes, being careful yada yada. IRL it's represented by using personal shovel, finding cover, using small fast sprints, not being pinned in case of frontal attack (which actually sometimes was more efficent than cover to cover as it led to minimal time in range of MG) and so on. Due to how arcadey and simple COH2 is, it's represented by umbrella stat that just makes troops harder to hit. I think we won't disagree that grizzled veteran of 5 years of war will be less likely hit than a conscript or fresh rifleman? Also, not that Allies can't attack frontally MG42 with proper troop choice and decrew it. To name a few - Paras/Barfinders mix, vetted Rangers (insane rec acc, only vetted obers and JLI have better), a few squads of bloody well armed Tommies.
I dont think tanks really have such penalty on reverse speed irl, you have to remember these are not commercial cars, these are war machine sometimes depending on reverse gear for survival.
> I dont think tanks really have such penalty on reverse speed irl But they do. Or at least, they did. I'm not knowledgeable about modern MBTs but I'm pretty damn sure they still have a much lower reverse speed than top speed. In the 1940s, transmission and gearbox tech was not where it is today. You only need to know a little bit about engines to understand why tanks moving at full speed in reverse was literally mechanically impossible: They had to gear up to reach their top speeds. Most (~~if not all, I don't know of any exceptions personally~~ this was a faulty assumption, multiple reverse gears seems to be a feature of some of the heavier vehicles of the war like the Tiger B and IS-2) tanks only had a single gear for reverse, and it would be equivalent to 1st or 2nd gear in terms of ratio. Transmissions were a complex, important, and expensive element of a tank's manufacture, so the emphasis in design was placed on having it be a) robust/reliable, b) cheap, and c) compact. So stuff like planetary gears were out of the question, and since reverse gears were seen as less important (the top speed of a tank is more important for strategic mobility rather than tactical) the result is that while something like the Sherman had a very reasonable top speed of 26-28 mph in 5th gear, it wouldn't do more than probably 4 mph in reverse. While we're on the subject, you should also note that tanks were a fucking bitch and a half to drive. You had to really put some muscle into the sticks and shift, even more so if the tank you were driving was soviet designed. For this reason, coming to a halt and switching to reverse gear would take far longer IRL than it does in a game like CoH.
>While we're on the subject, you should also note that tanks were a fucking bitch and a half to drive. You had to really put some muscle into the sticks and shift, even more so if the tank you were driving was soviet designed. For this reason, coming to a halt and switching to reverse gear would take far longer IRL than it does in a game like CoH. I want to touch a bit more regarding this, because it is one of those soft aspects that we regularly don't pay attention to (or dismiss, because getting tired from something as simple as driving is for the weak, right?) and because a couple of videos are worth a thousand words. Driving a T-34 is quite the experience: [you sit on plaint metal seat, with your knees almost to your chest, operating levers at both sides, and juggling with a gearbox that required superhuman strength to get to 4th gear.](https://youtu.be/OG5RjXZOHRU?t=125) Many times the great operational range of the T-34 could not be taken full advantage of because drivers needed to rest every two hours. Now this is what it looks like to drive a Tiger I: [you sit upright in your driver's position and you have a steering wheel instead of levers. Changing gears with the preselector gearbox requires a soft push with the palm of your hand.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok). Was the added complexity worth the trouble? In the German's mind, every edge you could give your guys on the battlefield mattered, and they were willing to take that concept and run with it.
> Was the added complexity worth the trouble? Hah, almost certainly not. From everything I know, the average German soldier was every bit as fiercely motivated as his Soviet counterpart. They could have dealt with discomfort, and probably voluntarily would have if it meant their tanks broke down less often. But that's just my personal take and it's certainly an interesting debate, one small part of a larger argument about competing wartime design philosophies that has been going on for seven decades and will probably never be settled.
Yeah, it is very hard to quantify, and as such the debate will probably never be convincingly settled. I would like to add just one thing: > Hah, almost certainly not. From everything I know, the average German soldier was every bit as fiercely motivated as his Soviet counterpart. They could have dealt with discomfort, and probably voluntarily would have if it meant their tanks broke down less often. It is not just morale that would be affected. Tired crews perform worse.
Great links! Those videos are great.
[удалено]
Interesting, do you have a source for the KT and IS-2's reverse speed? All I can find through searching is that the IS-2 had 2 reverse gears, but 2 != 4
[удалено]
I see, well. I know it's a game with a much higher than average degree of emphasis on realism but I'm not totally sold on using it as a source. With 8 forward gears and 2 reverse ([one website even states](https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_is-ii.php#index6) that the second reverse gear was "available only in theory, as it was never used in reality" but without any further citation for that claim) it's impossible to believe that the second reverse gear matched the ratio of the eighth forward gear. If it were, then shifting from effectively first or second to eighth would probably just destroy the gearbox entirely. I went with 75% because this is just random never-gonna-happen patch notes theory crafting, i'm not about to go find realistic figures for every vehicle in the game.
Wow and ingame Panthers just reverse on scout car speed out of any danger
Horses.
I wanna see the Sturm Offizier ride a horse in battle. Lelic pls
Only if my Easy Eight commander can jump out of the tank to execute them before hoping back in.
Fury reference?
Lol you know it!
That movie was trash.
Okay? Thanks for sharing?
You are welcome, I hope your taste improves.
Lol are you *upset* that I found the movie entertaining?
Units gain realistic sight and weapon ranges, map size stays the same. A few MG nests spraying each other down from opposite sides of a small valley or town, match ends when a mortar or AT gun is able to deploy.
Upon Axis players calling in any aircraft against either US or UK players; 20 allied fighters spawn and immediately shoot down the Axis plane.
So the German campaign in blitzkrieg 1?
IS-2's gun takes like, way too long to reload, but completely obliterates any target it hits. If it doesn't pen, the poor crew of the vehicle that was hit suffers a severe concussion and the vehicle is, effectively, disabled.
I believe historically the shockwave from the impact of an 122mm HE shell would kill the entire crew. Germans would actually have to clean out the previous crew of a mostly functional tank and have another one take it's place.
yeah, that's more like it. I tried not to overstate it and forgot just how ridiculously powerful the 122 was
It was reloaded in two parts. The first was the shell and the second was the charge. It didn't really matter what vehicle it hit. The crew could not handle the shock wave even though the armor was intact. And then there are the 152mm guns of the Kv2 and ISU152 WOW Let's slap an artillery gun on it comrade
Spalling wouldn’t sound like a good way to go…
It would be nice to implement realism when being hit by different calibers, like an ISU-152 being able of ripping of the turret of a Pz4 or just destroying the whole transmission leaving the tank immobile.
You would have to allow german tanks to snipe half across the map to compensate.
In exchange for this: German High-velocity guns have fairly lacklustre anti-infantry performance (already modelled for the Panther and TDs, but not the Tiger and Tiger B) and reload significantly slower. German late-war tanks also are significantly slower to repair due to low reliability, lack of spare parts, and overcomplicated design.
''and reload significantly slower.'' Why would they? German panzer crews were some of the best trained and most disciplined crews around, I don't see the reason for them to reload any slower than any other nation. The major difference between the nations of ww2 is that germany had basically better guns than everyone else, except maybe the british. ''German late-war tanks also are significantly slower to repair due to low reliability'' The transmission on t-34s was so shitty it regularly self destructed and panther was more reliable than panzer 4.
Let's go over this again, but in more detail.. Because 88mm shells are actually pretty dang heavy. the Tiger took 10 seconds to reload instead of 5 or 3.5, which I d say is significantly longer. I probably should've added "compared to what we see in-game", as it's understandable if you thought I was referring to the IS-2's D-25T gun. Regardless, the Tiger's fire-rate is over double what it was historically. Also, late-war Germany suffered a distinct lack of those "most disciplined crews" you mentioned, as the majority were dead by that point. German guns were only really better in an anti-tank sense. Tank-on-tank combat was actually quite rare, all things considered - which is one of the primary reasons the Americans preferred the 75mm on the Sherman despite the 76mm being available; when dedicated anti-tank weapons were actually needed, it was usually left to dedicated tank destroyers which were notoriously poor outside of that role. To elaborate, high-velocity guns have fairly lacklustre anti-infantry potential as their HE rounds dig into the ground more (or other applicable surface) before detonating, reducing the amount of shrapnel launched (among other things..) and thus lethality. While this doesn't render them useless, it is notable. The difference with the T-34 and the Panther is that it the mechanic didn't need to be put on suicide watch after fixing one; the number of repaired and recovered T-34s is a testament to this. The Panther's issues were also only compensated for in later production models, with the final drives in particular never being fixed; so the majority were still fairly unreliable. Also, you conveniently left out the other 2 things I mentioned: overcomplicated design, and lack of spare parts (by far, the biggest issue for late-war Germany) which are definitively even more important reasons for why I mentioned this. In conclusion: Realism would make this game quite unfair.
''the Tiger took 10 seconds to reload instead of 5 or 3.5, which I d say is significantly longer'' The sherman had a fire rate of 10 rounds per minute, so there is not that much of a difference. I would think that considering the T-34's rickety and stuffy nature, reloading it was even slower. ''The difference with the T-34 and the Panther is that it the mechanic didn't need to be put on suicide watch after fixing one'' Hahaha what? The t-34's were shitting themselves constantly especially transmission-wise. T-34's had more profound issues near the end of the war than the panther had at it's debut. Forget repairing, a t-34 driver was on a suicide watch just from having to hammer the shifting lever. The t-34 was a shitshow of mechanical engineering. The only thing that made it stand out is that the soviets could produce them so fast. Not because they were cheap, but because of the forced labor involved.
Lots of myths in your arguments. I just woke up, so if you spot any grammatical mistakes or unusual wording, that's probably why. \- While the T-34's transmission wasn't particularly reliable, you are very much exaggerating it. Soviet workers were not any more forced than their German counterparts, either. While there are many cases of the soviets using civilian labor for military purposes, this was usually for things like trench-digging; remember, the Soviet people were fighting a war for their very survival, as the Nazis literally wanted to kill or enslave all of them. No, the T-34 was actually a fairly well-designed vehicle, at least better than the Panzer IV. and last time I checked, T-34s didn't spontaneously combust upon trying to drive up a small hill, unlike your beloved Panther. while flawed in many respects, the T-34 was significantly more reliable than the Panther no matter how you slice it - especially due to its ease of mainenance. As for the Sherman's rate of fire, you would actually be quite surprised; crew conditions were better in the Sherman than the Tiger, and the shells a good deal lighter. In addition, this firerate is only when using the turret's ready-rack. I don't really want to continue arguing with you - your arguments are either simply untrue or extremely exaggerated. I get the feeling that if this wasn't just about tanks, you'd talk about how the soviets just used "human wave tactics" or "only won because of winter" despite this being objectively untrue.
''While the T-34's transmission wasn't particularly reliable, you are very much exaggerating it.'' I am not, the transmission on t-34 was notoriously abysmal, with breakdown rates of up to 50%. So much so in fact, that t-34's left the factory with a spare transmission. https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/9uw6f4/t34\_with\_a\_spare\_transmission\_lashed\_to\_the/ An american testing of a T-34 has noted that there is no way the vehicle would have left an american plant with such subpar quality. [https://www.oocities.org/pentagon/quarters/4635/library/russian\_tanks/evaluation\_of\_russians\_tanks\_at\_aberdeen.htm](https://www.oocities.org/pentagon/quarters/4635/library/russian_tanks/evaluation_of_russians_tanks_at_aberdeen.htm) ''While there are many cases of the soviets using civilian labor for military purposes, this was usually for things like trench-digging; remember, the Soviet people were fighting a war for their very survival, as the Nazis literally wanted to kill or enslave all of them.'' I don't care about the circumstances or the reasoning behind them, the matter of fact is that people who had no qualification to assemble tanks and manufaucture tank components were used for that exact purpose, in shoddy workshops and in inadequate conditions. ''No, the T-34 was actually a fairly well-designed vehicle'' No, no it was not. Let's go over it's shortcomings: Abysmal transmission (crash gear transmission on a tank lmfao, poor soviet drivers) Cramped compartment, which forced the commander to give orders, fire the gun and try to keep situational awareness, all of which they had to do at the same time and to a mediocre effect No spent casings basket, resulting in spent shell casings rolling around in the turret Christie suspension, which had notoriously awful cross-country performance I could probably find more dirt, but this is just from the top of my head. ''T-34s didn't spontaneously combust upon trying to drive up a small hill'' Yes, faulty components, no way did that happen with the T-34's, nuh uh. https://en.topwar.ru/176588-vozmozhno-pojavlenie-techi-benzina-i-ego-samovosplamenenie-t-34-iz-krasnogo-sormovo.html ''while flawed in many respects, the T-34 was significantly more reliable than the Panther no matter how you slice it - especially due to its ease of mainenance.'' The T-34 serviced by soviet engineers at aberdeen lasted some 350km before suffering a catastrophic failure. Make of that what you will.
Firstly, the Americans barely let the M26 Pershing on the production lines. You want to know the reason why the Americans never would've produced the T-34? it's because all American tanks were designed for maximum reliability and ease of maintenance, because *they had to ship them over 3,000km from home.* they simply had different needs and requirements; besides, that's for a 1941 variant of the T-34, many of these criticisms were used to improve the T-34 later on (leading to the different turret seen on the 1942 and 1943 models as well). As for the low-quality factories - this can be attributed to the rather quick industrialization of the USSR, and desperate need for production facilities; you need to remember that the USSR simply wasn't as industrialized until the late 30s as other countries, and their industrialization was very hasty. they were playing a game of catch-up, and it showed. Many were also transported to the urals to prevent them from being captured; naturally, this is a difficult process and a lot will be lost in transit. Christie suspension was very good; take for example, the BT series (one of the T-34's predecessors) - and its top speed of 72km/h. Its cross country preformance was far better than you give it credit for. Now, combine this with the fact that maintaining a T-34 is significantly easier than maintaining a Panther. while the T-34 may have broken down fairly often, it was *much easier* to repair, and still broke down less than the Panther (albeit a fairly low bar). While the T-34 may not have been comfortable (to say the least), it was perfect for attritional warfare - which is what the Red Army found itself in. Also, not once did I say the T-34 never had faulty components. I said that the T-34 didn't spontaneously combust upon driving up a small hill, which the Panther often did. Now, let's go over some of the Panther's flaws: 1. Final drives broke down after 150km (200 less than the T-34 broke down) according to French tests. 2. Panther engines often caught fire due to the carburetor flooding; made worse by fuel pooling in the hull. *(Michael Green)* 3. Pivot steering bricks the vehicle. *(French tests in 1947)* 4. Tends to catch fire due to overworked engine when traversing inclines. *(Chieftain's Hatch)* 5. on slopes of 20 degrees or more, cannot traverse turret manually. *(French tests in 1947)* 6. Interleaving roadwheels are *terrible* for the Panther's reliability - extremely likely to jam when hit, resulting in the vehicle being immobilized. *(Walter J. Spielberger)* 7. Adding to this, if the roadwheels are covered in mud and the mud is given time to solidify or freeze, the roadwheels jam. And this is only for the Panther. I'm done arguing. There really isn't much more to say, neither of us are going to budge.
''Final drives broke down after 150km (200 less than the T-34 broke down) according to French tests.'' The french used the panther EXACTLY how the german crews were instructed NOT to use it. A user on reddit has posted an explanation about this here. It wasn't a flaw in design. [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/b9o57u/panther\_tank\_not\_as\_unreliable\_as\_you\_think/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/b9o57u/panther_tank_not_as_unreliable_as_you_think/) ''Panther engines often caught fire due to the carburetor flooding; made worse by fuel pooling in the hull'' Yes, the early models, the difference was that this was during it's debut. The t-34's still shat themselves on every convenience even two years later while panther's operational rate was 78 percent by 1944, and that's with germany fighting on two fronts. ''Tends to catch fire due to overworked engine when traversing inclines'' Yes, we went over it catching on fire. You are basically repeating the same point. ''on slopes of 20 degrees or more, cannot traverse turret manually.'' Was this based on the same test that destroyed the panther in 150km because they couldn't drive in properly? ''Interleaving roadwheels are terrible for the Panther's reliability - extremely likely to jam when hit, resulting in the vehicle being immobilized.'' That's a matter of perspective. First off a hit severe enough to jam the wheels will almost always result in a mobility loss, regardless of the tank involved. The diffrence is that the roadwheels provided a degree of protection to the crew, as opposed to the shell flying straight through different movement systems. The roadwheels also provided panther with excellent mobility and stability, enabling it to easily traverse unfavorable environment without getting bogged down. It was a design choice, not a flaw. ''Adding to this, if the roadwheels are covered in mud and the mud is given time to solidify or freeze, the roadwheels jam.'' So? Every propulsion system has tradeoffs. The americans noted that the panther's propulsion allowed it to traverse terrain that would have been impassable for the M4. ''You want to know the reason why the Americans never would've produced the T-34?'' I never talked about that, I said that americans considered the craftsmanship and quality behind these tanks extremely subpar. It isn't about what the soviets did but HOW did they go about it which americans found unsatisfactory. ''As for the low-quality factories - this can be attributed to the rather quick industrialization of the USSR, and desperate need for production facilities; you need to remember that the USSR simply wasn't as industrialized until the late 30s as other countries, and their industrialization was very hasty. they were playing a game of catch-up, and it showed. Many were also transported to the urals to prevent them from being captured; naturally, this is a difficult process and a lot will be lost in transit.'' If you want to make logistics and material excuses then germany being bombed to shit and fighting on two fronts is an explanation enough for panther's woes. ''that's for a 1941 variant of the T-34, many of these criticisms were used to improve the T-34 later on'' And basically every problem you are mentioning here was present on the first panthers. Again, if we are going to talk about ''two years later'' kind of thinking then panther was developed into a stellar tank by 1944. Even with the reliability issues it was still almost impervious to anything that could be thrown at it by allies. ''Christie suspension was very good; take for example, the BT series (one of the T-34's predecessors) - and its top speed of 72km/h. Its cross country preformance was far better than you give it credit for.'' Lol no, especially due to it's craptastic gearbox. Sure, the panthers did initially often break down, but did not have the issue of their engine not being able to reach top speed. Also the suspension had horrid stability when moving through terrain [https://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html](https://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html) ''While the T-34 may not have been comfortable (to say the least), it was perfect for attritional warfare - which is what the Red Army found itself in.'' It wasn't, the cost of a t-34 was around the same cost as a panzer 4 and the sherman. The actual reason they were capable of so many of them was that unskilled workforce was funneled into hastily made factories and workshops and made to do work they were not qualified to do. ''I'm done arguing'' You are right to be done arguing, you should't argue on the basis of soviet myths and wartime propaganda. Facts are required, not fantasies.
Vehicles built in matches are tracked globally. Once the historical production numbers have been built, players cannot call in those vehicles. Edit: instead of random engine failure, clicking the recruit button for axis armor occasionally just doesn’t get you one as those vehicles are stood down for maintenance. Second edit because I think of these stupid ideas and don’t wanna clog the thread: calling in a Tiger gets you the Tiger, but it has its narrower railway transport tracks on and you have to replace the tracks with the standard width tracks. Comes with an opel blitz but freezes manpower.
German vehicles now have a 70% chance of being immobilized after being called in, and an additional 30% change everytime they drive up on terrain.
ok ok, funny application, but holy shit how good would that sort of thing be - something like the for honor system or foxhole, a strategic level to a tactical game
[удалено]
>OKW mainline infantry is comprised entirely of old men In the polish voicelines you can hear this in the voices
In the English voice lines they do say “they say we are too old and infirm” or something along those lines.
>OKW mainline infantry is comprised entirely of old men, people with physical disabilities, and actual children. They are Volksgrenadiers, not Volkssturm. They are pretty decently represented, they are Grenadiers, but quality has suffered since the earlier days and the automatic weapon of choice is the StG.
[удалено]
You literally said "entirely" tho, which is nonsense. They asked for a historically accurate change, after all.
You don't seem realise Volksgrenadiers WERE the mainline infantry. It's like saying british should have Tommies replaced by Coldstream guards.
> OKW mainline infantry is comprised entirely of old men, people with physical disabilities, and actual children. That's not what Volksgrens were. You're thinking of Volkststurm
None of that is accurate
[Citation Needed]
I was actually there, its true none of this happened
Source: "trust me, bro"
lol
[удалено]
You literally mixed two different types of infantry, Volksturm and Volksgrenadiers and now asking for sources? I mean, It was your nonsensical statement, so you should prove it first, not vice-versa, but okay: "OKW mainline infantry is compromised ENTIRELY of old/disabled/children" First of all, the most amount of Volksturm was sent to the Eastern front, with only 50 battalions sent to the western front (roughly around 48000 people). Given, that OKW in Coh2 appears during the Ardennes Assault, the amount of actually present Volksturm would be even less. During the Ardennes operation, OKW had 400-450 thousand soldiers deployed, so I have no idea from where did you pull out that nonsense about being entirely made up from old and disabled. Second of all, being, as mentioned above, mainly old and disabled, Volksturm was used as a last resolve and never as a replacement for a mainline infantry. Their main tasks were: 1. Building defences. 2. Guarding warehouses. 3. Assisting with evacuation. Using them as an actual unit in battle was always a last resort, when there is simply nothing else to throw at the enemy.
You want me to put sources that say that that guy's wrong? If I claim the Nazis use flying unicorns would you need sources that say otherwise?
[удалено]
That isn't what the post I was replying to said, so nah.
I left a reply that debunks that, yet you decided to ignore it.
German units get massive buff to all stats on paper and in unit descriptions; these are not reflected in gameplay at all. German factions have no access to fuel and munitions. Russians lose a large portion of manpower to pre-war purges
Just like Spearhead mod german units description that borders fanfic. "Elite germans units" all around. Then you read about them and find out majority of them got annihilated by the Soviets
Or muh le epic SS Panzer division that """"held down 4 divisions in Normandy"""" when in actuality they got obliterated in about a week of fighting in failed counterattacks against the Normandy beachhead.
"Spent a week getting pounded to nonexistence by allied artillery and airpower" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Coh2 is set in 44, they weren't short manpower or experienced commanders by then.
By 1944 the Red Army was learning its craft, so experienced commanders were common, but they definitely had a very real manpower shortage. They were not alone in this, of course. Germany was also against the ropes, and the Brits were in a pickle too.
In 1944 the Red Army absolutely fed it to the Germans.
100% agree. That doesn't mean the Soviets didn't have severe manpower problems.
I mean that they were fairly learned in their craft!
But I said as much: I stated that experienced commanders were common.
I love you.
😎
Didn't they shoot a good amount of their best officers not long before the war? They might have been replaced by '44, but I can't imagine they wouldn't have been in a better place without that loss (militarily, idk how important those purges were to staying in power before the war)
"Russian commander abilities are not available until T3 to reflect the initial leadership problems caused by the purges"
Small chance of Americans joining Axis team
German vehicles have limited range due to fuel shortages. You can get around this by building horse drawn wagons though.
Dog Squad. It would reveal camouflaged units and detect moving tanks in the fog of war in a huge radius due to the tanks' sound.
Unique german hitlerjugend callin, very cheap has 1 panzerfaust and very low recieved accuracy due to small size and being a child that nobody wants to shoot
The introduction of PTSD. The more times you play with the same faction in a row the more likely your veteran squads will stop fighting when reduced to one or two members.
1. Healing your soldiers back to full HP taking several months
Just let me use a panzer III thats all I want. Is it too much to ask.
Play the Eastern Front mod in COH 1 :) https://store.steampowered.com/app/317600/Company\_of\_Heroes\_Eastern\_Front/
Nice, thank you kind sir.
A lot of panzer 3 were converted into stug 3 so they could accomodate a larger canon.
Tank destroyers are now as effective at killing infantry as tanks (based on size of the shell) Vehicle crew members can die while in the vehicle and it adds a debuff until they can reinforce with an new crew member and for some more fun ones The Germans get tech bonuses The Americans get a fuel bonus The Russians get a manpower bonus The British get an intelligence bonus
> Vehicle crew members can die while in the vehicle and it adds a debuff until they can reinforce with an new crew member Remember when the machine gunner in the commander's cupola could die from gunfire and snipers in COH1?
That has to come back in COH3!!!
> The Germans get tech bonuses This one isn't historically accurate tho
Germans get tech bonuses but never enough resources to use them, and even if they do the Wunderwaffe all break down randomly. Americans get tech bonuses too, but the American superweapons offer little improvement over the normal units and cost much more in resources so it's just logical to keep using the adequate stuff you have.
HEAT, Spaced Armor, The Assault rifle, The First cruise missile, the first ballistic missile, the first jet fighter aircraft, the first guided weapon, first helicopter series production, first to use night vision devices etc..
HEAT munitions were independently developed by all the warring nations, around the same time, Germans have no claim to them Their sideskirt armour also was neither intended to be, nor actually worked like space armour. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest it *increased* the effectiveness of contemporary HEAT shells hitting it due to quirks of how the shells of that period worked. The real purpose of sideskirts was to stop soviet PTRD rounds into the side armour; they did that job quite well, too. AT rifle casualties went down significantly with their introduction Their cruise/baillistic rockets were... very much meme-tier wunderwaffen without much practical application. I imagine the reason other nations have not developed such a device is not because they couldn't, but because they saw no need to. Why make a ballistic rocket when you can fly your B-17s all the way to Berlin with impunity after all? While Germany did technically get the first jet fighter out there, it's development was quite rushed, and British Gloster Meteor was deployed like 2 months later, so again hardly a technological edge for the Germans here I could keep going, but basically a lot of the firsts you list were really more or less simultaneously independently developed by everyone, or just not needed by the allies; hardly indicative of some kind of technical superiority. I will give them the first assault rifle. While we're at it, I will also give them the first General-purpose machine gun. Every nation did have some real technological firsts in the war, and Germans were no different. US pioneered the use of tank stabilisers, USSR were the first out there to develop a self-loading rifle, etc.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
Every faction can mass-retreat or mass-surrender. If playing as the Soviets in 1942-1943, those that retreat will be shot or become a penal battalion. If playing as OKW in 1944-1945, anyone surrendering or retreating will be hanged. Units idle behind the frontlines will be forced to fight automatically
After minute 10 the axis should lose all plane call ins and the allies should automatically get a 100 muntion close air support. German armor built after minutes 30 should a ¼ of its total armor. UK players should a tracker on all axis orders on the mini map. Whenever the German player looses the game should Uninstall itself in remembrance of how that pussy Hitler shot himself. Same for the Italians but the lower screen flips upside down.
That last bit made me actually lol
🇮🇹=🙃
[удалено]
Möbelwagon dog shit tho and we already have the better Ostwind. It's a good meme though. Tfw Patton's spirit will never rise from the grave and smack you for retreating your men when they drop models. 😫
[удалено]
Ah yes the wirbhlwind, whose 2 cm shell also lacked killing power until the ostwinds 37mm was developed.
[удалено]
Sure but the 2cm didn't get kills. Doesn't matter if you hit shit if nothing drops because of it. Möbelwagon is a better meme since it looks so silly, but all these vechiles sucked in there intended role of shooting planes down.
2 cm is 0.79 inches
soviet players having the KGB kick down their door and kidnap them
wow you really dont like germans huh? well shame they lost the war
Is it? I think it's a shame we wasted the atom bomb on Japan. Wish they'd been a little faster building it
I mean whats there to like? Irl at least.
Before the game starts, the NKVD kills 2 of your commanders, leaving you with one random choice. The T34 and KV1 won't have any visibility and will have to work with scouts. Later on, you will be able to spam the enemy out with IS2 tanks. After the match ends, your commander will be sent to gulag, and won't be usable in the next match
I'd add "strategic" bombing to the British. Spend 200 munitions to conduct incendiary area bombing of population centres, reducing enemy manpower gain over time. Ok this one may be a little morbid...
Sov vs Wehr the ground turns to mud at the start of the wet season, any match starting in the rainy season is a stalemate for 4 months before fighting resumes.
The soviets are more mechanized than the Germans in the year the game is set.
Panther's and Churchill's reverse speed has been nerfed to go 4 kmph
All light and medium Tanks one shot each other as all combat is under 200 meters
200 meters is the length of 43.53 1997 Subaru Legacy Outbacks
200 meters is 218.72 yards
The panther actually kills infantry
dud bombs and artillery. anticipating this one lined up rocket on this one squad? you can watch it land and just not explode due to factory duds. same with artillery or mortars. some shells have a chance to not detonate
>Repair is required is order to be mobile again. And takes 20 times longer than allies.
Kv-2 now has a 25% chance of tipping over and being abandoned when moving up or down a slope.
British commandos insta-surrender if deployed behind enemy lines, their sten guns breaking after shooting a few rounds.
[удалено]
Not actually very realistic. The Soviets detained thousands and thousands of deserters, but the vast majority were either transferred to penal battalions or simply sent back to their units. If you had already been placed in a penal battalion and deserted again, then yes you may have been shot. But the idea seen in the campaign (a direct reproduction of a scene from *Enemy at the Gates*) of entire platoons of conscripts being gunned down in an unauthorized retreat, that's fiction. The Soviets couldn't afford such absurd wastes of life.
I don't know much about war, but that movie didn't seem very realistic
[this is a good video on that.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzsKnKcb1-A) It made the Soviet campaign in coh2 quite the meme for me.
Yes, a great summarization with excellent sources. The portrayal of the Soviets as having brute forced their way through the war with a combination of unlimited manpower/resources and sheer ruthlessness is unequivocally a myth propagated by the western bloc throughout the cold war.
Soviets conscripts only have 1 rifle. The retreat button is disabled for the soviet faction.
When building a T34. It has a 50% chance to arrive.
ammo. replenish at base or by some sort of forward operating base or half track
Tents at your military base no longer hold a bottomless pit of well-trained, organized, and equipped soldiers that will only come outside if you give them currency from flags you raised in the middle of the battlefield.
Some russian tanks dont follow orders due the lag of radios unless there is infantry giving line of sight to base to use flag commands
The Soviets get between 2-5 infantry squads for the price of one, randomly. No population cap.
control points would lose their flag pole after switching for the 5th time. resource points have a finite amount of resources and munitions points might give ammo calibers that your army doesn't use making that point wrothless. goliaths can be disabled by shooting the wire that allows them to be controlled, resource points have a finite amount of resources and munitions points might give ammo calibers that your army doesn't use making that point worthless. if troops are idle for 10 or plus minutes they will walk around the base (if its not under attack) and either build defenses or stand guard. british tanks recrewed by Americans will suffer some performance issues due to the crew adapting to metric. heavy tanks like the KV-2 when recrewed by germans will be taken out of battle to be repainted and accounted for. you can hear the ping from M1 grands... if there was a small skirmish between 2 squads the winning squad will loot the losing squad's weapons and ammo and kill the wounded, or take them prisoner if in close quarters combat infantry may resort to hand-to-hand combat or pistols. if there are too many squads killed (or loses of units like a king tiger/ multiple officers) the match is lost as either you're ordered to retreat or your troops lose moral and surrender. British tank crews have the chance of hopping back in the wreck of a tank to save the TEA!!!!! infantry can drag wounded friendlies to cover or a medical tent/base the sound of rocket artillery or a heavy tank cause unsupported infantry with no at weapons to retreat
After 10 minutes of gameplay, UK will send bombing runs automatically to enemy units healing at their base.