T34/76 should get a slight buff

Except P4 got accurate gun and stronger coaxials AND pintle.
You're making an ass of yourself as usual.
I slowly start to think that you need to be wrong all the time or you'll die or something.
Also no one gives a shit about axis mediums performance, this is T34/76 thread, if you want to talk axis mediums, make a thread about them.

Except the P4 has almost exactly the same accuracy on it's main gun as the T34/76. I proved this on the first fucking page of the thread, why everyone continues to ignore this fact is beyond me.

The only issue the T34 has is it's worse MG's and long reload, which could both use a buff.

How about you spend less time of stats and more in game, actually playing it and actually seeing how units perform?

"almost same numbers" make for a huge differences.

How about you spend less time of stats and more in game, actually playing it and actually seeing how units perform?

"almost same numbers" make for a huge differences.

I play the game a lot, and I can notice that the T34's biggest weakness isn't the gun, the armor, the speed, or even the shit MG's, it's the fact it has a very long reload compared to the other mediums.

The KV1 blows it out of the water.

And again; this is somewhat funny considering you don't play the game.

Correct me if im wrong but didn't the t-34 and the kv1 have the same gun?

I play the game a lot, and I can notice that the T34's biggest weakness isn't the gun, the armor, the speed, or even the shit MG's, it's the fact it has a very long reload compared to the other mediums.

The KV1 blows it out of the water.

And again; this is somewhat funny considering you don't play the game.

In this case you have the ability to pinpoint the actual issues with units equal to that of a kitten as you're completely unable to determine what unit can, what should do, why it can't do it and how to fix it.
Massed T34 have no problems with tanks once they flank them except for KT, but they are completely unable to fight infantry. You can reduce scatter therefore making it more likely to wipe squads or increase machineguns accuracy to make it a steady damage to inf, which every single other tank in game have.

@Zyllen
KV-1 have 1s faster reload to make it actually better for the additional fuel cost.

Correct me if im wrong but didn't the t-34 and the kv1 have the same gun?

They did in history and do in-game, aside from the KV-1's having a faster reload by a second.

In this case you have the ability to pinpoint the actual issues with units equal to that of a kitten as you're completely unable to determine what unit can, what should do, why it can't do it and how to fix it.
Massed T34 have no problems with tanks once they flank them except for KT, but they are completely unable to fight infantry. You can reduce scatter therefore making it more likely to wipe squads or increase machineguns accuracy to make it a steady damage to inf, which every single other tank in game have.

@Zyllen
KV-1 have 1s faster reload to make it actually better for the additional fuel cost.

It's not more or less likely to wipe squads than the PIV, and it costs 25 fuel less. As has been said before in the thread the T34's biggest issue is the fact the MG's on it aren't that great, and the lack of a proper reload time equivalent to other medium tanks.

Massed T34's are good against infantry due to the shear amount of firepower your putting out, but the issue is that anything in enough numbers is good. If the T34 had a proper reload speed and better MG's it would be a good all round tank, but it would need a increase in fuel cost.

Right now massed KV1's are far, far better. Good armor, better reload speed, more health, and only less armor. Not to mention you don't need to pay teching costs, which IMO is the biggest issue facing T3 viability, not the issues with the T34 itself.

EDIT: And why do you keep avoiding the fact that you don't seem to have knowledge of the current meta, like, at all?

It's not more or less likely to wipe squads than the PIV, and it costs 25 fuel less. As has been said before in the thread the T34's biggest issue is the fact the MG's on it aren't that great, and the lack of a proper reload time equivalent to other medium tanks.

Massed T34's are good against infantry due to the shear amount of firepower your putting out, but the issue is that anything in enough numbers is good. If the T34 had a proper reload speed and better MG's it would be a good all round tank, but it would need a increase in fuel cost.

Right now massed KV1's are far, far better. Good armor, better reload speed, more health, and only less armor. Not to mention you don't need to pay teching costs, which IMO is the biggest issue facing T3 viability, not the issues with the T34 itself.

EDIT: And why do you keep avoiding the fact that you don't seem to have knowledge of the current meta, like, at all?

And you have so much meta knowledge, im beginning to envy you, gonna head off and play some teamgames

And you have so much meta knowledge, im beginning to envy you, gonna head off and play some teamgames

It's just that his adamant stance on the lack of power in the IS2 seemed weird, then when you realize he doesn't play the game it makes a lot more sense.

Even a 4's or 3's only player will have a better idea what's going on than someone who doesn't play the game.

It's just that his adamant stance on the lack of power in the IS2 seemed weird, then when you realize he doesn't play the game it makes a lot more sense.

Even a 4's or 3's only player will have a better idea what's going on than someone who doesn't play the game.

fair enough

It and the IS2 need to get the attack tanks only button like all the other tanks. its just silly.

i think its an excellent tank, just need its reload to match kv-1 or get tougher to hit with handheld AT. like how shermans/cromwells in coh1 mince schreck gren blobs. it is supposed to be mainly infantry support after all.

problems with t34s is more like its a fundamental tiering problem than the unit itself. its because it exist in a tiering system that requires too much commitment, people expect god's work from it. else it will always disappoint.

soviet t3 and t4 exist to support t1/t2. which only the su85 can fulfill, albeit rather expensively. soviets need a cheap AT option which the ZiS fills up the role nicely yet its a whooping 50fuel just for the building, which makes it very cost inefficient for any sort of strategy.

1. allow a slightly more flexible tiering, allow t1 and t2 to make each other's units available through upgrades at a heavily discounted building price.

Yes, it should have similar armour to Pz IV. It would be more historical correct.







Now the armour is T-34: 150.0, Sherman: 160.0, Pz IV: 180.0.

Apparently Relic don't know what "effective armour is".

It's just that his adamant stance on the lack of power in the IS2 seemed weird, then when you realize he doesn't play the game it makes a lot more sense.

Even a 4's or 3's only player will have a better idea what's going on than someone who doesn't play the game.

Lack of power of IS-2?

Am I talking with a retarded baby here?(its rhetorical question)

Or you confused T34/76 with IS-2 for some reason unknown to humanity?

Dude, you're going full retard in 99% of your posts and call others out?

Priceless.

Oh, and yes, I don't know 4v4 'meta', thats your playground. That also explains your utter and complete detachment from 1v1 and 2v2 meta and having no slightest clue on how to play these, as from your posts, if you talk about 2v2 for example people have the feeling you play completely different game.

Yes, it should have similar armour to Pz IV. It would be more historical correct.







Now the armour is T-34: 150.0, Sherman: 160.0, Pz IV: 180.0.

Apparently Relic don't know what "effective armour is".

No offense, but if you are comparing WoT's semi-realistic armor to CoH, you have no idea about game mechanics.

CoH is not a simulator. In those realistic armor calculation the angle which the shot hits the armor is very important. There is no HP in the simulators. In CoH, armor is just a means to balance the game, and adds a little bit of RNG for fun (at least it's supposed to do that). CoH uses very simple calculations.

It's not like T34 has crappy armor in CoH because they don't know about effective armor, it's because T34 is supposed to be an early, kinda crappy, jack of all trades tank in this game.

Please do not argue about history or other games' mechanics when we are discussing balance.

Accuracy buff on gun or MG's please. Tank is not as good as P4 in all manners, but locks me into a tier from which I will never be able to get strong AT.

@Alex
Just a recommendation, if people do not seem to be coming to your side posting a response after every comment is not the way to go about winning them over. This is also a good way to derail threads.

Also even though the numbers are close you ignore that the differences are enough to cause in game changes. The P4 has very nice AI ability, and its top MG can add to this. Comparatively the T34/76 struggles to deal with German squads, mostly relying on crush to do so. Occasionally they can kill infantry.

Lack of power of IS-2?

Am I talking with a retarded baby here?(its rhetorical question)

Or you confused T34/76 with IS-2 for some reason unknown to humanity?

Dude, you're going full retard in 99% of your posts and call others out?

Priceless.

Oh, and yes, I don't know 4v4 'meta', thats your playground. That also explains your utter and complete detachment from 1v1 and 2v2 meta and having no slightest clue on how to play these, as from your posts, if you talk about 2v2 for example people have the feeling you play completely different game.

My point is that you don't understand how shit works, as in no idea what's good and whats not. You insisted in the KT thread that the IS2's speed meant nothing. And now your here insisting a tank that has basically the same gun V infantry as the PIV is worse than the PIV because of accuracy when that's just plain false.

And 1v1 and 2v2 meta? I played 2's more than any other game mode if you payed attention to my game card for like half a second. The game doesn't shift that radically from 2's to 3's either, and I play a lot of both.

Lets take a look at you for comparison:

http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/viewBoard/10/steamid/76561198009261973

4 games as OKW in 2's and 6 as USF

Accuracy buff on gun or MG's please. Tank is not as good as P4 in all manners, but locks me into a tier from which I will never be able to get strong AT.

@Alex
Just a recommendation, if people do not seem to be coming to your side posting a response after every comment is not the way to go about winning them over. This is also a good way to derail threads.

Also even though the numbers are close you ignore that the differences are enough to cause in game changes. The P4 has very nice AI ability, and its top MG can add to this. Comparatively the T34/76 struggles to deal with German squads, mostly relying on crush to do so. Occasionally they can kill infantry.

But uh the thing is, the gun has only .5 more scatter than that of the PIV's

T34:


Scatter
Scatter angle:
7.5
Min tilt angle:
0.0
Distance obj hit min:
5.0
Distance offset:
0.25
Fow angle multi:
1.25
Tilt max distance:
0.0
Tilt scatter chance:
0.0
Distance ratio:
1.0
Burst pattern:
false
Max tilt angle:
0.0
Delay bracket change chance:
0.0
Distance max:
6.9
Fow distance multi:
1.25

PIV:


Scatter
Scatter angle:
7.5
Min tilt angle:
0.0
Distance obj hit min:
10.0
Distance offset:
0.25
Fow angle multi:
1.25
Tilt max distance:
0.0
Tilt scatter chance:
0.0
Distance ratio:
1.0
Burst pattern:
false
Max tilt angle:
0.0
Delay bracket change chance:
0.0
Distance max:
6.4
Fow distance multi:
1.25

The only issue the T34 has under the PIV for killing infantry is the worse MG's and longer reload, which I have both supported fixing

Thank you, I have literally laughed my ass off while reading your most recent bullshit.

You not only have proven that you know SHIT about stats, reading them and what actual values means(aka when small value have huge impact and why) but also have proven that you are completely CLUELESS on reading player cards as you have no slightest idea on how they work again and again and again(prohint: AT games do not show factions).

Now that I had my entertainment I can focus on discussions with people who might not agree but at least have a clue on what they talk about.

I suggest you will less forum warrior and play the actual game in the competitive modes.

Lets talk again when your competitive mode ranks(1v1 and 2v2 AT that is) will stop resembling my phone number.

The problem with buffing anti infantry is then it over shadows the T-70 even more. What is the point of the T-70 if the T-34 is just as good against infantry. 30 less fuel isn't enough.

I think penetration would be to nice to give it a bit more late game scaling but without breaking the balance vs Paks or P4's. Alternatively I really like the idea of nerfing the armour on all the heavies.

Thank you, I have literally laughed my ass off while reading your most recent bullshit.

You not only have proven that you know SHIT about stats, reading them and what actual values means(aka when small value have huge impact and why) but also have proven that you are completely CLUELESS on reading player cards as you have no slightest idea on how they work again and again and again(prohint: AT games do not show factions).

Now that I had my entertainment I can focus on discussions with people who might not agree but at least have a clue on what they talk about.

I suggest you will less forum warrior and play the actual game in the competitive modes.

Lets talk again when your competitive mode ranks(1v1 and 2v2 AT that is) will stop resembling my phone number.

Do you hear that incredible wooshing sound? Yeah it's the sound of goal posts flying backwards at mac 1.

I posted the stats, they are literally only .4 different in one area. Unless you want to assert that no really guys scatter doesn't matter at all when dealing with infantry.