Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 783
Only it far penetration is low because it designed as "flanker" vehicle similar to Puma.
And it has the great mobility so it can attack side/rear armor. The unit is quite good in open maps.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Only it far penetration is low because it designed as "flanker" vehicle similar to Puma.
And it has the great mobility so it can attack side/rear armor. The unit is quite good in open maps.
Posts: 1979
I'd hesitate to say "good", but its price is well justified.
Only it far penetration is low because it designed as "flanker" vehicle similar to Puma.
And it has the great mobility so it can attack side/rear armor. The unit is quite good in open maps.
Posts: 783
if the T-34 is "good" or "justified" then what does that make the outright superior in every way P4? overpowered? broken?
Posts: 1979
The stats it has for 90 fuel lineup with other vehicles. If it were 100 or 110 fuel id expect a penetration or rate of fire increase or both. But at 20 fuel less then a cromwell you really think it should have more penetration than it does?
You want to give it 120/110/100, ok, bump its price up by 15 fuel.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
And what flanking are you talking about here if the T-34 has no acceleration. Pz.4, Panther, Cromwell, Comet (with hammer tactics) are real flanking tanks. They have acceleration.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The is nothing wrong with mobility of the T-34/76 especially once vetted. It has to be used in similar way to Puma and M-10
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I'm fairly certain T-34 can't be used as a self spotting unit kiting meds from 50 range.
Posts: 1979
I think the T34/76 is fine as it is. You use it as an anti-infantry and oppertunistic AT tank while leaving the actual AT to your SU85 and Zis Guns. I'm sure that with the ram change they will still be fine.
The only real problem will be with JT/Elephant being more OP than they are. But these can be adressed in the commander patch.
Posts: 1217
Posts: 1979
Seems to me some people don't see the role of the T-34 correctly. It is not supposed to go against tanks. It shreds ifnatry and can still somewhat fight medium tanks. If you want to go head on versus German tanks go for the T-34/85.
Posts: 783
then increase its rate of fire and improve its scatter + armor to 160? great id take it for 100 fuel...
btw the Cromwell is considered underpowered soo its a pretty terrible point of comparison... if anything both the T-34 and the crom need a buff... instead its wiser to compare the T-34 and the crom to the P4... in both cases they are outclassed heavily by the P4...
Posts: 1289
Including the sidetech, an AEC will ring you up for 75 fuel while a puma is only 70. Yet the puma is superior across the board stat wise with exception of armor. Does that mean the AEC isn't cost effective? Does that mean the AEC should have its cost reduced or its stats buffed? I would hope you'd say no.
The T-34 is statwise inferior across the board to the panzer 4 but thats separate from whether or not the tank is worth 90 fuel. It's combined anti tank and anti infantry are not worth less then 90 fuel. They used to be 80, but it was found they were too cost effective.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1979
Including the sidetech, an AEC will ring you up for 75 fuel while a puma is only 70. Yet the puma is superior across the board stat wise with exception of armor. Does that mean the AEC isn't cost effective? Does that mean the AEC should have its cost reduced or its stats buffed? I would hope you'd say no.
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
169 | ||
 |
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
