T-34 rework

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...

There's the concrete answer I've been asking for.

Now the problem is the Cromwell which has 135/120/105 but for 110 fuel. Why would I get the cromwell when I could buy this nameless medium tank for 20 fuel less, but with only a small hit to long range and mid range penetration? But if this nameless tank had say... 80 long range penetration, there might actually be reason to weigh the costs involved.

Now regarding the soviets having an incomplete kit. Yeah, the soviets currently crutch heavily on the Su85 and doctrinal vehicles to get them through the late game I agree. That however is completely separate to whether or not the T-34 is "worth" 90 fuel.

???
Axis also only have the P4.

Uhm, that's the point. P4 is a complete package with both AT and AI capabilities, T34 is not.

Soviets have the SU85 (even the SU76) and a decent ATG for AT purposes.

And OST has even better AT gun for AT purposes (better pen, better vet ability), two respectively better tank destroyers that also happen to deal damage to infantry while having better survivability.

Regarding AT, the M4A3 will also lose to a P4 since they almost cost the same (making a 1v1 comparison better).

M4 has better AI performance than P4, self repair, smoke and it can still threaten P4 and force it away. Risking a duel with an M4 is, well, a risk. T34/76 can do none from that list, so why even bring this up?

There's the concrete answer I've been asking for.

Now the problem is the Cromwell which has 135/120/105 but for 110 fuel. Why would I get the cromwell when I could buy this nameless medium tank for 20 fuel less, but with only a small hit to long range and mid range penetration? But if this nameless tank had say... 80 long range penetration, there might actually be reason to weigh the costs involved.

Now regarding the soviets having an incomplete kit. Yeah, the soviets currently crutch heavily on the Su85 and doctrinal vehicles to get them through the late game I agree. That however is completely separate to whether or not the T-34 is "worth" 90 fuel.

the T-34 could be made into that lategame "complete kit" we need with a simple penetration buff...

???
Axis also only have the P4 as a medium tank.

and the P4 is an actual medium tank generalist... very much capable of fighting armor while being superior to the T-34 against infantry... the soviets have nothing that comes even close to it nondoc...

Soviets have the SU85 (even the SU76) and a decent ATG for AT purposes.

yes while having no medium generalist to speak of... every other faction has a medium or a premium generalist in their lineup...

Regarding AT, the M4A3 will also lose to a P4 since they almost cost the same (making a 1v1 comparison better).

i never stated that AT was the only metric here... in fact i brought up anti infantry and utility as an important factor as to why i think both the M4A3 and the P4 outclass the T-34 heavily even in terms of cost efficiency... and as to why i think the T-34 is inefficient as a lategame vehicle...

the T-34 could be made into that lategame "complete kit" we need with a simple penetration buff...

It could be worth testing. Leave T34/76 vulnerable as it is now, but simply increase its penetration to let's say Sherman levels, just so that P4 needs to take some hits when trading blows and think twice before doing some risky moves. That way it will still win most duels thanks to superior armour and penetration and T34 will typically need to retreat from it when without support, but it will allow SOV to punish mistakes, the bounce RNG is now a bit too favourable to Axis when retreating after overextending. Of course this should be accompanied with a rebalance of tech/build fuel cost of T4 and the T34.

the T-34 could be made into that lategame "complete kit" we need with a simple penetration buff...

And of course, a corresponding price hike.

My point is, and always was that the t-34's stats are to be expected from a 90 fuel vehicle, but the timing may be off. I never said it was as or more cost effective then a Panzer 4, only that at 90 fuel, it isn't cost ineffective.

If the T-34's penetration needs to be increased along with a matching price increase, then so be it, but the point is that a price increase would be needed because its performance would outstrip its cost.

And of course, a corresponding price hike.

My point is, and always was that the t-34's stats are to be expected from a 90 fuel vehicle, but the timing may be off. I never said it was as or more cost effective then a Panzer 4, only that at 90 fuel, it isn't cost ineffective.

we could always not give it a price hike....

that would allow it to be at least as cost effective as a panzer 4 which would give the soviets the much needed medium generalist with the added flavor of being cheaper in exchange for raw performance... buffing its performance then giving it a price hike basically turns it into a P4 clone... wouldnt want that exactly...

keeping it cheaper but equally efficient to a P4 would at least retain its flavor as an attritional unit while making it directly competitive against the P4...

the other option of course is to make the T-34-85 nondoc.... but id bet the balance team would throw a hissy fit if that were to be done...

we could always not give it a price hike....

that would allow it to be at least as cost effective as a panzer 4 which would give the soviets the much needed medium generalist with the added flavor of being cheaper in exchange for raw performance... buffing its performance then giving it a price hike basically turns it into a P4 clone... wouldnt want that exactly...

keeping it cheaper but equally efficient to a P4 would at least retain its flavor as an attritional unit while making it directly competitive against the P4...

The T-34 has other unique characteristics which distinguish it. More offensive vet, better mobility, ability to cap and of course ram. A cost increase would not make it a p4 clone, anymore then the cromwell is a P4 clone.

The T-34 has other unique characteristics which distinguish it. More offensive vet, better mobility, ability to cap and of course ram. A cost increase would not make it a p4 clone, anymore then the cromwell is a P4 clone.

not entirely sure... im sure that the current T-34 isnt as cost efficient as the current panzer 4 soo its worth adjusting its performance without adjusting price and without making the T-34 overpowered...

now we could hike its price and give it more than just a simple penetration buff aswell but im still into the idea of a cheap 120/110/100 pen T-34 at 90 fuel as a matter of preference... it fits the general theme of the T-34 as an attritional unit

the other option of course is to make the T-34-85 nondoc.... but id bet the balance team would throw a hissy fit if that were to be done...

I personally would like to see the T-34 alongside the M4 Sherman and Cromwell. A more useful universal tank. And not like the T-34 now. Replace Ability and Veterancy, increase price if needed.

Uhm, that's the point. P4 is a complete package with both AT and AI capabilities, T34 is not.
And OST has even better AT gun for AT purposes (better pen, better vet ability), two respectively better tank destroyers that also happen to deal damage to infantry while having better survivability.
M4 has better AI performance than P4, self repair, smoke and it can still threaten P4 and force it away. Risking a duel with an M4 is, well, a risk. T34/76 can do none from that list, so why even bring this up?

You could also phrase it differently: You get about the same capabilities on AI as a more expensive unit, yet also okay-ish AT.
My point mentioning the SUs and Zis was, that Soviets have other (decent to very good) sources of AT. The T34 does not need to have super good AT, because it can already fulfill its role decently: flank on the attack and act as a bumper so that Axis tanks cannot rush the SU85, because they would suffer close range and rear armor hits.
And there are two points from my Sherman example: 1st price increase (as gbem suggested below) would be necessary; 2nd the Sherman still loses at long range by a decent margin. Just performing one test setup that already heavily favors one side by design does only allow limited conclusions, since at close range these tests would work out quite differently.

It could be worth testing. Leave T34/76 vulnerable as it is now, but simply increase its penetration to let's say Sherman levels, just so that P4 needs to take some hits when trading blows and think twice before doing some risky moves. That way it will still win most duels thanks to superior armour and penetration and T34 will typically need to retreat from it when without support, but it will allow SOV to punish mistakes, the bounce RNG is now a bit too favourable to Axis when retreating after overextending. Of course this should be accompanied with a rebalance of tech/build fuel cost of T4 and the T34.

The T34 is also not meant to slug it out frontally on long range. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a T34 rework would not fix any issues, I am saying it would just create others while not addressing the core issues that Soviets have, because I do not see limited AT capability as one. Also, it would standardize yet another unit to make it almost a carbon copy of another one.
To be honest the biggest issue that the T34/76 currently has in my eyes is that it comes one minute late (compared to Ostheers especially) due to Soviets higher tech cost. Actually the P4 often comes earlier because Soviets invest 40 fuel more into LVs than Ostheer. This does not allow Soviets to play the T34 like it was supposed to be played: Amass a couple of them and push.

*EDIT: Sorry, wrong quote allocation in first version

You could also phrase it differently: You get about the same capabilities on AI as a more expensive unit, yet also okay-ish AT.

no... you get less ai capabilities and even less AT capabilities on a cheaper unit... the P4 actually fires faster than the T-34 with better scatter and with pintle exceeds T-34 MG dps at all ranges...

The T34 is also not meant to slug it out frontally on long range. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a T34 rework would not fix any issues, I am saying it would just create others while not addressing the core issues that Soviets have, because I do not see limited AT capability as one.

then why is the T-34-85 such a must have as a commander choice? the thing is the soviets do not have limited AT capability... but they lack an efficient lategame unit that has both AT and AI in a single package... something that every other faction has...

...
To be honest the biggest issue that the T34/76 currently has in my eyes is that it comes one minute late (compared to Ostheers especially) due to Soviets higher tech cost. ..

The game would become allot easier to balance if Patches stop bringing unit earlier and started delaying them instead. That would increase the duration of the phases in the game, increase the window of opportunity of unit and thus make units easier to pay out for the their investment and smooth out things.

This unit has been moved around a lot over the games life, and there would be nothing wrong with moving it again or changing its stats. Removing ram altogether considering its total investment cost is on par with P4 if you've teched AT nades.

There are still going to be people angry over the ram and bomb strats, and people still pointing out the units place almost requires them. I do think with the testing format of the preview its worth the look at increasing stats like pen. I thought the entire purpose of the preview mod was to test changes in a no pressure world, well why is it so hard to try that. I think many people would pay an increased fuel cost and MP cost for a viable non casemate, non commander soviet tank. Otherwise I see the meta soviet strats continuing particularly when it comes to countering axis late game armor.

if it were up to me i would balance the T-34-76 as a 300mp 100 fuel 180 armor 120/110/100 6.1 reload tank with only 10 vision and an ability to pop the commander out for 50 sight while disabling the gun...

the T-34 had more armor than the panzer 4 G in real life in exchange for a worse gun and no cupola... this would make the unit kinda true to life while being balanced by requiring infantry support wherever it goes...

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.

Same applies to infantry, but that doesn't stop you from doing it all the time and bringing it up endlessly.

Again, the ONLY thing that T34 needs it NOT BEING IMMOBILIZED after ram.
Make it exact same 5 second stun on T34 and gun destroyed crit, contrary to popular belief, Hitlerium wasn't used all that often in german tanks and both were equally badly damaged after a ram, no reason why one should end as a scrap, while other just got a dent in bumper.

no... you get less ai capabilities and even less AT capabilities on a cheaper unit... the P4 actually fires faster than the T-34 with better scatter and with pintle exceeds T-34 MG dps at all ranges...

then why is the T-34-85 such a must have as a commander choice? the thing is the soviets do not have limited AT capability... but they lack an efficient lategame unit that has both AT and AI in a single package... something that every other faction has...

I'd need to check the exact AI performance, but from what I know they are not far apart. Pintle is a somewhat different subject since the maximum power level of a unit should not be balanced by the initial price, but partially by pop and most of all by price of the upgrade.
The T34/85 while being a very good tank is not an absolute must have, there are plenty of meta commanders without it. Fact is though that the T34/85 would also be good in both other Allied factions, so it is not a thing specific to Soviets. It's just very cost efficient by itself.

The game would become allot easier to balance if Patches stop bringing unit earlier and started delaying them instead. That would increase the duration of the phases in the game, increase the window of opportunity of unit and thus make units easier to pay out for the their investment and smooth out things.

This does not have anything to do with how easy something is to balance. The game is paced to give matches around 30-45 min, in this window you shiuld be able to buy and combine many units. It's a game design question, not one of balance.
Redesigning timings now would screw up the whole game, since this also means redesigning all power levels plus actually even the tick duration for strategic points. Pushing mediums back for 5 min for example would make Soviets crazy OP due to the oppressive T70 and would kick out Ostheer (given that victory points are not an issue).

Yes, I'd also like CoH to be a bit slower, but we can't achieve this anymore with community patches that are restricted to advanced stat tweaking and come out every half a year at best.

Just give the t34 more close range pen and call it a day. That's all it need- to be rewarded for closing. That way a couple of them is ACTUALLY a threat because you can't shoot at them all if out numbered meaning SOME might do damage.

The T34/85 while being a very good tank is not an absolute must have, there are plenty of meta commanders without it. Fact is though that the T34/85 would also be good in both other Allied factions, so it is not a thing specific to Soviets. It's just very cost efficient by itself.

yes the T-34-85 is a very good tank... the problem is without the T-34-85 youre left with a mediocre tank thats clearly not as efficient as an M4 or a P4 as your medium line tank... in fact its the faction with the least efficient lategame mainline tank... the P4/M4A3/P4J all outclass the T-34 while the brits get the option to use the comet which is a top tier premium tank...