T-34 rework

Why not make ram cost munitions?

I have to be honest, I really don't like Ram as an ability. It's basically a suicide option in most cases,which is really rather against the spirit of the game, but especially when in conjunction with certain offmaps, or even the B4, it has a potentially absurd payoff in terms of what it can do.

I'd prefer to see the T34 get some sort of other interesting gimmick, but I can't really think what it might get. I'd have suggested some sort of canister ability, but I don't think the russians typically issued such things in T34s... or giving it some sort of indirect utility similar to the ZIS and SU-76... but again, I don't think this is commonly done, and would make the SU-76 even LESS attractive than it is already.

The fact it can capture territory is a rather underutilised aspect of the tank, incidentally.

Regardless of all else, the T-34/85 DESPERATELY needs to have Ram removed and replaced. It absolutely doesn't fit that unit... but it's not as though it needs buffing by giving it a more universally useful ability.

Why not make ram cost munitions?

Because 300mp and 90fuel is already pretty high cost for a 5 sec stun.

Because 300mp and 90fuel is already pretty high cost for a 5 sec stun.

Shouldn't just making ram cost munitions but making it available instantly cause the Soviet player to think twice about suiciding it (especially when combined with off-maps)? Increasing the penetration of the ram but making it cost munitions seems like a better change than the veterancy 1 requirement.

Vet 1 stuff

4) You get already vet1 after killing 14 gren models for example, without getting self damage.
5) You get vet 1 already after 4 shot(hits) fights vs enemy PIV, without getting self damage.

6) You get also some vet, when you get damage from enemy.

So you can get fast vet1 for T34. It is just to give enemy a chance to see and react, that you got new t34 to ram your units.
So if you look close to this change, it is a very very small nerf to a very strong + cheap ability.

Fact check False:
The T-34 requires 16 grens kills for vet 1, or more specifically 15 gren kills and damage on the 16th model.

Except it isn't an anti infantry specialist its a generalist leaning AI. Does the ostwind have 120 close range penetration? Does the Centaur? Do either do 160 damage per shot?

or a specialist with a bit more AT... its still terrible compared to other medium generalists even for its price

The T-34 isn't "helpless" against the Panzer 4 anymore than the Panzer 4 is "helpless" against an E8. They are outclassed sure, but its not as if a Panzer 4 can take on 2 t-34s anymore than an E8 could take on x2 Panzer 4s.

I'm pretty sure the E8 is pretty meh against infantry... which unlike the T-34 the P4 is actually superior against infantry in contrast to both the T-34 and the E8 while being superior against armor to the T-34 and cheaper than the E8... soo its an argument in favor of the T-34 (or the E8) being inefficient...

A T-34 with any of the soviet light anti tank options supporting (m-42, penal ptrs, guard ptrs) stands an even chance facing against a P4.

yes the zis just got nerfed penal ptrs is a bit of a waste and the M42 and guards may work but are doctrinal... not to mention there's only like 1 doctrine with IL-2 and guards in the same lineup...

What does this have to do with cost efficiency? My whole point was that cost efficiency and shock power are separate. You can easily have a cost effective ability/unit that is worthless for its time frame, and a cost ineffective ability/unit that is powerful at a different time frame.

The T-34 is at the very least not cost ineffective-though this is of course going to be different for the larger game modes.

its cost effective because it has a snare that sacrifices itself in exchange for ripping 60-70% the health of a superheavy tank... without that ability its dirt useless... there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s... would I rather spam a medium tank generalist that can beat armor and infantry or spam a unit that can beat only infantry and does it worse than the medium tank generalist but at a lower price?

Vet 1 stuff

4) You get already vet1 after killing 14 gren models for example, without getting self damage.
5) You get vet 1 already after 4 shot(hits) fights vs enemy PIV, without getting self damage.

6) You get also some vet, when you get damage from enemy.

So you can get fast vet1 for T34. It is just to give enemy a chance to see and react, that you got new t34 to ram your units.
So if you look close to this change, it is a very very small nerf to a very strong + cheap ability.

this is still nonsensical... having to spend time and effort trying to get a 300mp 90 fuel snare + 16 models worth of grenadier models + 125/200muni strike just to rip apart 60-70% the HP of an axis superheavy seems QUITE COSTLY...


ram doesn't need a nerf... it needs a rework... either made more consistent or replaced with another ability entirely


and do remember that without ram/offmap the allies will struggle against axis supers in teamgames ESPECIALLY since the vet penetration of the allied tank destroyers (especially the SU-85) just got a nerf.... id say the balance team just wants teamgames to become axis dominated again since superheavies are gonna be I win buttons....

or a specialist with a bit more AT... its still terrible compared to other medium generalists even for its price

No it isn't. For an extra 40 fuel, the T-34/85 gets +40 penetration at all ranges and some extra hitpoints, and the T-34/85 is considered a very good tank. So for 20 fuel more than a T-34/76(110fuel), we might expect to see say... a 20 penetration increase at all ranges and maybe +10 armor? Well guess what, that would put the T-34/76 into the same realm as the cromwell or sherman. For its cost and AI performance, its AT is fine.

I'm pretty sure the E8 is pretty meh against infantry... which unlike the T-34 the P4 is actually superior against infantry in contrast to both the T-34 and the E8 while being superior against armor to the T-34 and cheaper than the E8... soo its an argument in favor of the T-34 (or the E8) being inefficient...

Im sorry but the E8 being good or bad against infantry wasn't the point. You mentioned that the T-34 was "helpless" against medium tanks of its class(panzer 4). My point is that it isn't, and I used the panzer 4 vs e8 as an analog.

yes the zis just got nerfed penal ptrs is a bit of a waste and the M42 and guards may work but are doctrinal... not to mention there's only like 1 doctrine with IL-2 and guards in the same lineup...

You also appear to have missed the point here too. The point being that even with LIGHT(ptrs or mini at gun) AT support, the T-34 can stand up to the Panzer 4. It wasnt about NEEDING the AT support but rather an example of how the T-34's power level isn't as far off from the Panzer 4 as you make it seem.

its cost effective because it has a snare that sacrifices itself in exchange for ripping 60-70% the health of a superheavy tank... without that ability its dirt useless... there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s... would I rather spam a medium tank generalist that can beat armor and infantry or spam a unit that can beat only infantry and does it worse than the medium tank generalist but at a lower price?

No. Its cost effective because it has 640hp, 160 damage per shot, 28dps from mgs at 10 range and 150 armor for 300mp 90 fuel.
By comparison, the Valentine has 480hp, 120 damage per shot, 7dps from MGs at 10 range and 120 armor for 300mp 80 fuel.

The T-34 is fine for its cost. Its not fine for its timing.

No it isn't. For an extra 40 fuel, the T-34/85 gets +40 penetration at all ranges and some extra hitpoints, and the T-34/85 is considered a very good tank. So for 20 fuel more than a T-34/76(110fuel), we might expect to see say... a 20 penetration increase at all ranges and maybe +10 armor? Well guess what, that would put the T-34/76 into the same realm as the cromwell or sherman. For its cost and AI performance, its AT is fine.

the T-34-85 is the best medium tank in the game BECAUSE of those extra hitpoints... the fact that it can tank an additional shot compared to literally every other medium tank means that
1. it can solo every other medium and win
2. it can accumulate veterancy without losses far more efficiently since it tanks an extra shot...

Im sorry but the E8 being good or bad against infantry wasn't the point. You mentioned that the T-34 was "helpless" against medium tanks of its class(panzer 4). My point is that it isn't, and I used the panzer 4 vs e8 as an analog.

I'm sorry but its part of the point... your analogy does not fulfill all the initial requirements of the first analogy hence falls flat...

P4 is superior against the T-34 vs armor and infantry but the T-34 costs less

the E8 is superior against the P4 against armor but the P4 costs less and is better against infantry...

absolutely not a fair comparison

You also appear to have missed the point here too. The point being that even with LIGHT(ptrs or mini at gun) AT support, the T-34 can stand up to the Panzer 4. It wasnt about NEEDING the AT support but rather an example of how the T-34's power level isn't as far off from the Panzer 4 as you make it seem.

and my point was as id repeat AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN

there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s

No. Its cost effective because it has 640hp, 160 damage per shot, 28dps from mgs at 10 range and 150 armor for 300mp 90 fuel.
By comparison, the Valentine has 480hp, 120 damage per shot, 7dps from MGs at 10 range and 120 armor for 300mp 80 fuel.

The T-34 is fine for its cost. Its not fine for its timing.

and my point was as id repeat AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN

there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s

the T-34-85 is the best medium tank in the game BECAUSE of those extra hitpoints... the fact that it can tank an additional shot compared to literally every other medium tank means that
1. it can solo every other medium and win
2. it can accumulate veterancy without losses far more efficiently..

This is simply incorrect. The E8 and 105sherman and bulldozer sherman upgrade all can take an extra hit. Both the E8 and the M4 with bulldozer upgrade have similar cost to the T-34/85. Yes the ability to tank an extra shot is good,
but what I was getting at is that an extra 20 fuel is a reasonable cost for the T-34/76 to have an extra 20 penetration at all ranges which puts it squarely in the realm of the cromwell or M4. If this was not a reasonable cost, the base performance could be considered bad.

I'm sorry but its part of the point... your analogy does not fulfill all the initial requirements of the first analogy hence falls flat...

P4 is superior against the T-34 vs armor and infantry but the T-34 costs less

the E8 is superior against the P4 against armor but the P4 costs less and is better against infantry...

absolutely not a fair comparison

You are moving the goal posts, what you said originally was:

"its helpless against any medium tank of its class... it can only bully vehicles of a lower weight class and that's it..."

Your original point was simply about the tank against other tanks or vehicles, nothing to do with infantry. I have no idea why you are bringing anti infantry into the equation when your original point was about how the T-34 is "helpless" against medium tanks specifically...
Like come on... read your own posts.

and my point was as id repeat AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN

there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s

And t-34s are stronger en masse then valentines.

That does not make the valentine cost ineffective, anymore than the panzer 4 being better than T-34s makes T-34s cost ineffective.

You seem to be stuck on "Panzer 4 beats T-34 1v1, panzer 4 has better stats, therefore T-34 is cost ineffective."


May as well call stugs into question
there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass Stugs as opposed to Su-85s

So does that mean the stug is cost ineffective?

This is simply incorrect. The E8 and 105sherman and bulldozer sherman upgrade all can take an extra hit. Both the E8 and the M4 with bulldozer upgrade have similar cost to the T-34/85. Yes the ability to tank an extra shot is good,
but what I was getting at is that an extra 20 fuel is a reasonable cost for the T-34/76 to have an extra 20 penetration at all ranges which puts it squarely in the realm of the cromwell or M4. If this was not a reasonable cost, the base performance could be considered bad.

the E8 isn't nearly as good as the T-34-85 against infantry... the 105 sherman is a specialist against infantry and the dozer sherman is also a good contender as one of the best core medium tanks ingame...

You are moving the goal posts, what you said originally was:

"its helpless against any medium tank of its class... it can only bully vehicles of a lower weight class and that's it..."

Your original point was simply about the tank against other tanks or vehicles, nothing to do with infantry. I have no idea why you are bringing anti infantry into the equation when your original point was about how the T-34 is "helpless" against medium tanks specifically...
Like come on... read your own posts.

you're taking the argument out of context... here's the original context

"the P4 actually has better scatter and ROF on its main gun while having more machinegun DPS if it upgrades to pintle... the only real advantage the T-34-76 has is its lower cost but this is also in exchange for being completely helpless against armor..."

as you can see I DID mention the P4 being more efficient against infantry as part of the original post... it is you instead who argue in favor of comparing anti armor capability in a vacuum... something I will not subscribe to...

And t-34s are stronger en masse then valentines.

That does not make the valentine cost ineffective, anymore than the panzer 4 being better than T-34s makes T-34s cost ineffective.

You seem to be stuck on "Panzer 4 beats T-34 1v1, panzer 4 has better stats, therefore T-34 is cost ineffective."

the original point was in the shoutbox... sanders93 argued that the T-34 was cost efficient and was to be used in critical mass and not to be compared 1v1 against the P4... i argued that the T-34 was NOT cost efficient when fighting the P4 and was NOT efficient to mass at all since there are no situations where I would mass T-34s as opposed to panzer 4s....

tldr: the balance team INTENDS the T-34 to be used as a cost efficient massable unit as opposed to a unit stronger in a 1v1 vs enemy armor... the problem is it ISNT cost efficient and massable when contrasting it to a PANZER 4.... the P4 is BETTER than the T-34 at its intended role as a cost efficient massable unit...

May as well call stugs into question
there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass Stugs as opposed to Su-85s

So does that mean the stug is cost ineffective?

but there is... stug spam can cost efficiently take down allied heavy TD spam as the stug can reliably 1v1 any of the allied tank destroyers (provided they don't back away) while being 38% cheaper and having better AI than allied tank destroyers with pintle (though is almost never used in this capacity)...

the T-34 loses to any of the medium tanks including the P4 (provided the T-34 doesn't back away) and has even less AI ability than a panzer 4 while being only 25% cheaper....

but there is... stug spam can cost efficiently take down allied heavy TD spam as the stug can reliably 1v1 any of the allied tank destroyers (provided they don't back away) while being 38% cheaper and having better AI than allied tank destroyers with pintle (though is almost never used in this capacity)...

the T-34 loses to any of the medium tanks including the P4 (provided the T-34 doesn't back away) and has even less AI ability than a panzer 4 while being only 25% cheaper....

Dude...try 1v1ing Allied TDs with a Stug. It's impossible. The extra range is just too much.

Dude...try 1v1ing Allied TDs with a Stug. It's impossible. The extra range is just too much.

yes that's why I said provided they don't back away... most fights between armor almost always involves backing away... deaths usually happen only when armor gets snared or if a player is careless... in any case there is still a lot more critical mass phenomenon with stugs and panzer 4s than you will see with T-34s... there is just no reason to mass them at all... at least without ram...

the E8 isn't nearly as good as the T-34-85 against infantry... the 105 sherman is a specialist against infantry and the dozer sherman is also a good contender as one of the best core medium tanks ingame...

And they all can take an extra hit.

you're taking the argument out of context... here's the original context

"the P4 actually has better scatter and ROF on its main gun while having more machinegun DPS if it upgrades to pintle... the only real advantage the T-34-76 has is its lower cost but this is also in exchange for being completely helpless against armor..."

as you can see I DID mention the P4 being more efficient against infantry as part of the original post... it is you instead who argue in favor of comparing anti armor capability in a vacuum... something I will not subscribe to...

And I am disagreeing with the T-34/76 being helpless against armor, there was no caveats to the statement about being "helpless", T-34 is helpless against tanks, full stop. Anti tank capability is a separate category from anti infantry, being good or bad against infantry has no bearing on whether a vehicle is capable of engaging tanks. The centaur is "helpless" against armor, the hetzer is "helpless" against armor.

I get the feeling that from your perspective, the T-34 has 5% chance to penetrate a panzer 4 and if it does, it does half damage, because that's what its like for vehicles which are ACTUALLY helpless against armor.

the original point was in the shoutbox... sanders93 argued that the T-34 was cost efficient and was to be used in critical mass and not to be compared 1v1 against the P4... i argued that the T-34 was NOT cost efficient when fighting the P4 and was NOT efficient to mass at all since there are no situations where I would mass T-34s as opposed to panzer 4s....

tldr: the balance team INTENDS the T-34 to be used as a cost efficient massable unit as opposed to a unit stronger in a 1v1 vs enemy armor... the problem is it ISNT cost efficient and massable when contrasting it to a PANZER 4.... the P4 is BETTER than the T-34 at its intended role as a cost efficient massable unit...

The T-34 is cost efficient. That is entirely separate from what its optimal role is. In my opinion, the T-34 is useful as a general purpose medium tank that you either get 1 to support your other armor, or you go for a critical mass given their low expense and pop cap.


For 90 fuel and 10pop you have a vehicle which is mobile, capable in the anti infantry department, and can be a threat on the flanks of heavier vehicles. Sure it isn't going to go toe to toe with a panzer 4, but its just as dangerous to an overextended panzer 4 as an M4 sherman is.

but there is... stug spam can cost efficiently take down allied heavy TD spam as the stug can reliably 1v1 any of the allied tank destroyers (provided they don't back away) while being 38% cheaper and having better AI than allied tank destroyers with pintle (though is almost never used in this capacity)...

the T-34 loses to any of the medium tanks including the P4 (provided the T-34 doesn't back away) and has even less AI ability than a panzer 4 while being only 25% cheaper....

Time to kill for the stug against any allied tank destroyer is 15 seconds. The time to kill a stug for the firefly is 16 seconds, for the Su-85 its 16.2, for the Jackson its 18.9.

Looking at these time to kills one might assume the Jackson is the worst of them, after all it does have the longest time to kill vs 640(or 580) medium tanks. But we all know its not, is it.


As for the stug against the Su85 and firefly, there is at best a coin toss chance the stug will win, and in a realistic scenario it should never win. Plus both the Su85 and Firefly have powerful abilities which supports them in their roles- long range self spotting, and tulip rockets.


Despite being cheaper, nobody in their right mind would want a stug over an Su85. That doesn't make the stug a bad vehicle. In the same way the Su76 is actually very cost effective if you look at its stats compared to similar priced vehicles. The reason nobody takes them is for reasons other then its cost to performance ratio.

And they all can take an extra hit.

and you're ignoring the fact that out of all of those you've mentioned only one is a medium generalist... and that medium generalist is considered as a top contender for one of the best tanks ingame....

And I am disagreeing with the T-34/76 being helpless against armor, there was no caveats to the statement about being "helpless", T-34 is helpless against tanks, full stop. Anti tank capability is a separate category from anti infantry, being good or bad against infantry has no bearing on whether a vehicle is capable of engaging tanks. The centaur is "helpless" against armor, the hetzer is "helpless" against armor.

I get the feeling that from your perspective, the T-34 has 5% chance to penetrate a panzer 4 and if it does, it does half damage, because that's what its like for vehicles which are ACTUALLY helpless against armor.

no... but it will lose to a P4 GUARANTEED at any range and so will 3 T-34s lose against 2 P4s despite costing more fuel and significantly more manpower.... that is not the definition of "cost efficient"....

The T-34 is cost efficient. That is entirely separate from what its optimal role is. In my opinion, the T-34 is useful as a general purpose medium tank that you either get 1 to support your other armor, or you go for a critical mass given their low expense and pop cap.


For 90 fuel and 10pop you have a vehicle which is mobile, capable in the anti infantry department, and can be a threat on the flanks of heavier vehicles. Sure it isn't going to go toe to toe with a panzer 4, but its just as dangerous to an overextended panzer 4 as an M4 sherman is.

the T-34 according to sanders was a medium tank not intended to be used in 1v1 against other armor but to use in critical mass and trade against other armor... this means it is to be spammed in large amounts and force attritional losses on enemy armor...

unfortunately this does NOT apply because as I've said before massing T-34s is LESS efficient when massed than an equivalent medium tank such as the panzer 4... which means not only is ANOTHER UNIT is better at doing its intended role than itself but it is also worse at performing ANY OTHER ROLE aswell...

Time to kill for the stug against any allied tank destroyer is 15 seconds. The time to kill a stug for the firefly is 16 seconds, for the Su-85 its 16.2, for the Jackson its 18.9.

Looking at these time to kills one might assume the Jackson is the worst of them, after all it does have the longest time to kill vs 640(or 580) medium tanks. But we all know its not, is it.


As for the stug against the Su85 and firefly, there is at best a coin toss chance the stug will win, and in a realistic scenario it should never win. Plus both the Su85 and Firefly have powerful abilities which supports them in their roles- long range self spotting, and tulip rockets.


Despite being cheaper, nobody in their right mind would want a stug over an Su85. That doesn't make the stug a bad vehicle. In the same way the Su76 is actually very cost effective if you look at its stats compared to similar priced vehicles. The reason nobody takes them is for reasons other then its cost to performance ratio.

unlike the T-34 3 stugs will actually beat 2 SU-85s or fireflies... this means that the STUG though not exactly gonna win a 1v1 provided the allied TD uses a bit of micro is actually EFFICIENT when massed unlike the T-34 who stands no chance against the P4 when massed UNLESS supporting AT is bought...

Looking at these time to kills one might assume the Jackson is the worst of them, after all it does have the longest time to kill vs 640(or 580) medium tanks. But we all know its not, is it.

yes because you see things in a vacuum... you say stuff like "the e8 can also take an extra hit" but ignore the fact that the E8 is pretty meh against infantry unlike the T-34-85...

the T-34-76 meanwhile is only average against infantry while being bad against armor unlike the P4... and is LESS efficient to mass than the panzer 4 despite the balance team themselves INTENDING the T-34 to be efficient when massed...




let me say that again... the T-34 is INTENDED to be efficient when massed... and is INTENDED to trade efficiently against axis armor according to sanders... and it does NONE of that therefore it SUCKS

and you're ignoring the fact that out of all of those you've mentioned only one is a medium generalist... and that medium generalist is considered as a top contender for one of the best tanks ingame....

The e8 is a generalist. Compare its AI against the cromwell which I'm sure you would also say is a generalist. You'll see that the E8 compares quite favorably.

no... but it will lose to a P4 GUARANTEED at any range and so will 3 T-34s lose against 2 P4s despite costing more fuel and significantly more manpower.... that is not the definition of "cost efficient"....

In a vacuum, no micro, no flanking, just straight shooting match at long range. So, which is more cost effective at engaging a centaur/ostwind, the T-34? Or the Panzer 4? (hint hint, the T-34). Which is more effective at engaging a super heavy like the tiger or IS2? Well, both the T-34 and Panzer 4 are wholly inadequate at fighting super heavies, and have about the same effectiveness at the rear and flanks.... so.... I'd rather flank with a 90 fuel vehicle then a 120fuel vehicle.

the T-34 according to sanders was a medium tank not intended to be used in 1v1 against other armor but to use in critical mass and trade against other armor... this means it is to be spammed in large amounts and force attritional losses on enemy armor...

unfortunately this does NOT apply because as I've said before massing T-34s is LESS efficient when massed than an equivalent medium tank such as the panzer 4... which means not only is ANOTHER UNIT is better at doing its intended role than itself but it is also worse at performing ANY OTHER ROLE aswell...

Sanders does not speak for me, I speak for me. Don't fob his opinion off on me as if its mine. He can defend himself.

unlike the T-34 3 stugs will actually beat 2 SU-85s or fireflies... this means that the STUG though not exactly gonna win a 1v1 provided the allied TD uses a bit of micro is actually EFFICIENT when massed unlike the T-34 who stands no chance against the P4 when massed UNLESS supporting AT is bought...

In a vacuum with no micro, just plinking away at each other. In practice 3 stugs will lose to 2 Su-85s because of self spotting and superior range.

yes because you see things in a vacuum... you say stuff like "the e8 can also take an extra hit" but ignore the fact that the E8 is pretty meh against infantry unlike the T-34-85...

the T-34-76 meanwhile is only average against infantry while being bad against armor unlike the P4... and is LESS efficient to mass than the panzer 4 despite the balance team themselves INTENDING the T-34 to be efficient when massed...

Why are you saying that I am the one seeing things in a vacuum when what you quoted was me pointing out that the Jackson's poor time to kill is not representative of its actual strength. Are you just going out of your way to misrepresent what I'm saying?


The T-34 performs well against infantry for a 90 fuel generalist, and performs about what you would expect from a 90 fuel generalist against tanks. Overall its at the very least average in cost effectiveness for 90fuel.

let me say that again... the T-34 is INTENDED to be efficient when massed... and is INTENDED to trade efficiently against axis armor according to sanders... and it does NONE of that therefore it SUCKS

Sanders does not speak for me, I speak for me. Don't fob his opinion off on me as if its mine. He can defend himself.

What people seem to overlook about the T-34/76 is the great vet bonuses it get. At vet 3 the unit fires 3.7 sec while it has great mobility with Speed: 7.8 Accel: 2.3 Rotate: 43.2.

What people seem to overlook about the T-34/76 is the great vet bonuses it get. At vet 3 the unit fires 3.7 sec while it has great mobility with Speed: 7.8 Accel: 2.3 Rotate: 43.2.

The common theme though is that the T-34 has 120/100/80 penetration which is admittedly poor compared to 110-150fuel tanks. Because of the poor penetration, that means the T-34 isn't "cost effective" or in other words, its not worth 90 fuel. I disagree with this sentiment.

The e8 is a generalist. Compare its AI against the cromwell which I'm sure you would also say is a generalist. You'll see that the E8 compares quite favorably.

the Cromwell`s stats cannot be opened in the cruzz calculator but the T-34/76 T-34-85 M4A3 and panzer 4 have much better aoe stats than the easy eight...

In a vacuum, no micro, no flanking, just straight shooting match at long range.

straight up shooting frontally at any range... with micro and flanking ill give even more of an edge to the panzer 4 as it can deal damage at a range while still having the speed to keep the distance...

So, which is more cost effective at engaging a centaur/ostwind, the T-34? Or the Panzer 4? (hint hint, the T-34).

actually for this case of the ostwind and the centaur its the panzer 4... the unit not only shoots faster but it also doesn't bounce frontally against the ostwind unlike the T-34 which is likely to bounce frontally against it...

T-34 long range penetration = 80
P4 long range penetration = 110
ostwind armor = 110
centaur armor = 160

T-34 chance to bounce vs ostwind = 27%
P4 chance to bounce vs ostwind = 0%
MTTK T-34 vs ostwind
30.98
MTTk P4 vs ostwind
22

price difference between T-34 and P4 = 25%....

and this isn't even counting the fact that the T-34 takes more damage from the ostwind due to lower armor...

soo no you're objectively wrong here

Which is more effective at engaging a super heavy like the tiger or IS2? Well, both the T-34 and Panzer 4 are wholly inadequate at fighting super heavies, and have about the same effectiveness at the rear and flanks.... so.... I'd rather flank with a 90 fuel vehicle then a 120fuel vehicle.

id rather have 2 P4s engaging a tiger than 3 T-34s if ram is taken out... the T-34 actually bounces off the rear armor quite often while the P4 has much lower chance to bounce... plus I get combat blitz which has utility beyond ram...

Sanders does not speak for me, I speak for me. Don't fob his opinion off on me as if its mine. He can defend himself.

both of you defend the same bullshit through different arguments...

Why are you saying that I am the one seeing things in a vacuum when what you quoted was me pointing out that the Jackson's poor time to kill is not representative of its actual strength. Are you just going out of your way to misrepresent what I was saying?

yes like the E8 totally "fits" the argument just because it takes an extra hit... i didn't take the performance of the E8 in a vacuum unlike what you did...

The T-34 performs well against infantry for a 90 fuel generalist, and performs about what you would expect from a 90 fuel generalist against tanks. Overall its at the very least average in cost effectiveness for 90fuel.

soo if the T-34 is average in its cost effectiveness for 90 fuel does that mean the P4 is overpowered for its cost effectiveness at 120 fuel?