T-34 rework

Linearly like accuracy.
At range 30 T-34/76 penetration should be 90.

Learn something new everyday

So... you are saying the valentine isn't a contemporary of the T-34? Isn't the M10 a contemporary of the stug?

doesnt the valentine come far earlier than a T-34/P4? also the T-34 was intended by the balance team to be an excellent attrition tank... if it cant beat the P4 via attrition/critical mass then it simply doesnt do its intended role... hence the point is the T-34 doesnt do its intended role properly

My tests were conducted at 30-35 range since sight range is 35, it is unrealistic to expect engagements to begin at and maintain above 35 range. Granted this is hitting the mid range penetration instead of long which for whatever reason I was thinking was 30-40.
Either way, 30 range is far more realistic for the scenario.

idk... i simply set them to attack at range 35 and the T-34 lost now 8 out of 10 times... point is it shouldnt be losing since its an attritional tank

doesnt the valentine come far earlier than a T-34/P4? also the T-34 was intended by the balance team to be an excellent attrition tank... if it cant beat the P4 via attrition/critical mass then it simply doesnt do its intended role... hence the point is the T-34 doesnt do its intended role properly

idk... i simply set them to attack at range 35 and the T-34 lost now 8 out of 10 times... point is it shouldnt be losing since its an attritional tank

Doesn't the Stuka and land mattress come far earlier then the Calliope? But they are still both rocket artillery and it's fair to compare them.

I feel like you are taking what your interpretation of the intended purpose is and using that as your metric to determine with the vehicle is performing. I'm not even convinced that's what was actually intended... But even if it was, that doesn't change the objective hard stats of the vehicle.

For 25% reduced fuel and -2 pop, the T-34 suffers an average of -13% penetration, -10% rate of fire and -17% armor, though it does gain in all speed categories. I'd call that a fair exchange.

Doesn't the Stuka and land mattress come far earlier then the Calliope? But they are still both rocket artillery and it's fair to compare them.

the calliOP is a quite calliOP... its a poor point of comparison

I feel like you are taking what your interpretation of the intended purpose is and using that as your metric to determine with the vehicle is performing. I'm not even convinced that's what was actually intended... But even if it was, that doesn't change the objective hard stats of the vehicle.

it isnt what i intend the vehicle to be... its what the balance team stated the vehicle is supposed to be... and it clearly doesnt do its job if that were to be the case...

at the moment (without ram) its really only a premium light tank whose purpose is to engage infantry and engage in an opportunistic flank not the attritional critical mass tank it was intended to be... in which case theres no reason to use the T-34 since the T-70 actually exists...

For 25% reduced fuel and -2 pop, the T-34 suffers an average of -13% penetration, -10% rate of fire and -17% armor, though it does gain in all speed categories. I'd call that a fair exchange.

long range and midrange penetration matter quite alot soo that figure of 13% for penetration is misleading... a 27% reduction in far penetration is quite significant far more than the reduced fuel manpower and popcost... and yes 25% reduction in fuel cost but only a 14.28% reduction in manpower costs soo the unit is still incredibly manpower inefficient in an already manpower starved faction...


finally there is still no case where id rather have a T-34 than a P4... my point is it is simply outclassed by the P4 and this shouldnt be the case since they are supposed to be contemporaries...

the calliOP is a quite calliOP... its a poor point of comparison

The point isn't that the calliope is stronger which it is, the point is that timing is unimportant when comparing the strengths of these units because they have similar or even identical roles. Such as it is with the valentine and T-34

it isnt what i intend the vehicle to be... its what the balance team stated the vehicle is supposed to be... and it clearly doesnt do its job if that were to be the case...

I don't care what the balance team "intends" or what you think the balance team intends. The balance team could intend for the elefant to be an anti infantry extraordinaire, that does not change the practical use of the vehicle.

at the moment (without ram) its really only a premium light tank whose purpose is to engage infantry and engage in an opportunistic flank not the attritional critical mass tank it was intended to be... in which case theres no reason to use the T-34 since the T-70 actually exists...

At 90 Fuel yeah, its halfway between a "real" medium tank and a light vehicle like the puma or AEC. And its stats reflect this, except that its HP and damage per shot is that of a medium tank, not a light vehicle. Also, I'd say +80 armor, +120 damage per shot, +240hp, +40-70 penetration definitely gives it a distinct reason to use it over a T-70.

long range and midrange penetration matter quite alot soo that figure of 13% for penetration is misleading... a 27% reduction in far penetration is quite significant far more than the reduced fuel manpower and popcost... and yes 25% reduction in fuel cost but only a 14.28% reduction in manpower costs soo the unit is still incredibly manpower inefficient in an already manpower starved faction...

The Mid range penetration for the T-34 IS 13% less then the panzer 4 which is why I used the number. Also the close penetration is only 3% less, in a theoretical rushdown which the T-34 is capable of due to better speed characteristics, that 27% long range penetration advantage doesn't look so good.

finally there is still no case where id rather have a T-34 than a P4... my point is it is simply outclassed by the P4 and this shouldnt be the case since they are supposed to be contemporaries...

Well at -30 fuel, I'd hope the its outclassed by the panzer 4.

By the way, you never answered, Is 120/100/80 penetration ok for a 90 fuel generalist tank? if not, what should the penetration be? You keep dodging this, as if you know the answer and don't want to say it...

For 25% reduced fuel and -2 pop, the T-34 suffers an average of -13% penetration, -10% rate of fire and -17% armor, though it does gain in all speed categories. I'd call that a fair exchange.

1. Comparing absolutely numbers between performance of guns of Allied and Axis armour doesn't make any sense, because both sides face different targets with different armour values. You need to use the difference in penetration to armour ratios instead: T34 vs P4 at mid range is for example 0,56 vs 0,77. So in reality P4 has 37,5 % advantage over T34 in AT performance, which is a lot more than you suggest.

2. Mutiple numerical advantages stack mutliplicatevely, not cumulatively or by avarage. By lacking in mutiple departments, the T34 doesn't perform ~ 13,5 % worse. The total disadvantage is ultimately something like 0,87*0,9*0,83, so again about -35 % overall. This is how scaling works with mutliple factors, but this realistically still isn't the ideal way to represent difference in performance, because...

3. ...COH2 doesn't work with fractions. It's just result A (hit) or result B (no hit). Tanks are not some massive damage sponges, so having by 37,5 % lower theoretical DPS against P4 for example, the T34 doesn't get to damage a P4 just by amount this lower and perform 37,5 % worse overall. It means that result B happens significantly more often for T34 and P4 has proportionally higher chance to get result A, which overall means that under vast majority of statistical scenarios, T34 fails and has to retreat/get repaired or dies right away, while the P4 has vastly increased map presence.

This is why T34 feels so much worse to use as an actual tank compared to other mediums. I'm writing this just to show how important it is to work with the numbers in proper context.

1. Comparing absolutely numbers between performance of guns of Allied and Axis armour doesn't make any sense, because both sides face different targets with different armour values. You need to use the difference in penetration to armour ratios instead: T34 vs P4 at mid range is for example 0,56 vs 0,77. So in reality P4 has 37,5 % advantage over T34 in AT performance, which is a lot more than you suggest.

2. Mutiple numerical advantages stack mutliplicatevely, not cumulatively or by avarage. By lacking in mutiple departments, the T34 doesn't perform ~ 13,5 % worse. The total disadvantage is ultimately something like 0,87*0,9*0,83, so again about -35 % overall. This is how scaling works with mutliple factors, but this realistically still isn't the ideal way to represent difference in performance, because...

3. ...COH2 doesn't work with fractions. It's just result A (hit) or result B (no hit). Tanks are not some massive damage sponges, so having by 37,5 % lower theoretical DPS against P4 for example, the T34 doesn't get to damage a P4 just by amount this lower and perform 37,5 % worse overall. It means that result B happens significantly more often for T34 and P4 has proportionally higher chance to get result A, which overall means that under vast majority of statistical scenarios, T34 fails and has to retreat/get repaired or dies right away, while the P4 has vastly increased map presence.

This is why T34 feels so much worse to use as an actual tank compared to other mediums. I'm writing this just to show how important it is to work with the numbers in proper context.

I don't disagree that there is a greater context. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the M4 or cromwell since they face the same foes as the T-34? And honestly, the stats would skew more in favor of the T-34 if we did this.
Except that the M4 has already been dismissed as broken op and apparently the cromwell too except for being underpowered (not by me). I chose the comparison to the Panzer 4 because neither the other options was deemed acceptable to compare to.


Would you say the T-34's stats are warranted given its cost? Or do you believe it needs a buff in this department?

The point isn't that the calliope is stronger which it is, the point is that timing is unimportant when comparing the strengths of these units because they have similar or even identical roles. Such as it is with the valentine and T-34

the point is that timing is also a major factor to the effectiveness of a unit and that cannot be ignored...

in any case the valentine should not be compared to the T-34 when the T-34 is intended to compete with the panzer 4... the valentine is not... plus the T-34 is also the most powerful stock tank of in the soviet arsenal... the valentine meanwhile is supplanted with far more powerful lategame alternatives like the comet and churchill...

wanna give the T-34 the valentine treatment? fine... give the soviets a proper core lategame tank and make the T-34-85 nondoc...

I don't care what the balance team "intends" or what you think the balance team intends. The balance team could intend for the elefant to be an anti infantry extraordinaire, that does not change the practical use of the vehicle.

it doesnt change the fact that for a medium tank generalist the tank underperforms badly when compared to contemporaries like the P4/sherman/P4J...

At 90 Fuel yeah, its halfway between a "real" medium tank and a light vehicle like the puma or AEC. And its stats reflect this, except that its HP and damage per shot is that of a medium tank, not a light vehicle. Also, I'd say +80 armor, +120 damage per shot, +240hp, +40-70 penetration definitely gives it a distinct reason to use it over a T-70.

in exchange the T-70 not only comes earlier but kills infantry much faster at a lower price... the increased armor and damage per shot the T-34 is not relevant of many of its matchups since as a T-34 you would be avoiding any medium armor like the plague anyways while the T-70 has good light armor DPS due to its ROF... there is only once case where a T-34 is superior in a matchup to the T-70.... and that is fighting the ostwind... thats it...

The Mid range penetration for the T-34 IS 13% less then the panzer 4 which is why I used the number. Also the close penetration is only 3% less, in a theoretical rushdown which the T-34 is capable of due to better speed characteristics, that 27% long range penetration advantage doesn't look so good.

and any half decent P4 player would easily keep the distance between them and a T-34... mid to long range penetration is far more relevant than mid to close range penetration...

Well at -30 fuel, I'd hope the its outclassed by the panzer 4.

its not just outclassed... its outcosted... 3 T-34s cost 270 fuel and 2 P4s only cost 240 fuel... yet the T-34 loses to the P4 and that shouldnt be the case...

By the way, you never answered, Is 120/100/80 penetration ok for a 90 fuel generalist tank? if not, what should the penetration be? You keep dodging this, as if you know the answer and don't want to say it...

again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4... i dont know if its +30 + 20 + 10 or even +5 it doesnt matter so long as it WINS a 3v2 as intended...

Tank slugging it out stationary does not say much for their balance.

Most tank fight involve moving and trying to flank slower vehicles with faster vehicles.

I don't disagree that there is a greater context. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the M4 or cromwell since they face the same foes as the T-34? And honestly, the stats would skew more in favor of the T-34 if we did this.
Except that the M4 has already been dismissed as broken op and apparently the cromwell too except for being underpowered (not by me). I chose the comparison to the Panzer 4 because neither the other options was deemed acceptable to compare to.


Would you say the T-34's stats are warranted given its cost? Or do you believe it needs a buff in this department?

In my personal opinion, T34/76 is fine in terms of combat stats for its price and I don't even think it necessarily needs better timing than it currently has.

But what I generally dislike is the fact the SOV has no upgrade path options in the late game. T4 feels more like T3,5 and there is no way you can press your resource advantage if you manage to get to 100 popcap, have decent unit preservation and start stockpiling fuel. When you finally lose some armour, you have to go back to stock uvnetted T34 for your generalist role, whereas other factions have Panthers/Brummbars/Comets that replace losses in a more efficient way. Fresh T34 can no longer compete or survive in this environment. USF is similar in this regard, moreso in the infantry department, but that's another story. This is more of a 2v2 issue, but I've been having this feeling in 1v1 too if the game dragged for too long and became a slugfest.

Tank slugging it out stationary does not say much for their balance.

Most tank fight involve moving and trying to flank slower vehicles with faster vehicles.

does not matter... the T-34 should be dominant against the P4 in a 3v2 shooting match... the T-34 in a 3v2 after all costs some 200mp and 30 fuel more...

the point is that timing is also a major factor to the effectiveness of a unit and that cannot be ignored...

in any case the valentine should not be compared to the T-34 when the T-34 is intended to compete with the panzer 4... the valentine is not... plus the T-34 is also the most powerful stock tank of in the soviet arsenal... the valentine meanwhile is supplanted with far more powerful lategame alternatives like the comet and churchill...

wanna give the T-34 the valentine treatment? fine... give the soviets a proper core lategame tank and make the T-34-85 nondoc...

You seem to have lost my point with the rocket artillery. The katy comes later then the Land mattress. Does that mean the katy is worse? Does that mean the two units can't or shouldnt be be compared?

it doesnt change the fact that for a medium tank generalist the tank underperforms badly when compared to contemporaries like the P4/sherman/P4J...

Except that you've already stated the M4 is blatantly OP and shouldnt really be used as a comparison. So are you advocating instead for an M4 and a Panzer 4 nerf?

in exchange the T-70 not only comes earlier but kills infantry much faster at a lower price... the increased armor and damage per shot the T-34 is not relevant of many of its matchups since as a T-34 you would be avoiding any medium armor like the plague anyways while the T-70 has good light armor DPS due to its ROF... there is only once case where a T-34 is superior in a matchup to the T-70.... and that is fighting the ostwind... thats it...

You again seem to be operating under the assumption that the T-34 has something like a 10% chance to penetrate a Panzer 4 at all ranges.

its not just outclassed... its outcosted... 3 T-34s cost 270 fuel and 2 P4s only cost 240 fuel... yet the T-34 loses to the P4 and that shouldnt be the case...

And 2 panzer 4's lose to a single comet at 40 range. Should the panzer 4's be buffed?

again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4... i dont know if its +30 + 20 + 10 or even +5 it doesnt matter so long as it WINS a 3v2 as intended...

The question was: Is 120/100/80 penetration ok for a 90 fuel generalist tank whether its for soviets or USF or UKF or whatever. Stop dodging it and answer. I don't see T-34 in that question, do you?

But just to be clear, I do think its a fair amount of penetration for 90 fuel. If you said that it should be +10, I would say that the fuel needs to be increased correspondingly-and you might agree. Except at that point we would be talking about a 100 fuel vehicle, which is outside the scope of the question.

So I am going to repeat again:
For 90 fuel, what is a reasonable amount of penetration on a generalist medium?

But what I generally dislike is the fact the SOV has no upgrade path options in the late game.

yes exactly... id be fine with the T-34 if the T-34 werent the best stock medium tank in the soviet lineup if the soviets actually had a proper lategame medium like a P4/m4 analogue... but they dont have it at the moment and i dont think the balance team is ever gonna make the T-34-85 nondoc...

hence the best course of action is just to buff the T-34-76 in order to make it comparable to other lategame options like the P4/M4 when critically massed... whether its making the T-34 cheaper or improving its performance....

does not matter... the T-34 should be dominant against the P4 in a 3v2 shooting match... the T-34 in a 3v2 after all costs some 200mp and 30 fuel more...

Does this also mean that the Puma needs a buff because 3 Pumas < 2 T34s in a frontal stationary engagement? Jackson and Firefly need also heavy buffs because they'd lose to a JP4.

Especially with turreted and mobile units, these comparisons only give very limited information since the main advantage is outnumbering and flanking the enemy. And then you do not note that you're using one of the units at an intended weakness.

Also please give more information on your tests: How was your setup, did you account for focus fire (in a game even a total scrub would focus on one tank), if a tank survived, how much HP did it still have? That's quite some valuable information, since it makes a huge difference in the P4s won 4/5 times with 1 shot left on the survivor or with full HP.

You seem to have lost my point with the rocket artillery. The katy comes later then the Land mattress. Does that mean the katy is worse? Does that mean the two units can't or shouldnt be be compared?

timing is a major factor... but it isnt the ONLY factor... the landmattress is a terrible point of comparison since its barrage is a tickle compared to a katy/pwerf/stuka/calliOP

Except that you've already stated the M4 is blatantly OP and shouldnt really be used as a comparison. So are you advocating instead for an M4 and a Panzer 4 nerf?

i didnt say it was blatantly OP... i said the M4 was a contender for one of the best medium tanks ingame... this is due to its immense anti infantry and utility potential while still having half decent anti armor...

You again seem to be operating under the assumption that the T-34 has something like a 10% chance to penetrate a Panzer 4 at all ranges.

and youre under the assumption than a T-34 shouldnt be backing up when it sees a panzer 4...

And 2 panzer 4's lose to a single comet at 40 range. Should the panzer 4's be buffed?

thats funny because ostheer actually has the panther... what medium tank does the soviet faction have beyond the T-34-76?

The question was: Is 120/100/80 penetration ok for a 90 fuel generalist tank whether its for soviets or USF or UKF or whatever. Stop dodging it and answer. I don't see T-34 in that question, do you?

But just to be clear, I do think its a fair amount of penetration for 90 fuel. If you said that it should be +10, I would say that the fuel needs to be increased correspondingly-and you might agree. Except at that point we would be talking about a 100 fuel vehicle, which is outside the scope of the question.

So I am going to repeat again:
For 90 fuel, what is a reasonable amount of penetration?

again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... again and again and again and again


"increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4"....

i dont know if its penetration needs to be increased by +10 or +20... it needs to be tested out as to what the ideal number should be SINCE THE ANSWER REQUIRES A SIMULATION... but whatever that ideal number is its the point where the T-34 starts winning against the panzer 4 in a 3v2 shootout....

now if you REALLY REALLY want an exact number as to what i think the answer is then id have to create my own mod to test it out... thats gonna take more time that i have to spend right now

yes exactly... id be fine with the T-34 if the T-34 werent the best stock medium tank in the soviet lineup if the soviets actually had a proper lategame medium like a P4/m4 analogue... but they dont have it at the moment and i dont think the balance team is ever gonna make the T-34-85 nondoc...

hence the best course of action is just to buff the T-34-76 in order to make it comparable to other lategame options like the P4/M4 when critically massed... whether its making the T-34 cheaper or improving its performance....

Yeah, making the 85 non-doctrinal is probably heresy to the balance team. And to a degree I can understand why. Giving SOV a T4,5 tech would take away from the uniqueness of OST/UKF teching. It could also bring some general balance issues, because SOV would then be able to have both the manpower economy advantage (7m cons, merge) and vehicle efficiency per population.

The advantage of more expensive and powerful armour that people seem to forget about since the heavy call-in meta has gone is the performance per pop. Pop cost doesn't increase as steeply as fuel cost does with performance, so having access to great mediums like the 85 or P4 allows you to build stronger and more flexible late game comps, if you have the unit preservation and resource management. Stock SOV don't have the option to use this to their advantage, other factions do.

But then again, Guard Motor Coordiantion, which simulates the scenario where SOV has access to P4-like medium, is viable as ever and I've seen noone complain about it being oppressively good in late game. Even the 85 has its limits when it comes to heavier Axis toys.

again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... again and again and again and again


"increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4"....

i dont know if its penetration needs to be increased by +10 or +20... it needs to be tested out as to what the ideal number should be SINCE THE ANSWER REQUIRES A SIMULATION... but whatever that ideal number is its the point where the T-34 starts winning against the panzer 4 in a 3v2 shootout....

now if you REALLY REALLY want an exact number as to what i think the answer is then id have to create my own mod to test it out... thats gonna take more time that i have to spend right now

Maybe if you answered the actual question you wouldn't end up repeating yourself.

For 90 fuel, what is a reasonable amount of penetration for a generalist medium? Do you see T-34 in there? I dont... So lets say that its a generalist medium that can be built from the tier 3 HQ for the brits since you seem to be getting hung up on the T-34 bit.

Does this also mean that the Puma needs a buff because 3 Pumas < 2 T34s in a frontal stationary engagement? Jackson and Firefly need also heavy buffs because they'd lose to a JP4.

the difference is the T-34 is the best medium tank the soviets have... they literally have no panther nor comet nor M4A3 nor churchill nor P4 nor P4J to rely on... they are the ONLY faction that suffers from this drawback hence the T-34 needs to be adjusted to be comparable to these units...

Especially with turreted and mobile units, these comparisons only give very limited information since the main advantage is outnumbering and flanking the enemy. And then you do not note that you're using one of the units at an intended weakness.

not when a unit is supposed to be directly comparable to it yet still loses despite spending more resources...

Also please give more information on your tests: How was your setup, did you account for focus fire (in a game even a total scrub would focus on one tank), if a tank survived, how much HP did it still have? That's quite some valuable information, since it makes a huge difference in the P4s won 4/5 times with 1 shot left on the survivor or with full HP.

setup at open flat ground 3 and a half conscript sandbag length distance no focus fire done in any of the cases...

P4 was 1 shot left in the first test but at half health for 2 of the other cases and at full health for the other...

the T-34 in the case where the T-34 won (with one P4 gun disabled) was 1 shot to KO for 1 T-34 and 1 shot from full health for the second T-34...

Maybe if you answered the actual question you wouldn't end up repeating yourself.

For 90 fuel, what is a reasonable amount of penetration for a generalist medium? Do you see T-34 in there? I dont... So lets say that its a generalist medium that can be built from the tier 3 HQ for the brits since you seem to be getting hung up on the T-34 bit.

the brits have proper lategame tanks to rely on thus the need for a medium tank that can frontally challenge the P4 would be unnecessary... the T-34 in its current state would be efficient so long as ram were not removed...


if the brits did NOT have the comet or churchill then id probably start at 120/110/100 at 90 fuel...

the difference is the T-34 is the best medium tank the soviets have... they literally have no panther nor comet nor M4A3 nor churchill nor P4 nor P4J to rely on... they are the ONLY faction that suffers from this drawback hence the T-34 needs to be adjusted to be comparable to these units...

???
Axis also only have the P4 as a medium tank. Soviets have the SU85 (even the SU76) and a decent ATG for AT purposes. Regarding AT, the M4A3 will also lose to a P4 since they almost cost the same (making a 1v1 comparison better).

not when a unit is supposed to be directly comparable to it yet still loses despite spending more resources...

So how is decoupling its performance to an artificial test that does not fully represent the in game usage help in describing the performance gap?

Panzerwerfer needs heavy AoE buffs because my max range salvos barely wipe a standing Maxim, yet the Katyusha has a decent chance to wipe the MG42. It does not make sense. Yet this is the wrong conclusion, because the PWerfer wreaks friggen havoc on close range. The T34 is surprisingly cost efficient at close range even without rear armor shots. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's the way the unit is balanced. A test at max range where it is weak BY DESIGN should not surprise anyone if the result says that the T34 is weak at that range.

setup at open flat ground 3 and a half conscript sandbag length distance no focus fire done in any of the cases...

P4 was 1 shot left in the first test but at half health for 2 of the other cases and at full health for the other...

the T-34 in the case where the T-34 won (with one P4 gun disabled) was 1 shot to KO for 1 T-34 and 1 shot from full health for the second T-34...

Thanks. This (plus the tests that Serrith did) tell us that there might be quite some variation in there, which is only solvable by simply performing more tests...