Login

russian armor

T-34-76 after patch

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (7)down
16 Dec 2013, 01:34 AM
#61
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

If you believe T34 was bad and is now worse, then there is little we can do here. You fundamentally misunderstand this excellent tank.

I would argue that if anything it needs a nerf, in the shape of the removal of ram.
16 Dec 2013, 11:49 AM
#62
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2013, 01:18 AMtokarev
What are you talking about? P III's shells were splitting in half against T34 armor.
Panzer IIIs had trouble defeating T-34s, yes. But you would hardly find a huge amount of 50mm armed Panzer IIIs in the German army in 1944. They were around of course - but the majority had been converted to StuGs or the infantry support version (with the Panzer IVs initial 75mm stub gun), or simply had been destroyed by that time.

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2013, 01:18 AMtokarev
And if we talk about 1944 period Red Army was widely using T34-85
Anyway, this topic is about T34 in game. Here is my opinion. It was bad before patch now it's even worse.
Yes, Soviets had begun to upgrade their T-34s to the 85mm in 1944. You however were complaining that the T-34/76 was "under-performing". Thus we are talking about the T-34/76. Also by that time not every T-34 had been converted and 76mm armed versions remained in service.

Actually the 85mm version wasn´t mainly introduced to fight Panthers and Tigers. The gun was still inadequate to pierce their armor frontally on combat ranges. It was rather to close the gap between the T-34 and the Panzer IV/ StuG that had the upper hand the years before.

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2013, 01:18 AMtokarev
Both t34 and p4 have to be the same in price and performance so the result of tank battles would rely on players skills.
No, that would be mirror balance and very boring. As for the above stated reasons the T-34/76 shouldn´t be on par with the Panzer IV. Even for a game there should be certain rules, and that is one of them.
16 Dec 2013, 21:16 PM
#63
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

I think most of you arguing about T-34-76s historically not being so strong historically seem to be right. Although, would it be more due to the range (and accurate gunning) of the late model Pz 4 rather than the penn of the t-34-76's gun?

Anyway, yeah the Russians do seem to lack a decent medium tank option that's non doctrinal. Maybe something where we can buy an upgun for the T-34-76 would be nice? Similar to the Sherman upgun. At least a medium tank which can do okay against T3 would be nice.

Make the changes that need to be needed (tbh, I don't really care if you increase cost, remove ram (I'd love to remove ram) or whatever), the Russians still need a vehicle to fill this niche.

(Some ppl argue that the German Light tank niche needs to be filled, but it's kinda filled already by the 222. Granted, a single 222 will lose to a T-70 9/10 times, but it gets compensated a bit by the AT weakness of Tier 3 overall.
16 Dec 2013, 21:25 PM
#64
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2013, 21:16 PMhubewa
I think most of you arguing about T-34-76s historically not being so strong historically seem to be right. Although, would it be more due to the range (and accurate gunning) of the late model Pz 4 rather than the penn of the t-34-76's gun?

Anyway, yeah the Russians do seem to lack a decent medium tank option that's non doctrinal. Maybe something where we can buy an upgun for the T-34-76 would be nice? Similar to the Sherman upgun. At least a medium tank which can do okay against T3 would be nice.

Make the changes that need to be needed (tbh, I don't really care if you increase cost, remove ram (I'd love to remove ram) or whatever), the Russians still need a vehicle to fill this niche.

(Some ppl argue that the German Light tank niche needs to be filled, but it's kinda filled already by the 222. Granted, a single 222 will lose to a T-70 9/10 times, but it gets compensated a bit by the AT weakness of Tier 3 overall.


Not sure what you mean by lacking decent medium tank option. Do you mean you want a medium AT tank, because you have the best medium AI tank? If you do not use the unit appropriately, don't complain that the unit isn't balanced. T34 (ignoring all historic arguments) is more than good right now, but only at its job.

If you want a better AT tank, then choose a doctrine with T34/85's or use a doctrine with a heavy tank. Another option is to tech to T4 to get your hard tank counters. You can't get everything from one building that is the penalty you pay by being Soviets and having more options in your build structure.
16 Dec 2013, 21:38 PM
#65
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

Well it's not exactly a dedicated AT Tank, but more a tank that has, at least, some AT potential.

Granted, one that will 8/10 times lose against a P4 but at least can penn the damn thing.
17 Dec 2013, 08:51 AM
#66
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2013, 01:18 AMtokarev
What are you talking about? P III's shells were splitting in half against T34 armor.
And if we talk about 1944 period Red Army was widely using T34-85
Anyway, this topic is about T34 in game. Here is my opinion. It was bad before patch now it's even worse.
Both t34 and p4 have to be the same in price and performance so the result of tank battles would rely on players skills.


The Germans never attacked the front armor but its weak spot or strafed it and of the 2200 t-34 destroyed in 1941 half of them where caused by the p3 with a 50 mm. Like most people you only look to the armor and gun size and judge the t-34 a good tank never looking at the human component. if you ever been in one you realize what kind of deathtrap it is. you can barely move and see inside a t-34 and even the t-34/85 had this problem which made both the Sherman and the p4 a far better tank then the any of the t-34 series.

And with this history lesson over i say that the t-34 and p4 matchup is balanced. t-34 is a better AI tank the p4 for more cost is a better AT tank. however the last patch pushed me into using stugs as i find the scatter penalty to severe for to be using generalist or AI tanks .
17 Dec 2013, 10:03 AM
#67
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 1003

If you want history, lets T34 cost 23 fuel and 84 MP, constripts with 20 members and air superiority on all battlefield. This is game.
17 Dec 2013, 19:43 PM
#68
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

Do people seriously want Soviet Industry to be able to spam T34-76s AND T34-85s?

For real? This sounds balanced to you?
9 Jan 2014, 14:53 PM
#69
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 1003

In team games, I stop using T3. Waste of fuel. Shock troops counter infantry well.

Now go with two ZiS-3 and wait for IS-2. Mates play with Su-85.
9 Jan 2014, 15:13 PM
#70
avatar of James Hale

Posts: 574

I love T-34/76 spam; if I go T4 I usually go with SU-76 spam.

I'd say they're about right now. They're not as powerful as P4s, but nor should they be, and they're at about the right price. I think 240 MP would have been better, but the fuel cost is fine.
9 Jan 2014, 15:25 PM
#71
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 1003

I love T-34/76 spam; if I go T4 I usually go with SU-76 spam.

I'd say they're about right now. They're not as powerful as P4s, but nor should they be, and they're at about the right price. I think 240 MP would have been better, but the fuel cost is fine.


I have no problem with price, but in use. How you can spam this? If you build three of them, opponent can have 2x PzIV and defeat your 3x T-34. Or panther and if you are not lucky, ram only shock crew and you lost all yours tanks. Flanking is not viable with many paks and PzG.

I want use this tanks, but i have problem not losing them quick.
9 Jan 2014, 15:29 PM
#72
avatar of James Hale

Posts: 574

The scatter nerf was a bit harsh, but aside from that I really wouldn't advocate any major changes.

My personal opinion would be for scatter to be staggered across tank classes; i.e. the T-70 would have minimal scatter/accuracy modifiers when mobile, and thus be really good at chasing down infantry and light vehicles, whereas the KV-1 and IS-2 would have quite poor accuracy whilst moving. This would be balanced by larger tanks having more AoE.
9 Jan 2014, 15:39 PM
#73
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 1003

Is any accur. penalty firing on moving target?
9 Jan 2014, 17:27 PM
#74
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

i think they could be a little faster to move off. apart from that, i think they are okay.

more importantly, i would feel that the t34/85 is somewhat lacking. for its cost of 360/120 for a single vehicle the amount of cp needed, these guys are expected to take on panthers/tigers yet are lacking the proper firepower to do, especially against the tiger.

in fact, i think tank combat is quite screwed when heavy tanks are in play. rear armour should be paper thin, even a t34/76 should have 100% penetration to the rear armour of a tiger. similarly for p4 against is2. exposing your rear to the enemy is a serious showcase of tactical failure and should be punished for it. likewise, elefants and isu152 as well.
9 Jan 2014, 18:04 PM
#75
avatar of Bravus

Posts: 503

Permanently Banned
Russians tanks dont stop work and dont fire smoke because the bad engine, this is wrong :lol:
9 Jan 2014, 19:31 PM
#76
avatar of PaRaNo1a
Patrion 26

Posts: 600

The scatter nerf was a bit harsh, but aside from that I really wouldn't advocate any major changes.

My personal opinion would be for scatter to be staggered across tank classes; i.e. the T-70 would have minimal scatter/accuracy modifiers when mobile, and thus be really good at chasing down infantry and light vehicles, whereas the KV-1 and IS-2 would have quite poor accuracy whilst moving. This would be balanced by larger tanks having more AoE.


Actually the slower the tank the better the accuracy of its shots. Meaning T-70 on the move should miss a lot. And don`t forget T-70 chasing retreating units was why people raged.
9 Jan 2014, 20:49 PM
#77
avatar of James Hale

Posts: 574

Actually the slower the tank the better the accuracy of its shots. Meaning T-70 on the move should miss a lot. And don`t forget T-70 chasing retreating units was why people raged.

Yes, but you have to consider balance.

If you make it so that light tanks have the worst scatter and accuracy handicaps in the game then you completely remove the main reason to buy them. In my mind, the idea of going for a fast T-70 over saving for a T-34 would be so I can chase down infantry and light vehicles, or flank weapon teams; if the crew can't aim for shit whilst moving then the role of the light tank is basically rendered moot. It already has a fairly narrow window of opportunity.

Conversely, heavy tanks moving and firing with good accuracy means that they are even more difficult to take down, and (presumably) the Panther would be loathed even more by Soviet players. (I know it's not actually classed as a heavy tank, but...)

Also: bigger tanks = more AoE per shot.

So, whilst your comment may have some historical basis, in balance terms I think that it ought to be the other way round, or I really don't see the point of going for a T-70 - a tank that can be disabled by a 'faust hit, one-shotted by a Teller mine or flanked by an upgraded Scout Car. Surely you want something that is fast and accurate, but still extremely vulnerable to anything that can penetrate it?
9 Jan 2014, 21:14 PM
#78
avatar of PaRaNo1a
Patrion 26

Posts: 600


Yes, but you have to consider balance.

If you make it so that light tanks have the worst scatter and accuracy handicaps in the game then you completely remove the main reason to buy them. In my mind, the idea of going for a fast T-70 over saving for a T-34 would be so I can chase down infantry and light vehicles, or flank weapon teams; if the crew can't aim for shit whilst moving then the role of the light tank is basically rendered moot. It already has a fairly narrow window of opportunity.

Conversely, heavy tanks moving and firing with good accuracy means that they are even more difficult to take down, and (presumably) the Panther would be loathed even more by Soviet players. (I know it's not actually classed as a heavy tank, but...)

Also: bigger tanks = more AoE per shot.

So, whilst your comment may have some historical basis, in balance terms I think that it ought to be the other way round, or I really don't see the point of going for a T-70 - a tank that can be disabled by a 'faust hit, one-shotted by a Teller mine or flanked by an upgraded Scout Car. Surely you want something that is fast and accurate, but still extremely vulnerable to anything that can penetrate it?


It can`t go down by the upgraded scout car ( cause the car is just paper doll and will go down in 2 shots) It can`t be fausted if well microed because it`s shooting range is much farther. Placing Tellers is a counter but you must be extremely lucky to see that 1 mine destroying the T-70 ( you can`t place multiple mines cause they are too fcking expensive) Also given its speed and long range shooting I believe its enough of the advantage, making it be accurate on the move will make it slightly OP (remember how it was not so long ago?). It is basically a mini ostwind if you think about it it just doesn`t have the AOE of Ostwind and to be honest you don`t need it against 4 man squads =). Scout cars have no real role in the game at the moment in the game.

P.S: Also forgot to mention that it`s immune to small arms fire while the Scout car isn`t.
19 Jan 2014, 01:13 AM
#79
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

Overall, I still reject the T-34/76. It's fine against German T3 but if the German brings out tigers and heavies, the T-34/76 is a waste.

Functionally speaking, I think of it as a light tank rather than a medium tank.

I don't go T3 with Soviets ever. I jump right into T4 (SU-76, SU-85, and Rockets) and IS-2/ISU-152 doctrines.

The T-34 is not worth the risk. When I play as German, I feel a sense a relief that I am fighting T-34s and not SU-85s....
19 Jan 2014, 04:27 AM
#80
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

i still think t34 need to be able to put a good dent against heavy armour when hitting their rear. this needs to be implemented. same with the is2.

rear armour should never be immune to any form of tank fire at all.
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

872 users are online: 1 member and 871 guests
FK9DD
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49431
Welcome our newest member, Alvino
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM