Login

russian armor

Damn this balance

PAGES (15)down
27 Feb 2015, 23:19 PM
#161
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

swap the su-76 and t-70. buff the 76 so it's a zis on wheels and increase the fuel cost to ~~80. adjust and/or buff the 34/76 so that it's at least competent at something, even if it isn't better than the IV at anything. i would suggest giving it good armour so it can tank against OKH t3/OKW t2.

end result: t3 and t4 both have clear cut purposes, advantages, and are viable.

the 34/85 absolutely cannot go in t3/4 without getting a large nerf or very large cost increase to prevent timings that are too early for the current powerlevel.
27 Feb 2015, 23:21 PM
#162
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

The thing is if 85 replaces 76, it will be distinct enough from T-70 in what it can and can't do cost effectively. Meaning such a switch won't be needed and a buffed SU-76 can complement Katyusha and SU-85 as a soft counter to both infantry and vehicles.
27 Feb 2015, 23:23 PM
#163
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

yes, but it's still having 2 long range AT and 2 artillery in t4 which is boring, even if it ends up balanced. not to mention that a buffed su-76 would give t3 the hard AT option it desperately needs so soviet can go t1/t3 and not use callin tanks.
27 Feb 2015, 23:25 PM
#164
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

Which is why the idea is to have 85 replace 76 as the stock T3 tank.
27 Feb 2015, 23:27 PM
#165
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

Which is why the idea is to have 85 replace 76 as the stock T3 tank.


Ostheer T3 never seen again. You must be either pretty naive or allies only if you think P4 can stand up to it.
27 Feb 2015, 23:28 PM
#166
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

Which is why the idea is to have 85 replace 76 as the stock T3 tank.


edited mine after you posted without realizing it.

the 34/85 absolutely cannot go in t3/4 without getting a large nerf or very large cost increase to prevent timings that are too early for the current powerlevel.


to further elaborate, the t34/85 is to powerful to be available when t3 timings would allow it; the only way to fix that is to nerf the tank or increase the price (very bad because it makes it cost inefficient).
27 Feb 2015, 23:31 PM
#167
avatar of The_rEd_bEar

Posts: 760

Even if the t34/85 was put in to t3 i don't see how it'll break the game a p4 can still put up a decent fight and paks backing it up will seal the deal
27 Feb 2015, 23:32 PM
#168
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521



Ostheer T3 never seen again. You must be either pretty naive or allies only if you think P4 can stand up to it.


I play Ostheer mostly, actually, after playing Soviets a lot for a long time and deciding they are not worth my time. I still play them every now and then.



edited mine after you posted without realizing it.



to further elaborate, the t34/85 is to powerful to be available when t3 timings would allow it; the only way to fix that is to nerf the tank or increase the price (very bad because it makes it cost inefficient).


Personally I disagree, and I wrote multiple very long posts on why, and those are in the T-34/85 thread I made, link to which you'll find in my signature. I hope you understand why I don't want to repeat 10+ paragraphs here, and maybe reading that will change your opinion. If not, no worries, it's okay to disagree. Give it a whirl though.

27 Feb 2015, 23:33 PM
#169
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

not against a 34/85. both the 34/85 and EZ8 hardcounter the IV. they're very solid all-rounder tanks that cannot be fought with out significant combined arms, something that you can't guarantee with t3 timings.
27 Feb 2015, 23:36 PM
#170
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

not against a 34/85. both the 34/85 and EZ8 hardcounter the IV. they're very solid all-rounder tanks that cannot be fought with out significant combined arms, something that you can't guarantee with t3 timings.


I am sorry but this is just insulting.

I just told you I wrote many paragraphs on why I disagree with you, and you ignore my arguments and jump straight to your opinion, in which you don't put in a similar amount of effort in representing.

Do you want to discuss with me or not? If yes, please actually read my arguments, and address where you think I am wrong, so this discussion can go somewhere. I am not below calling out better ideas from other people, but it's really not nice of you to say, which is basically "I don't care what you say, 85 rocks, it will ruin the game at that point"

And if you don't, then I can't do anything about that.
27 Feb 2015, 23:37 PM
#171
avatar of The_rEd_bEar

Posts: 760

One can say the same with the ez8 and t34/85 they're not beating German armor with out at support.
27 Feb 2015, 23:40 PM
#172
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

going to type out a second post in case someone responds to the previous while i'm typing.

while the 34/85 is roughly balance to the IV it's more expensive and commensurately more powerful. soviet's get the last tier very early because, while they're expensive, they don't have to build anything in between. OKH is slowed down by teching costs and teching times (they have to research and then build which requires some coordination and attention (not huge, but significant).

the 34/85 is an all-rounder tank that is very good against anything lighter than a V and a pair of them will generally beat a V. having them available at their current cost gives soviets too much power early on.

the 34/76 becomes complete shit that no one would use; in effect you're nerfing current doctrines in exchange for buffing the soviet base lineup. i'm not really favor in getting rid of units.

the only way i could see this working out would be to make the 34/76 HIGHLY infantry focused (like current stats but sherman HE shells instead of the current shell) and making the 34/85 more like the V (AT focused). that would leave both units unique and prevent the 34/85 from being the be all/end all of the soviets.
27 Feb 2015, 23:40 PM
#173
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470



I am sorry but this is just insulting.

I just told you I wrote many paragraphs on why I disagree with you, and you ignore my arguments and jump straight to your opinion, in which you don't put in a similar amount of effort in representing.

Do you want to discuss with me or not? If yes, please actually read my arguments, and address where you think I am wrong, so this discussion can go somewhere. I am not below calling out better ideas from other people, but it's really not nice of you to say, which is basically "I don't care what you say, 85 rocks, it will ruin the game at that point"

And if you don't, then I can't do anything about that.


i posted that before i saw your post above it. read above this for my response.
27 Feb 2015, 23:44 PM
#174
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Feb 2015, 20:00 PMKatitof

Oh, you know, common sense and general performance way.
T34 is worse against armor and infantry then P4.
T70 is worse against infantry then Ostwind.
M5 is worse against planes and infantry then ostwind.
StuG is rather unique, but soviets would kill for something that can stun vehicles and penetrate them better then T34 while having superior range to other T3 armor in T3.


Yeah lets ignore the fact that these units cost more. But the ost and su tier 3 share the same problem : No AT and callins are flat out better.
27 Feb 2015, 23:47 PM
#175
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

OKH t3 has plenty of AT; it's just to expensive to field compared to the other options and has trouble with heavy tanks (no surprise there, or issue really, as long as the teching costs are fixed)
27 Feb 2015, 23:48 PM
#176
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

going to type out a second post in case someone responds to the previous while i'm typing.

while the 34/85 is roughly balance to the IV it's more expensive and commensurately more powerful. soviet's get the last tier very early because, while they're expensive, they don't have to build anything in between. OKH is slowed down by teching costs and teching times (they have to research and then build which requires some coordination and attention (not huge, but significant).

the 34/85 is an all-rounder tank that is very good against anything lighter than a V and a pair of them will generally beat a V. having them available at their current cost gives soviets too much power early on.

the 34/76 becomes complete shit that no one would use; in effect you're nerfing current doctrines in exchange for buffing the soviet base lineup. i'm not really favor in getting rid of units.

the only way i could see this working out would be to make the 34/76 HIGHLY infantry focused (like current stats but sherman HE shells instead of the current shell) and making the 34/85 more like the V (AT focused). that would leave both units unique and prevent the 34/85 from being the be all/end all of the soviets.


Maybe you missed it in the OP but the idea was to replace 85 with a 76 command tank that gives offensive bonuses in the doctrine lineup. While 76 would not be a stock unit at all. A similar thing happens with Panzer IV.

76 is already complete shit, people use it because its their only option when they don't use cookie cutter doctrines. Those doctrines are not going to be useless just because they no longer house a staple call-in that should have been a stock unit in the first place.
27 Feb 2015, 23:49 PM
#177
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470



Maybe you missed it in the OP but the idea was to replace 85 with a 76 command tank that gives offensive bonuses in the doctrine lineup. While 76 would not be a stock unit at all. A similar thing happens with Panzer IV.

76 is already complete shit, people use it because its their only option when they don't use cookie cutter doctrines. Those doctrines are not going to be useless just because they no longer house a staple call-in that should have been a stock unit in the first place.

i did miss that and i don't really have any thing to say to that because it's a huge change to make; i have no idea how it would play out.

useless, no, but it would weaken them significantly because you can no longer go t4 and produce 34/85s. i don't know how much of an issue that would be but it does effect any strats that do that.
27 Feb 2015, 23:51 PM
#178
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

And I'll be honest, at this point I would rather make the half a dozen no 85 no armor call in doctrines useful even if it meant killing Armored Assault and Guards Motor. Both of which are great doctrines even minus the 85s, and a Command Tank would help them further in that regard.
28 Feb 2015, 00:00 AM
#179
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

One can say the same with the ez8 and t34/85 they're not beating German armor with out at support.


What? Both are better than the PIV, and if you have two of them they will beat a Panther together every time.

Why do people keep bringing up this "Axis" armor thing when literally 99% of the problems they have are with a single tank.
28 Feb 2015, 00:03 AM
#180
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

Posts: 1439

I'd love to see T-34/85 being standard T3 vehicle and T-34/76 being a AI beast call in.


T-34/85 is about equal to PzIV. Not better.
Panther will quickly kill one of them and then run away to safety. Been there, done that. With a bit of luck you can even take them both out. Keep your front armour towards the enemy all the time.
PAGES (15)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Livestreams

New Zealand 7

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

854 users are online: 854 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48726
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM