T-34 rework
27 Nov 2020, 05:44 AM
#1
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
The T-34 is currently only viable as a kamikaze unit. In the discussion of the new patch, there were changes to the T-34 that make the T-34 absolutely stupid and pointless. I propose to remove "Ram", replace "Capturing territory" on acceleration to make the T-34 a viable flank tank. Discuss what to give instead of the remote "Ram" and what changes for the T-34-85 and their "Ram" and "Capturing territory"
27 Nov 2020, 05:50 AM
#2
Posts: 486
Maybe all the T-34 needs is a reliable, non-totally-self-crippling ram. It has enough Hp and AI, just its AT REALLY SUCKS. With a ram that just stuns instead of trashes the T-34, you could use it to chase down light vehicles, punish over extended enemy tanks, etc without loosing the T-34. Give it SERIOUS pen to make it reliable on charge, and it might compete with a P-4 in a pinch.
Then the vet 1 barrier makes sense.
Then the vet 1 barrier makes sense.
27 Nov 2020, 07:38 AM
#3
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Maybe all the T-34 needs is a reliable, non-totally-self-crippling ram. It has enough Hp and AI, just its AT REALLY SUCKS. With a ram that just stuns instead of trashes the T-34, you could use it to chase down light vehicles, punish over extended enemy tanks, etc without loosing the T-34. Give it SERIOUS pen to make it reliable on charge, and it might compete with a P-4 in a pinch.
Then the vet 1 barrier makes sense.
I would have taken Ram in the 1st veterancy. If it changed target from tanks to guns and was guaranteed to destroy them, then it would be really useful, after all, the tankers were constantly crushing and ramming guns. But the tank Ram in the first veterancy is absolutely meaningless.
27 Nov 2020, 08:16 AM
#4
Posts: 219
maybe decrease veterancy requirement for t-34?
with vet 1 bonus only being the ram? no increase in combat stats.
don't like the ram ability much as axis player, but having an elefant etc. and seeing a t-34 usually only means one thing, and its a dead-give-away for what is use is gonna be.
but running around with a t-34 lategame to vet it up for a ram would be a priority target for the axis with KT's etc
with vet 1 bonus only being the ram? no increase in combat stats.
don't like the ram ability much as axis player, but having an elefant etc. and seeing a t-34 usually only means one thing, and its a dead-give-away for what is use is gonna be.
but running around with a t-34 lategame to vet it up for a ram would be a priority target for the axis with KT's etc
OST Wehraboo 4v4 main
27 Nov 2020, 09:43 AM
#5
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
I think the ram on vet1 is great.
Removes a lot of cheese from the game, yet it still is worth it to sacrifice the tank for a Tiger, KT, JT,...
Vet1 requirements might need an adjustment though.
And as I suggested in the main thread: Increase capture/decapture rate for the secure mode ability. Alternatively, move secure mode to vet0 (and maybe add the capture buff to vet1).
Removes a lot of cheese from the game, yet it still is worth it to sacrifice the tank for a Tiger, KT, JT,...
Vet1 requirements might need an adjustment though.
And as I suggested in the main thread: Increase capture/decapture rate for the secure mode ability. Alternatively, move secure mode to vet0 (and maybe add the capture buff to vet1).
27 Nov 2020, 09:51 AM
#6
Posts: 1515
Just spice up the rest of the veterancy on T34. Add some bonuses. So that when the time comes, you're facing a KT or stuff like that, you have to think about sacrificing it or let it acquire more vet. Vet1 RAM is absolutely fine.
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198031032150
https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198031032150
27 Nov 2020, 09:52 AM
#7
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Just spice up the rest of the veterancy on T34. Add some bonuses. So that when the time comes, you're facing a KT or stuff like that, you have to think about sacrificing it or let it acquire more vet. Vet1 RAM is absolutely fine.
T-34 has great vet bonuses compared to other unit.
The unit is cost efficient.
28 Nov 2020, 01:46 AM
#8
Posts: 5279
More. Close. Pen.
#stalinwept
28 Nov 2020, 04:58 AM
#9
Posts: 1979
T-34 has great vet bonuses compared to other unit.
The unit is cost efficient.
Again it is not cost efficient... 3 t34s will cost more than 2 p4s but will lose frontally at any range...
And again it takes more fuel/more time to get a T34 than it takes to get a P4
28 Nov 2020, 05:39 AM
#10
Posts: 783
Again it is not cost efficient... 3 t34s will cost more than 2 p4s but will lose frontally at any range...
And again it takes more fuel/more time to get a T34 than it takes to get a P4
I don't think you can use a 1v1 comparison between a T-34/76 and a Panzer 4 as a good way of measuring the T-34's cost effectiveness. I mean, the M4a3 loses frontally to a Panzer 4, and the M4a3 is DEFINITELY more cost effective overall. If in a particular game you only need a medium for anti infantry and light anti tank support, the T-34 may actually be more cost effective then the panzer 4.
I do agree the fact that the T-34 arrives at the same time(or even later) then a panzer 4 is somewhat awkward, though some of this can be attributed to the necessity of building a T-70, while ost can get away with making 1 or 2 15-30 fuel light vehicles for a cheaper cost.
If The fuel cost of T3 was reduced , but the fuel cost of the T70 was increased, perhaps we might see M5 quads more often as an early medium vehicle pick, or even just skipping straight to tier 4-thus allowing the T-34s to hit the field at a more competitive time.
28 Nov 2020, 06:25 AM
#11
Posts: 1979
I don't think you can use a 1v1 comparison between a T-34/76 and a Panzer 4 as a good way of measuring the T-34's cost effectiveness. I mean, the M4a3 loses frontally to a Panzer 4, and the M4a3 is DEFINITELY more cost effective overall.
thats because the M4A3 has amazing utility and anti infantry with pintle 50 cal HE rounds smoke self repair... the T-34-76 actually has worse anti infantry than the P4 if its machineguns werent in play and without ram has zero utility at all... also the M4A3 isnt helpless against armor unlike the T-34
If in a particular game you only need a medium for anti infantry and light anti tank support, the T-34 may actually be more cost effective then the panzer 4.
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...
I do agree the fact that the T-34 arrives at the same time(or even later) then a panzer 4 is somewhat awkward, though some of this can be attributed to the necessity of building a T-70, while ost can get away with making 1 or 2 15-30 fuel light vehicles for a cheaper cost.
If The fuel cost of T3 was reduced , but the fuel cost of the T70 was increased, perhaps we might see M5 quads more often as an early medium vehicle pick, or even just skipping straight to tier 4-thus allowing the T-34s to hit the field at a more competitive time.
actually it takes more fuel to rush a T-34 than it takes to rush a P4... not only is it awkward... its also nonsensical... imagine if the 222 came after the T-70
28 Nov 2020, 06:38 AM
#12
Posts: 783
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...
A unit does not need to have a higher performance level then another to be more cost effective. For 30 fuel less, the T-34 offers a SIMILAR level of AI performance. And it is certainly not "helpless" against armor. Yes its long range pentration is low, but it's still a 640hp medium tank with a 160 damage gun. Its not like you are getting an AEC.
Also a unit/ability that is cost effective does not mean it is balanced. The ostruppen callin group for Mobile defense is cost effective, but the timing means its not a good ability.
The best comparison may be the valentine. The valentine is stat wise objectively far worse than the T-34 across the board for only 10 fuel less. Yet the valentine was a very popular meta pick. This had nothing to do with its "cost effectiveness" but rather its timing.
I agree the timing for the T-34 is awkward. I disagree that it is cost ineffective.
28 Nov 2020, 08:59 AM
#13
Posts: 1979
A unit does not need to have a higher performance level then another to be more cost effective. For 30 fuel less, the T-34 offers a SIMILAR level of AI performance.
yes its an anti infantry specialist tank... the problem is it isn't even that good of an anti infantry specialist...
And it is certainly not "helpless" against armor. Yes its long range pentration is low, but it's still a 640hp medium tank with a 160 damage gun. Its not like you are getting an AEC.
its helpless against any medium tank of its class... it can only bully vehicles of a lower weight class and that's it...
The best comparison may be the valentine. The valentine is stat wise objectively far worse than the T-34 across the board for only 10 fuel less. Yet the valentine was a very popular meta pick. This had nothing to do with its "cost effectiveness" but rather its timing.
but cost does dictate timing... the higher the cost of a unit (which includes teching costs) the more time it takes to deploy and the higher the time in between units
28 Nov 2020, 10:52 AM
#14
Posts: 783
yes its an anti infantry specialist tank... the problem is it isn't even that good of an anti infantry specialist...
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?
its helpless against any medium tank of its class... it can only bully vehicles of a lower weight class and that's it...
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.
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.
but cost does dictate timing... the higher the cost of a unit (which includes teching costs) the more time it takes to deploy and the higher the time in between units
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.
28 Nov 2020, 11:09 AM
#17
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
maybe decrease veterancy requirement for t-34?
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.
28 Nov 2020, 14:47 PM
#18
Posts: 5279
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.
Ram isn't a cheap ability. It's the most expensive snare in the game coming in at 300mp and 90fu
#stalinwept
28 Nov 2020, 15:05 PM
#19
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
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.
Killing 14 grenadier models sounds super easy, barely an inconvenience.
 | Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
28 Nov 2020, 15:07 PM
#20
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Let's just rework the 1st veterancy and abilities for the T-34-76 and T-34-85. There is no need for ridiculous change and ridiculous excuses for these changes.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1262
Board Info
563 users are online:
1 member and 562 guests
bongdaluad
bongdaluad
4 posts in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
16 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49910
Welcome our newest member, bongdaluad
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, bongdaluad
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM