Keith Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Based on readings on earlier post it is apparent that BTS will have to make some compromises on the vehicles they intend to model in CM2. I know for a fact that they will not be modeling tanks with multiple turrents, so no T-35s or T-28s folks. This post is a list of the MINIMUM list of vehicles that I think should be modeled: RUSSIAN ------- T-26 BT-7 T34 A/C T34-85 KV1 KV2 (if they can fit it in) BA-64 SU-76 (most produced vehicle after T-34) SU-122 SU-152 JSU-122 JSU-152 JS-2 Guns ----- 45mm AT gun 57mm AT gun 76mm gun 122mm gun (used in direct fire role for AT) 152mm gun (ditto) GERMAN ------ Pzkfw 38(t) Pzkfw IIF Pzkfw IVE Pzkfw IIIF Pzkfw IIIG or Pzkfw IIIH Pzkfw IIIJ or Pzkfw IIIL Stug IIIb Elefant Jpz I 47mm (if they can fit it in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 They definetly will ned more models of the PzIV. The short barreled PzIVs were numerous and critical to the early war years. What about Lend-Lease Soviet equipment? I assume this list is only including new vehicles not already modelled. For the Sovs I would like to see the SU-85, and SU-100 TDs, and more of the early years tanks. Your list is pretty sparse, even for a minimum list. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Deych Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 You absolutely must have T-60/T-70s. They formed about a 3rd of all Soviet tank park in the 42/43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 . [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 There HAS to be KV-2's surely. I wanna rain 152mm death on some german hamsters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Keith: I know for a fact that they will not be modeling tanks with multiple turrents, so no T-35s or T-28s folks I remember KwazyDog saying that modeling multi-turreted tanks would be difficult, but he didn't rule out the possibility. Has BTS made a definitive statement on this? ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Wasn't T-28 quite numerous. Finland captured even enough to equip its own forces with some t-28s. Btw. Finnish nickname for t-28 was "milktrain" It was sure funny looking vehicle. IT IS MUST TO BE INCLUDED!!! (damn my spelling) [This message has been edited by illo (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by illo: Wasn't T-28 quite numerous. Around 600 T-28's were produced. They had a 76.2mm main gun and up to five MG's, two in turrets. This thing could be hell on infantry. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted February 16, 2001 Author Share Posted February 16, 2001 Gregory Deych, you are absolutely correct. The T60s and T70s should be included. Jeff Heidman, I did not include PzkfwIVD or PzkfwIVF1 because I the differences between these models and the PzkfwIVE are minimal. The only real game differencs would be variations in armor thickness. If they could fit in the SU-85 or SU-100 that would be great. But what I put up was a minimal list. And knowing their schedule is to release by next Sept. I would say they are going to be hard pressed to model everyones favorite vehicle. And yes, I did read from BTS that they would not be doing vehicles with multiple turrents. It would require too much new coding for the Tac AI. Basically they are going to try to reuse the existing game engine as much as possible. I also read there will be no calvary horses for much the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 . [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudeLover Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 I wouldn't rule out the T-28 yet. The thread below specifically suggests that the 'land battleship' T-35 may not make it. They were very rare anyway...the T-28 is probably easier to model and was more common. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015429-2.html IIRC many Soviet tanks also had machine guns pointing out the back end of the turret. As far as modeling time, ins't KwazyDog already building Soviet behemoths? Go Dan go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudeLover Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Also, I think that once you've got the Pzkw IVF1, it's not too much extra to make a C, D, or E (if I'm remembering my Squad Leader correctly). Completely new vehicles are harder. They clearly have to make PzIII, so we should see all the variations of that, I would guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by Keith: Gregory Deych, you are absolutely correct. The T60s and T70s should be included. Jeff Heidman, I did not include PzkfwIVD or PzkfwIVF1 because I the differences between these models and the PzkfwIVE are minimal. The only real game differencs would be variations in armor thickness. I guess i do not consider differences in armor thickness to be minimal points. And of the only difference is armor thickness, modelling them will be trivially easy. A minimal list needs to include those vehicles that are necessary to accomplish historical missions within the proper time frames. The Soviet TDs definitely are necessary. If the only Pz IV the German get is the E model, what are they supposed to use until the E model was released? Or should they get the E model when historically they only had the A model? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_2 Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 You chaps forgot the KV-85 ... I think it's a cross between the KV and the T-34 85mm.. Though don't quote me on that !! I hate replying to these topics... I just want to wait and see really.. And let the guys get on with it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Where is 37mm Pak??? (Most numerous german AT-gun in 41.) Also PzKpfw IIIn with short 75mm is missing.(Was often used to support Tigers) PzKpfw IVf (short gun with added armor compared to IVe) PzKpfw IVf2 with 75L42 gun. (very important model as was first Pz-IV with gun that could deal with t-34 frontally from range. Also first Pz-IV to mount true AT gun) SdKfz 251/10 and 250/10 (37mm) very numerous support weapon at east front. Stug-IIIf 75L42 (same reason as Pz-IVf2) Also there was Stug IIIf(/8?) with 75L48 gun and 90mm frontal armor..but i really don't know how widely it was used. And i agree some Shermans are needed for Russkies. Also SU-85 is missing from list!!! (btw was many SU-100s produced?) Keith i guess there arent many guns that havent been used to direct fire role. But if there is onboard 152mm so there must be onboard 150mm too. But i think CM draws line to 105mm. Maybe 122mm Howitzer will be onboard... dunno. I know i forgot to add many important vehicles too...Brummbär, PzJäger 38,FlakPz 38 various sIGs ... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Originally posted by illo: (btw was many SU-100s produced?) The SU-100 was an up-gunned SU-85. It used the 100mm naval gun and was the best anti-tank gun the Soviets produced. However, they preferred the 122mm due to its greater HE capability. Around 1,675 SU-100's were produced from late 1944 to mid 1945. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 SU-100 has t-34 chassis(?)..wooow! Nasty looking fellow... it sure had some AT capabilities 100(L60?) naval gun sounds like awesome AT weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 If CM is looking to reuse standing polygons, let's not forget the lend-lease SU-57, mating the existing M3 halftrack with the existing 57mm antitank gun. A large number were shipped to Russia and used right up to the gates of Berlin. I'd be curious to see just how effective they'd be in combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimShady Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by Mikey D: If CM is looking to reuse standing polygons, let's not forget the lend-lease SU-57, mating the existing M3 halftrack with the existing 57mm antitank gun. A large number were shipped to Russia and used right up to the gates of Berlin. I'd be curious to see just how effective they'd be in combat. Well, if you're following the "infantry can't close assault halftracks thread", if the Germans fired their 'fausts already I'd probably say they'd be invunerable (in the current incarnation of CM anyway )... LimShady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfamily33 Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Man I was really hoping for the M3 Lee (lend-lease). If there is a multi-turret programming problem, treat the fixed 75 like a big @$$ machine gun. Just give us the tank! [This message has been edited by bfamily33 (edited 02-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 The Russians truely despised the lend-lease M3 Grant. Their name for it translated out to sommething like "coffin for eight men". They we're much more fond of the lend-lease Churchill MkIII. Ah! That reminds me! the Lend-lease Valentine saw VERY widespread use! I wouldn't mind seeing a late 75mm gun Valentine in the mix (seems our MINIMUM armor list is growing instead of shrinking!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Oops, the line above should've read: "They WEREN'T much more font of the Lend-lease Churchill MkIII." That tiny mistake rather changed the meaning of the sentence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Space Thing Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Whatever is done, I hope that enough time is taken for it ALL to be included. I echo Scipio's sentiments. Let it be said here first. "BTS, you have no deadline. Please do it all and do it right, however long it takes." I humbly thank you ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 The criteria, I guess, may be any tank that was present in the theater in numbers of more than 200. Based on that: T-40, 60 and 70 definitely a must. BT-5. SUs of all mentioned varieties. Pz-I and Pz-35(t). Earlier models of Pz-IV. Lend-Lease Valentines, Shermans, Churchills and HTs. IS-1 (aka IS-85). Note: it's not JS or JSU, it's IS and ISU. The latter abbreviation, iirc, has nothing to do with Joseph at all. Apart from that, I submit that use of captured equipment should be allowed, if not for QBs, than for custom-built scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob/1 Posted February 17, 2001 Share Posted February 17, 2001 Originally posted by Keith: GERMAN ------ Pzkfw 38(t) Pzkfw IIF Pzkfw IVE Pzkfw IIIF Pzkfw IIIG or Pzkfw IIIH Pzkfw IIIJ or Pzkfw IIIL Stug IIIb Elefant Jpz I 47mm (if they can fit it in) Don't forget the early Panther or Panzer V,VI and the VI 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts