Posts: 1979
The T-34/76 is widely regarded as a good tank that is very cost effective and very good when deployed in critical mass, which isn't hard to achieve given its low cost.
Posts: 282
i wonder how you can say that when you barely even play the soviets but ok...
the T-34-76 is basically a light tank with more HP and armor that comes later/takes more fuel to field than proper mediums like the panzer 4 despite being outright inferior... I'm sorry but the panzer 4 and sherman are both a whole league better than the T-34-76 and the Cromwell and no amount of bias is gonna change that...
 | Playercard of [DGM] Cain Le Roi Du Pétrole | |||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
If you are against this change, you clearly are clueless on why its there.
Neither pios nor CEs are combat units(inb4 semantic war on CEs name), neither one performs good in ANY way in mid and late game without flamer and neither one benefits from accuracy in any way with flamer.
Accuracy vet on both was pointless, because everything roflstomps them anyway, rec acc helps them both survive and do their actual job in late game - sweep mines and repair units.
If you think they get anywhere close to cons in durability, re-run your excel sheets and check the actual values cons get.
Posts: 1979
There you go, now pliz share your player card.
If you can't understand that both the sherman and the pz4 cost 22%/33% more than a T-34/76 and thus it's performance matches it's pricetag, I can't help you further.
Posts: 1979
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The camo for the SU-76 actually has no reload bonus, even with what the ability guide might suggest. Only the turreted vehicles get that specific bonus in Tank Hunter doctrine. The ability also requires more setup time than similar abilities. It takes like 3 seconds until all the 'bushes' around the SU76 are planted and it camoes, so the bonusses are fine.
Posts: 1289
Posts: 1979
Posts: 112
its soo price inefficient that 3 T-34-76s cost more than 2 panzer 4s but will lose 5/5 times in a fight frontally at any distance despite costing more than the P4...
and again you're ignoring soviet teching... it takes around the same fuel to buy an ostheer panzer 4 and a T-34....
Posts: 83
The T-34/76 is widely regarded as a good tank that is very cost effective and very good when deployed in critical mass, which isn't hard to achieve given its low cost.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1979
"for the same resources and popcap, can I field unit(s) that can counter the unit(s) in question."
Posts: 1979
I can assure you that if SOV somehow had stock access to P4, T34 would see almost no use. 30 extra fuel is a small price to pay for the option to reliably threaten enemy medium armour without the need to spend on specialist units.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 97
Increase XP value of Su-76 since it is too low
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
So having 192/204/216 penetration on SU-76 and 90% chance to score natural hit at range 60 on vet 1 SU-76 when RW and JP get no bonus with vet 1 camo is fine? I would say that as vet 1 ability it is far superior.
And why make the ability difficult to use with lock in place and rotation penalty? People will simply not use the ability the same way they do not use the RW/JP camo most of the time.
Simply remove the penalties of the ability and lower the bonus to a sight bonus and the ability will see more use.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Based on what?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The SU76s peers, the Puma, AEC, Staurt and Stug3Gs all get quite nifty abilities that aid them in disrupting enemy armor and they can be used agressively. The SU76 gets a high pen opening volley, but it can't be used offensively.
Besides, if we are going to talk about vet abilities being better on some units than others, the T34s want to have a word with you.
 |
|
|
52 | ||
 |
|
|
120 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
