A historical comparison in the Game

Irony there being that Ram was nerfed and value redistributed, as a result of Sov whine.

Ram used to be a fantastic cost-efficient equalizer vs T3 grade armor.
Goes to show you need to be careful what you whine about enmasse, cos younmight like the alternative even less.

Because blinders clearly do not allow you to see the past-its germans who whined and cried about the ram.
Soviets wanted to have a tank that would be able to actually fight other tanks, because there is enough AI within the faction.

What we ended up with?
No ram.
No stock generalist tank able to fight armor cost effectively.
No stock generalist tank able to fight infantry cost effectively(thanks to AoE profile adjustments and reload time increase)
Killing the doctrine supporting T34s by making T34s not affordable when you pick the doctrine.
Broken vet bonuses on T34 and KV tanks which means they have NO scalability with vet as bonuses it provides are low and inefficient compared to axis armor vet.

Did I missed something?
But hey, the even more delayed(by old T3 cost changes) M5 quad now shoots bullets instead of smoke tracers!

T34 used to be ram wagon only.
Now it doesn't have a role. If you see T34/76, you know you already have won.

All of which supports, as I said, the consequence of whining about the wrong things.

T34s used to carry value as a cost efficient disabler via Ram, but Sov whiners wanted a PIV equivalent, at less cost, for whatever reason. Result being a Ram nerf, an AI equaliztion (wheress before T34 was superior), and a small increase in AT as proportional to cost, which ofc ended up as less than PIV, due to cost.

GJ in pissing on your own head on this one, and making call-in armor dependancy even more prevalent on Sov.

Instead or a reliable and effective Ram, which was free and cost efficient as an asymmetric equalizer and advantage, instead you have T34 which ofc logically and at cost is inferior to the PIV anyways with roughly the same AI (whereas before it was greater), minus PIVs native arsymmetric MG upgrade for Muni, and with a slightly improved AT.

T34 was better off before, but Sov whiners insisted on a change that actually ended up compromising two of the units core and cost effective advantages, in favor of better AT stats which where obviously going to be inferior to PIV anyways, due to cost discrepancy.

You did this to yourself, and is typical of "only Sov" player perspectives, who seem to completely discount and ignore the original design featured in asymmetric design which gave Sov inherent advantages.

T34 Ram amd AI was great back in the day, with appreciable AT, for cost.
Thanks to the whine, instead there is now an obsolete Ram, equal AI (until Axis MG upgrades), for a small increase at AT stats and survival, that is measured against cost, and hence obvipusly inferior to PIV anyways.

Your whine did that. Gj on changing T34 into the cheap PIV mirror you wanted, but losing the AI advantage which was so useful vs smaller Axis units, AS WELL as the Ram reliability, whivh came for free as an asymmetric compromise and free micro/situational advantage.

What AI equalization are you talking about?

P4 AI is vastly superior in every aspect, its got incomparably better MGs together with pintle and more accurate, faster shooting gun.

There is not a single advantage left to T34/76. Speed? LOLBLITZ! Cost? 5 T34 vs 4 P4s and P4s sill roll over T34s. But hey, it accelerates faster...

And since you're still in deep denial-its axis whineboys that have destroyed the only thing it was useful for-ram, T34 was given absolutely nothing in effectiveness in return, there is not a single thing it would do better while its not all that cheaper at all.

T34 and PIV AI are just about equal now.
Sure PIVs can MG upgrade, but that is at cost.
That used to be the tradeoff against T34s higher base AI vs smaller infantry units.
But ypu killed that with whine to make T34 a cheap PIV mirror.

It was Sov whiners who wanted Ram nerfed, which was inherently a free and asym,etric advantage. The result was this. A cheap PIV mirror, with equal AI till PIV upgrades, an obsolete Ram, and AT stats (both in offense and defence) that are obviously inferior to PIV stats due to cost difference anyways.

The whiners did it to themselves, and now callin-reliance is even greater as an additionap side effect.

It wasnt Axis fanbois eho caused that, it was Sov fanbois so fixated on a "better" T34 without realisijg or appreciating what they already had in Ram and instead ended up with an obvipusly inferior PIV version, because it obviously still costs less.

GJ! Next time count your blessings and dont take inherent advantages for granted, or you might not like whachanges your whine ends up in.

All of which supports, as I said, the consequence of whining about the wrong things.

T34s used to carry value as a cost efficient disabler via Ram, but Sov whiners wanted a PIV equivalent, at less cost, for whatever reason. Result being a Ram nerf, an AI equaliztion (wheress before T34 was superior), and a small increase in AT as proportional to cost, which ofc ended up as less than PIV, due to cost.

GJ in pissing on your own head on this one, and making call-in armor dependancy even more prevalent on Sov.

Instead or a reliable and effective Ram, which was free and cost efficient as an asymmetric equalizer and advantage, instead you have T34 which ofc logically and at cost is inferior to the PIV anyways with roughly the same AI (whereas before it was greater), minus PIVs native arsymmetric MG upgrade for Muni, and with a slightly improved AT.

T34 was better off before, but Sov whiners insisted on a change that actually ended up compromising two of the units core and cost effective advantages, in favor of better AT stats which where obviously going to be inferior to PIV anyways, due to cost discrepancy.

You did this to yourself, and is typical of "only Sov" player perspectives, who seem to completely discount and ignore the original design featured in asymmetric design which gave Sov inherent advantages.

T34 Ram amd AI was great back in the day, with appreciable AT, for cost.
Thanks to the whine, instead there is now an obsolete Ram, equal AI (until Axis MG upgrades), for a small increase at AT stats and survival, that is measured against cost, and hence obvipusly inferior to PIV anyways.

Your whine did that. Gj on changing T34 into the cheap PIV mirror you wanted, but losing the AI advantage which was so useful vs smaller Axis units, AS WELL as the Ram reliability, whivh came for free as an asymmetric compromise and free micro/situational advantage.

I'm sorry , but the t-34/76 as a PIV mirror was completely fine when it had the same kill AOE as sherman HE shells (pre-WFA) and it was also fine when it had a 5.5 reload time. However, now with it's 6.5 reload time, it is rather underperforming.

Even shermans with AP shells is more effective than the t-34/76 againts infantry. Not to mention that sherman also has the 0.50 cal and crazy good HE shells.

I'm sorry , but the t-34/76 as a PIV mirror was completely fine when it had the same kill AOE as sherman HE shells (pre-WFA) and it was also fine when it had a 5.5 reload time. However, now with it's 6.5 reload time, it is rather underperforming.

Even shermans with AP shells is more effective than the t-34/76 againts infantry. Not to mention that sherman also has the 0.50 cal and crazy good HE shells.

Thanks for agreeing. Yes, T34 used to have good AI efficacy.
Thanks for apologizing, ypu where one of the guys that caused this.
But guys likenypu whining about AT and Ram changed that to its current state as basically a cheap PIV mirror with obviously less AT effect, equal AI (unless PIV upgraded at justified cost), an obsolete Ram, and all that now justified by anlower price.

T34 was alright beforel but Sov whiners insisted on more AT, which at cost, obviously resulted in equal AI, and lessAT than PIV, with the Ram as a free element.

Did you really expect a T34 that is better AI, functional Ram, and equal or better AT than PIV, for less cost?
Cmon, thats just insane and unreasonable. You didnt actually expect that... or?

Be careful what you whine for, cos you just might get it.

Thanks for agreeing. Yes, T34 used to have good AI efficacy.
Thanks for apologizing, ypu where one of the guys that caused this.
But guys likenypu whining about AT and Ram changed that to its current state as basically a cheap PIV mirror with obviously less AT effect, equal AI (unless PIV upgraded at justified cost), an obsolete Ram, and all that now justified by anlower price.

T34 was alright beforel but Sov whiners insisted on more AT, which at cost, obviously resulted in equal AI, and lessAT than PIV, with the Ram as a free element.

Did you really expect a T34 that is better AI, functional Ram, and equal or better AT than PIV, for less cost?
Cmon, thats just insane and unreasonable. You didnt actually expect that... or?

Be careful what you whine for, cos you just might get it.

The t-34 doesn't have equal AI than the PIV, PIV anti infantry is heaps better, even without the pintle mounted machine gun.

And you seem to be misunderstanding the whole situation. It went like this T-34 85 fuel good AI, horrible anti tank, ram to compensate --> t-34 superior anti infantry performance to PIV, worse anti tank (pre wfa and post elbe day) --> t-34 nerfed anti infantry but reload was decreased PIV is now slightly better in every single way --> t-34 reload increased, PIV is now heaps better than the t-34 in every way.

And the PIV has way better scaling than the t-34 due to much, much greater vet bonuses.

Sherman with AP rounds is already more effective againts infantry than the t-34/76, HE rounds and 0.50 cal are just icing on the cake.


Sherman for some reason can keep its superior anti infantry performance and also have better anti tank capability, and come with a tank destroyer in the same tier, yet the t-34/76 cannot?

The T-34s started replacing the light tanks in the Soviet tank brigades and regiments. At Kursk they were 1/3rd light, 2/3rd medium- at Stalingrad they were more like 50:50. Prior to that, more like 2/3rd light, 1/3rd medium.

I believe that the decisive 1943 fighting in Army Group South after their defeat at Kursk hinged heavily on the T-34 as an operationally decisive weapon. There are several books that cover this period. This is where the T-34's strength really showed and this was married to soviet doctrine. The soviet counteroffensive in the summer of 43'- Orel and Kharkov- relied heavily on massed T-34s and infantry attacks, supported by artillery divisions & some tactical air.

The Soviets used thousands of T-34s and lost thousands in these incredibly reckless attacks, with very high tempo: attack, attack, attack... They put tremendous pressure against the defending german divisions that they routed them from their defenses. They killed so many German and allied infantrymen that by the time Manstein's Army Group South retreated to the Dnepr line in Oct 1943, the trench strength was 37 divisions x 1,000 men....tank and AG/TD strength was down to 1,200, with 600 actually operational.

Manstein responded by executing surgical counterstrikes against the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian fronts in Nov-Dec 1943 after Kiev fell. These didn't have much more than small stalling effects. In the autumn and winter of 1943, the Germans had a enormous manpower crisis due to the constant blood letting. There were many gaps in their defenses, and Army Group South eventually fragmented into 3 disconnected elements. Too many German and allied troops had been killed. Between Army Group center and AGS, eventually a 60 mile, empty gap appeared..

The Panzer III/IV/V were interesting enough, all around in the same cost range. The III/IV required a lot of complicated skilled labor work. The Panzer V required less of that, but consumed a lot more raw materials due to its size. All were overengineered.

It's not exact to see how much the T-34 cost in terms of factor inputs. It was certainly much cheaper than the Panzer III and I put it around the cost of a Panzer II comparably. In terms of labor hours and speed to delivery, it was incredibly fast- it was in the hundreds of hours while the panzers were in the thousands.

The Soviets also set up replacement and reserve organizations to keep their armored units up to strength with reserve T-34s that came with crews. When a tank army and smaller needed replacements, these were simply moved towards the front, and then redirected to bring up the soviet armored formation up to strength. There were several major depots that supported the fronts that had several hundred reserve AFVs and crews each.

^^

Always like seeing the bits of history you put up CoH2player. Hard facts (for once in this forum).

Thanks for agreeing. Yes, T34 used to have good AI efficacy.
Thanks for apologizing, ypu where one of the guys that caused this.
But guys likenypu whining about AT and Ram changed that to its current state as basically a cheap PIV mirror with obviously less AT effect, equal AI (unless PIV upgraded at justified cost), an obsolete Ram, and all that now justified by anlower price.

T34 was alright beforel but Sov whiners insisted on more AT, which at cost, obviously resulted in equal AI, and lessAT than PIV, with the Ram as a free element.

Did you really expect a T34 that is better AI, functional Ram, and equal or better AT than PIV, for less cost?
Cmon, thats just insane and unreasonable. You didnt actually expect that... or?

Be careful what you whine for, cos you just might get it.

Man, talk about misblaming stuff.

Relic does its own thing. I'm certain they listen to their own balance testers first, high-ranking players second, stats gurus third, and people posting in the various latrines balance forums a very distant fourth. The fact that many, if not most changes in the latest patch are things I've barely seen anyone cry about in balance threads supports this.

Your logic, then, simply doesn't work. Everyone hated the T-34 ram machine, Soviets because it meant they had no proper tank, Axis because it disabled Tigers in one click. Relic started progressively buffing it, and removed Ram's effectiveness as a result. I'm personally all for that change since ram was stupid to begin with.

T-34 was perfectly fine pre-patch, it lost to P4 in the vast majority of situations and had lesser AI, but since it's cheaper and usually shoots at 4 or 5 men squads that's not an issue. It underperforms compared to call-ins if you count teching costs but that's a far larger problem. The ''bug fix'' was just uncalled for, and turned a fine unit into an underpowered one. And since I didn't see a single post asking for a change to the T-34's fire rate pre-patch, you blaming it on the Evil Soviet Fanboys is pretty stupid.

Man, talk about misblaming stuff.

Funny, cos you arrive at the same conclusion I did.
T34 was better off before with better AI and a valid Ram.

Yet I must insist it was Sov whine for a PIV mirror that led to the current compromise.
Sov opinion at the time was resolutely for a PIV equivalent.

As I ssaid, at the time many Sov posters seemed to be under the ridiculous presumption that somehow T34 could retain its AI vs smaller units, have equal AT, a strong Ram, and still somehow cost less.

It was a ludicrous expectation, but they didnt càre.

We see the result now. A T34 that used to have a strong Ram function, strong AI, and ok AT vs T3 armor, at cheap cost, instead changed to a unit with equal AI, crippled Ram and slightly better AT, at cheap cost.

The whine misfired completely, and here we are now, with Sov even more dependanton callins- for AT because the quintessential asymmetric element of Ram was nerfed, for a small AT increase, and an AI equivalence that PIV can beat with Pintle upgrade, measured and benchmakred against thr fact that T34 was always going to remain cheaper than PIV, and hence aleays less AT capable.

Ost never had a case vs Ram. Fausts sufficed, as well as Blitz, to escape. Not to mention Rams rather buggy nature. Those Ostfambois who argued Ram was Op, where as wrong as those Sov who wanted T34 to match PIV in AT.

Id completely endorse Rams return as it was with the current AI/AT spread, at its current cost, with a token 10Muni cost for Ram.

The AI is naturalised, the AT is adequate at cost, but the Ram was the hidden value in Sov asymmetric alignment that needs to be reurned, to keep them valid as a tier unit, rather than relying on call-ins.

The orders were usually to keep the distance as it had thin side armor (I don´t know why people exclusively refer to that on the Panther as it is pretty much this way for most tanks).

But the idea of vulnerable sides makes all the difference, especially in the more congested battle fields of Western Europe and during counter attacks. From the front you could consider a Panther to be superior to a Sherman since the Sherman will struggle but the Panther will not.... But warfare is fought by real people. From the sides it dies as fast as a Sherman or an m10.... and there were a LOT more Shermans and M10s.

I would add that after August 1944 the best Panthers were given to inexperienced crews by Hitler's orders, and those Panthers died FAST against the by now more experienced allied armored crews.

This game uses an alternate history in this patch....the germans were winning in 1944-45 while the allies had to cheese to survive.

About the T-34: It's one of the most worthless unit.
About listening to high-ranked players/own testers, NOPE. Tell me why are noobs in the test servers while devs ignoring good suggestions from reasonable players like TheMachine or Cruzz??

This game uses an alternate history in this patch....the germans were winning in 1944-45 while the allies had to cheese to survive.

I suppose you douln't be satisfied until every game ends with T-34s / Shermans rolling over the enemy base at the end screen, with an Allied victory, regardless of who won the actual game.

I suppose you douln't be satisfied until every game ends with T-34s / Shermans rolling over the enemy base at the end screen, with an Allied victory, regardless of who won the actual game.

Not necessarily but the realism factor is a little bit off

Funny, cos you arrive at the same conclusion I did.
T34 was better off before with better AI and a valid Ram.

Yet I must insist it was Sov whine for a PIV mirror that led to the current compromise.
Sov opinion at the time was resolutely for a PIV equivalent.

As I ssaid, at the time many Sov posters seemed to be under the ridiculous presumption that somehow T34 could retain its AI vs smaller units, have equal AT, a strong Ram, and still somehow cost less.

It was a ludicrous expectation, but they didnt càre.

We see the result now. A T34 that used to have a strong Ram function, strong AI, and ok AT vs T3 armor, at cheap cost, instead changed to a unit with equal AI, crippled Ram and slightly better AT, at cheap cost.

The whine misfired completely, and here we are now, with Sov even more dependanton callins- for AT because the quintessential asymmetric element of Ram was nerfed, for a small AT increase, and an AI equivalence that PIV can beat with Pintle upgrade, measured and benchmakred against thr fact that T34 was always going to remain cheaper than PIV, and hence aleays less AT capable.

Ost never had a case vs Ram. Fausts sufficed, as well as Blitz, to escape. Not to mention Rams rather buggy nature. Those Ostfambois who argued Ram was Op, where as wrong as those Sov who wanted T34 to match PIV in AT.

Id completely endorse Rams return as it was with the current AI/AT spread, at its current cost, with a token 10Muni cost for Ram.

The AI is naturalised, the AT is adequate at cost, but the Ram was the hidden value in Sov asymmetric alignment that needs to be reurned, to keep them valid as a tier unit, rather than relying on call-ins.

And i must insist you are making completely untrue statements. Without ever backing them up.

It was the Axisplayers who were always furious that their more expensive tanks could get disabled by a cheaper one ramming them. Hence why at first, they had ram only work in a straight line and not follow the target if it turned around.

Meanwhile, soviets did point out that ram didn't trigger reliably, and that T34 in tank fights was at an extreme disadvantage, being basicly almost useless vs tigers and needing a lot of help to beat a lone p4.

but everyone considered ram to be a ludicrous and stupid ability, because it basicly sacrified a tank for some nice crits, but made t34 immonilized and without weapons.
Soviet T3 being so bad against armor could hardly stand back then, and still doesn't stand that well today, when soviets are forced to chose between t3 and 4.

You know, I've found that axis (ostheer at least) infantry tend to cluster on top of themselves in such a fashion that they typically get killed by tank shells in groups of 1-3.

That is a huge contributing factor in t34's ability to fight infantry, and it has NOTHING to do with the t34.

Panzer IV was an obsolete tank in 1942 but the German still had to lengthen its life as a main battle tank due to the lack of new tanks produced. They tried to add so many things into this old design so of course it has to cost more and not as cost effective as the T-34.

Ram means now only you lose a t-34, giving with luck the enemy eniging damdge.