Some minor and one big concerns over soviet tank tree

[Paglia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we able to rename any tank/plane/ship class that we want?

yes, very easily moddable

 

[klucz13]

yes, very easily moddable

Name - yes. Model art not so easily, at least not for everyone. However that might be an occasion to dust off Paint skills

 

[Paglia]

Name - yes. Model art not so easily, at least not for everyone. However that might be an occasion to dust off Paint skills

Agreed for the 2D stuff: hard. I was anwsering for names modding.

 

[JerkyJerry]

It is just far too early to know. Your concerns which may end up being valid (after the game's release) are at this point purely speculation. The fact is we just don't know if that is the final, the current or the tech tree that will be released. You have 39 more days to wait.

 

[Space Ranger]

And German Panther was clasified by Soviets as Heavy. Should we maybe move to 1943 heavy slot?

- did i missed something and we now classify all the tanks using soviet methods of classification?

By all means, let`s ignore that T-28 was utely incapable of doing the job of medium tank in 1939, due to it`s horrible speed, armor and size.
It is supposed to be an obsolete design by 1939.

- well, hence why i personally root for T-50 and not T-28, but that doesnt change my opinion that using serially produced vehicle to represent 1939 soviet medium tank would be vastly superior to pre-production prototype/clone that is apparently was chosen by the devs.

Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N, weight 23 tonnes, armament 75mm L/24 cannon, frontal armor - 50mm, + another 20mm. produced 1942—1943.
Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1 weight 22,3 tonne, armament 75mm L/24 cannon, frontal armor - 50mm. produced 1941-1942.
As you can see, the two, were directly comparable.

Now, unfortunately, direct comparisons of of T-50 and T-34 show remarkable difference, no doubt derived from T-34 being at least 2 times heavier.

- comparing models of different production dates are by any means could not be called "direct", sorry.
Want direct, here is direct:

T-50: weight - 13.8 , armament - 45mm L/46, frontal armor - 37/50°mm

A-20: weight - 16.5 , armament - 45mm L/46, frontal armor - 25/52°mm

T-34: weight - 25.6 , armament - 76mm L/30, frontal armor - 45/60°mm

Sorry, but i cant see how this could justify use of A-20 over T-50, considering that T-50 was a tank that was intended to become main soviet tank. Unlike A-20 that was intended to become... nothing.

T-50 wouldn`t become main Soviet tank, since, it failed to become viable for production. Plans are shaky thing.

- it failed only because war started, if war did not starts or starts later, or it starts but germans somehow are not as successful, than it would be a main soviet tank, at least initially.

The issue is that Soviet tech tree basically has T-34 at both 1939 level and 1941 level, which makes no sense.

- yes, that an issue, hence i propose to change it to something more viable.

It is just far too early to know. Your concerns which may end up being valid (after the game's release) are at this point purely speculation. The fact is we just don't know if that is the final, the current or the tech tree that will be released. You have 39 more days to wait.

- game would hit shelves in just one month, if anything it is actually an opposite of "to early". And if game would be released with current tech tree, the probability that Pdx will ever address issues that i pointed out would be close to null. Afterall creating 3D models takes time and money, and considering that graphics does not affect gameplay, i doubt that they will make any changes post release. If i brought issue now, i could at least hope that the problems with soviet tech tree would be looked at by the devs. And if issues would not be solved, i could at least say that i tried to draw their attention to it.

 

[mursolini]

- did i missed something and we now classify all the tanks using soviet methods of classification?

Why yes, since the main argument for 1930 vintage multi turret breakthrugh tank that was initially supplied to heavy tank battalions is that Soviets classified it as medium at some point, that was my presumption

- well, hence why i personally root for T-50 and not T-28, but that doesnt change my opinion that using serially produced vehicle to represent 1939 soviet medium tank would be vastly superior to pre-production prototype/clone that is apparently was chosen by the devs.

Sorry, but T-50 , with a tonne of problems, that were not fixed, thus vehicle was abandoned, is actually worse than A-20 or A-32.
T-28 is just awful fit in general.

- comparing models of different production dates are by any means could not be called "direct", sorry.

1942 and 1942 are same date, don`t you find?
Why yes, I understend that you screwed up and have to grasp for a straw, but find a better one

Want direct, here is direct:

T-50: weight - 13.8 , armament - 45mm L/46, frontal armor - 37/50°mm

A-20: weight - 16.5 , armament - 45mm L/46, frontal armor - 25/52°mm

T-34: weight - 25.6 , armament - 76mm L/30, frontal armor - 45/60°mm

It is amusing, how you compare 1941 model of T-34 , considering your earlier argument. Might want to fix it.

Sorry, but i cant see how this could justify use of A-20 over T-50, considering that T-50 was a tank that was intended to become main soviet tank. Unlike A-20 that was intended to become... nothing.

Yes, the intended "main" tank, whose production was first delayed, and later, scraped altogether

Why not make T-34 heavy tank then, it was intended to fulfill that role at some point, right...right?

- it failed only because war started, if war did not starts or starts later, or it starts but germans somehow are not as successful, than it would be a main soviet tank, at least initially.

How? T-34s and KVs were present in hundreds in 1941 June, when invasion started. Both performed well, for the situation. They were already produced tanks, with minor issues ironed out, while T-50, could at best begin production in early 1942. T-50 simply failed to get into it`s window of relevancy, due to being too ambitious and complicated for no real gain, thus the project was scrapped. It was similar to Tiger Porshe, if anything.

- yes, that an issue, hence i propose to change it to something more viable.

- game would hit shelves in just one month, if anything it is actually an opposite of "to early". And if game would be released with current tech tree, the probability that Pdx will ever address issues that i pointed out would be close to null. Afterall creating 3D models takes time and money, and considering that graphics does not affect gameplay, i doubt that they will make any changes post release. If i brought issue now, i could at least hope that the problems with soviet tech tree would be looked at by the devs. And if issues would not be solved, i could at least say that i tried to draw their attention to it.

 

[Space Ranger]

Why yes, since the main argument for 1930 vintage multi turret breakthrugh tank that was initially supplied to heavy tank battalions is that Soviets classified it as medium at some point, that was my presumption

- it was a soviet tank that was classified and re-classidfied according to soviet classification methods, why would we use soviet classification for german tanks?

Sorry, but T-50 , with a tonne of problems, that were not fixed, thus vehicle was abandoned, is actually worse than A-20 or A-32.
T-28 is just awful fit in general.

- sorry, but A-20 did not even hit production lines.

1942 and 1942 are same date, don`t you find?
Why yes, I understend that you screwed up and have to grasp for a straw, but find a better one

- you say what mate? -

Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N, weight 23 tonnes, armament 75mm L/24 cannon, frontal armor - 50mm, + another 20mm. produced 1942—1943.
Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.F1 weight 22,3 tonne, armament 75mm L/24 cannon, frontal armor - 50mm. produced 1941-1942.

- since when 41-42 and 42-43 became same date?

It is amusing, how you compare 1941 model of T-34 , considering your earlier argument. Might want to fix it.

- i comparing models that went in production, and since A-20 did not make it...

Yes, the intended "main" tank, whose production was first delayed, and later, scraped altogether

- aha, only because war started, as i said for a hundred and tent time. If it wasnt for war, soviets would probably even built KV-5.

Why not make T-34 heavy tank then, it was intended to fulfill that role at some point, right...right?

- you demonstrating really alien logic to me, considering that it is you who proposing to make light-convertible tank to represent a soviet medium of 1939... And T-34 was not intended to be heavy, it was support tank, they had KV for heavy breakthrough role already in 1939.

How? T-34s and KVs were present in hundreds in 1941 June, when invasion started. Both performed well, for the situation. They were already produced tanks, with minor issues ironed out, while T-50, could at best begin production in early 1942. T-50 simply failed to get into it`s window of relevancy, due to being too ambitious and complicated for no real gain, thus the project was scrapped. It was similar to Tiger Porshe, if anything.

- err, because it was planned to be so? Kind off easy answer, doesnt it? In case you forgot soviets were planning to end their rearmament in 43.

 

[podcat]

3. A-32 - and this is my mane concern with soviet tank tech tree. Why in hell a tank that in reality not only was not mass produced ( at least not with said designation ) but also it was never intended to be mass produced to begin with, because it was a prototype, and not just a prototype, it was basically a first model of tank that is better known under name T-34... Placing it in a tech tree... is just completely wrong on so many levels... Especially considering that here are enough of much more fitting and mass produced alternatives. Starting from T-28 to T-50. Yes, T-28 is much older design than 1939 ( tank was in production since 1932 ) but at least it is real mass produced machine and not a tank that by HOI4 terms would be better described as a basic T-34 "variant"... As for T-50, yes it was a light tank and not medium, but if we look at UK tree game already takes liberties with brit tank classifications interpretation. And from the historical POW it is actually would make sence, considering that in reality T-34 actually was never intended to compose main bulk of soviet tank force. That role was originally intended for, yep, T-50. The plan was to make T-50 a main soviet tank, while T-34 was intended to be a support tank ala pz3/pz4 german combo. But war changed everything and T-50 was quickly put aside in favor of more powerfull T-34. The third way to deal with A-32 nonsense is to "downgrade" T-34 to 1939 tank model, but considering that in german tree pz4 is listed as 1941 tank model, it would look a bit strange... So in my opinion replacing A-32 with T-50 is a best way to deal with this A-32 non sense.

T-28 - an older much too crappy design for this slot (for comparison the slot represents a Pz III in tech level)
A-32 - yes a prototype on the way to T-34. Seems to fit tech and equipment wise and nothing else works better in my eyes for the slot. Some argument could be made for the A20 but it seemed too weak and light
T-50 - about as correct as the A-32 so it depends if you are most annoyed about including a prototype or something classified as light tank as the first medium. Considering we drew the art for A-32 its just personal preference and not much reason to change things.

for the is-7 there are good arguments for the KV-5, but we felt the main point of the super heavies (being utterly stupid to make for most cases) are
- being cool
- unique look
- bonus if produced

is-7 was after all the heaviest soviet tank built afaik so makes sense to highlight that. Most of our super heavies are just crazy pipe projects that werent built.

t-44 was picked over t-43 because it looked much more distinct profile wise compared to the t-34. was built in decently large numbers (compared to other nations, not on soviet scale ). seemed stat wise better to compete with panther etc

 

[Skjold89]

T-28 - an older much too crappy design for this slot (for comparison the slot represents a Pz III in tech level)
A-32 - yes a prototype on the way to T-34. Seems to fit tech and equipment wise and nothing else works better in my eyes for the slot. Some argument could be made for the A20 but it seemed too weak and light
...

The only tank i don't agree with is the A-32, sure the T-28 was a pile of crap but im gonna take a gamble and say that the americans use the M3 Lee which also was well, a piece of crap and many other nations have very sub-par tanks in that slot in terms of real life performance compared to other superior tanks of the same era. T-28 played a big part in the Finnish Winter War.

 

[ComradeCommissar]

The T-28 was bad, but it wasn't so bad. To put it in perspective it was superior to most German tanks (Pz I, Pz II, Pz35(t) and Pz38(t)) and about a match for the Panzer III. Most losses were from it breaking down, which was a problem across all vehicles.

I would rather have it than the prototypes that never even saw service.

 

[Zaku]

The T-28 was bad, but it wasn't so bad. To put it in perspective it was superior to most German tanks (Pz I, Pz II, Pz35(t) and Pz38(t)) and about a match for the Panzer III. Most losses were from it breaking down, which was a problem across all vehicles.

I would rather have it than the prototypes that never even saw service.

The t-28 was a terribly outdated design in 1939.
It was a large, poorly armored, slow, unreliable tank.

 

[Space Ranger]

T-28 - an older much too crappy design for this slot (for comparison the slot represents a Pz III in tech level)
A-32 - yes a prototype on the way to T-34. Seems to fit tech and equipment wise and nothing else works better in my eyes for the slot. Some argument could be made for the A20 but it seemed too weak and light
T-50 - about as correct as the A-32 so it depends if you are most annoyed about including a prototype or something classified as light tank as the first medium. Considering we drew the art for A-32 its just personal preference and not much reason to change things.

- yeah, i was afraid that everything is set in stone already. To me soviet tree looks a bit fabricated with all those prototypes and future tanks, like italian, french and japanese one, which is strange considering that USSR was one of the "tank countries", ie they produced and designed tonnes of those.

for the is-7 there are good arguments for the KV-5, but we felt the main point of the super heavies (being utterly stupid to make for most cases) are
- being cool
- unique look
- bonus if produced

is-7 was after all the heaviest soviet tank built afaik so makes sense to highlight that. Most of our super heavies are just crazy pipe projects that werent built.

- well, in comparison with Maus, T-95, FCM F1, Tortoise and WG O-I fabrications ( not to mention your Lil Duce italian Mammoth Tank ) , IS-7 kind off doesnt look that stupid to begin with, it was barely more heavy than Tiger II while having decent speed/mobility, firepower and armour, unlike forementioned 100+ tonnes monsters that other nations produced. I feel that designating IS-7 in to the company of those fail tanks is not just for it. Plus ingame SH are offshoots of 1941 heavies, so its a bit weird to see IS-7 that is designed as a continuation of KV instead of actual IS.

Well, i guess than my mission is complete, i failed soviet tank industry, so now i will be trialed and if found guilty than it would be either penal battalion, gulag or capital punishment via shooting squad. So long guys.