The T 34 problem

I dont see any need to remove it.

However the current economic equity (and its concurrent onfield equity, in disabling not only a more costly, but also more powerful vehicle, completely) is currently imbalanced.

Sov sacrifices a cheaper units mobility and firepower to directly enact a loss of mobility and firepower on not only a more expensive unit, but one the opponent is in a balance sense relying on to remain effective.

And he does that FOR FREE.

I reocommend either a Munitions cost, or making it a vet ability.
I in no way recommend its removal or doctrinisation, because I find it to be the core of Soviet AT. It is, however, too equitable currently, without either an economic cost in munitions, or a preservation cost in terms of Vet.

@DanielD Ramming is currently, no matter whether you can finish off the rammed armor, an economic and tactical win, inEVERY SINGLE CASE. This because a)economically the cost of your disabled t34 is more equitable than the cost of the rammed armor b) the firepower outout of the rammed vehicle is greater than what you lose in the disabled t34.

This is incotrovertible and not arguable.

Whether you are prividing enough support to finish off the rammed armor, is a player based situatuonal l2p factor, that srves only to excascerbate the already indisputable economic and tactical gain from ramming. At best, you have disabled a more costly vehicle with more firepower and then subsequently destroyed it (due to intelligent support), at worst, you have still disabled a more costly and firepower capable unit, at a fraction of the cost and loss of firepower.

Null has summed this up extremely well. Perhaps give Russians stronger hand held AT that IS effective against heavily armoured anti tank units such as the Elephant and Panther?

And now T34 is killing 2 Grens in one shot while they are still stuck in Faust animation...

T-34s own, basically. End of story.

@DanielD Ramming is currently, no matter whether you can finish off the rammed armor, an economic and tactical win, inEVERY SINGLE CASE. This because a)economically the cost of your disabled t34 is more equitable than the cost of the rammed armor b) the firepower outout of the rammed vehicle is greater than what you lose in the disabled t34.

This is incotrovertible and not arguable.

Whether you are prividing enough support to finish off the rammed armor, is a player based situatuonal l2p factor, that srves only to excascerbate the already indisputable economic and tactical gain from ramming. At best, you have disabled a more costly vehicle with more firepower and then subsequently destroyed it (due to intelligent support), at worst, you have still disabled a more costly and firepower capable unit, at a fraction of the cost and loss of firepower.

It's amusing that you have the balls to say "this is incontrovertible and not arguable" when the game hasn't even been out for long enough for the proper strategies to be worked out. 280mp/75 fuel is not a small amount of either resource unless you are already winning handily. If you ram a full health stug/panther/PIV, it can be back to 100% in less than a minute, easily. You don't get 280mp and 75 fuel a minute, so how is that a win for the soviet player? The ram can also buy time, which is pretty hard to quantify in terms of fuel and manpower, but its not so cut and dry that you should act like you've figured it all out. The dynamic of ramming changes a lot on 2v2 and it becomes a lot more powerful, obviously.

But just for fun lets look at your evidence:

This because a)economically the cost of your disabled t34 is more equitable than the cost of the rammed armor
You'll need to back this up by showing replays where tanks that the t34 rams die. Otherwise you have to quantify the value of temporarily disabling a vehicle in exchange for (more likely than not) permanently losing a T34. To me, that's rather situational.

b) the firepower outout of the rammed vehicle is greater than what you lose in the disabled t34.
But the T34 is always immobilized and main-gunned, while sometimes the other vehicle is not. So this is not always true.


I just laugh when people ram my tanks without any way to finish them off.


I do like Hissys suggestion of stronger hand held AT. I'd like to see some bazookas somewhere.

You missed the point entirely.

I have nothing else to say to you.

Considering I directly responded to your assertions about why ramming is a problem, I'd say it's more like I responded to your point and you didn't like what I came up with. Sorry we couldn't have a dialog. Try to realize that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand what you are talking about.

It's amusing that you have the balls to say "this is incontrovertible and not arguable" when the game hasn't even been out for long enough for the proper strategies to be worked out. 280mp/75 fuel is not a small amount of either resource unless you are already winning handily. If you ram a full health stug/panther/PIV, it can be back to 100% in less than a minute, easily. You don't get 280mp and 75 fuel a minute, so how is that a win for the soviet player? The ram can also buy time, which is pretty hard to quantify in terms of fuel and manpower, but its not so cut and dry that you should act like you've figured it all out. The dynamic of ramming changes a lot on 2v2 and it becomes a lot more powerful, obviously.

You're right that it's not literally a win button - it's possible to use ram incorrectly and not get your money's worth. But you have to be an idiot to do that.

This because a)economically the cost of your disabled t34 is more equitable than the cost of the rammed armor
You'll need to back this up by showing replays where tanks that the t34 rams die. Otherwise you have to quantify the value of temporarily disabling a vehicle in exchange for (more likely than not) permanently losing a T34. To me, that's rather situational.

Why would you ever ram a vehicle with your T-34 if you didn't have something like an AT gun or another T-34 around to kill that vehicle? Obviously the cost of a T-34 vs disabling a vehicle isn't always worth it, but because the T-34 is cheaper than whatever it disables, any time you can make the trade, it's worth making the trade, and ram is a "trade" button because it sacrifices the T-34 in exchange for letting you kill the tank. If you can't kill the tank after ramming it, there's not much point in ramming, unless you need to take its gun out of the fight, in which case you're also getting your money's worth because the gun of any tank you ram is going to be worth more than the gun of the T-34 you lose, which is the next point:

b) the firepower outout of the rammed vehicle is greater than what you lose in the disabled t34.
But the T34 is always immobilized and main-gunned, while sometimes the other vehicle is not. So this is not always true.

This is true (I guess) - it needs more testing I suppose. The chance to take out the gun seems pretty high.

I just laugh when people ram my tanks without any way to finish them off.

Yes, this is a bad idea, but just because you're playing against idiots doesn't mean that T-34 ram isn't stupendous.

Since it isn't always a good idea to ram and you can't know what's in the fog of war without scouting, it is very possible to use ram and have it end up a net loss. Yes, you wouldn't ram without an AT gun, but your opponent wouldn't put his panther in a position to be rammed without support. If it still has it's main gun even a flanking t34 will die, and the first t34 gives LOS blocking to the panther until the wreck is destroyed.

If you are truly in a position where you are 100% sure that ramming will kill the tank, it seems to me you'd be able to kill it without ramming. In a more even fight, it is very powerful to trade the t34 for another tank's combat ability, except you won't always destroy the gun, AND you could still lose the fight. Using the ramming ability is only a obvious decision when you are certain of a tactical victory, and in CoH that's never guaranteed.

Ramming does take out the man gun far too often from no matter which side it comes in.

Additionally ram could use a change to make it more interesting to play against. Having ramming T-34 only be able to travel in a straight line, and if it misses giving the T34 an engine overheated critical, for example. Adding a fuel cost is another possibility. I think it could be an interesting ability though; it's like a really expensive, really powerful grenade in that you spend resources to do damage to you opponent, but that damage is dependent upon other factors under you and your opponent's control.

It also seems to me that if the early game were more balanced ram would suddenly feel a lot less powerful.

Idea: make the T34's ram ability into this, when it rams another vehicle both tanks suffer minor engine damage and both suffer a 5 secound "stun" costs 20 munis(dont quote me on the number its easy to change) it gives a tactical window and allows for micro intensive tank battles with chain stunning if you dont mind the engine damage. it will allow your at guns/ other tanks to get in some free shots and will slow down the enemy tank

I would like the following changes to be made.

- Heavy engine damage if it's a medium tank (p4, stug, all light veichles),
- Normal damaged engine if it's a heavy tank (Panther, Tiger)
- Heavy engine damage to a heavy tank if below x% health (say 50%)
- All tank types suffer a temporary critical on both driver and gunner

T-34 suffers immobilization + main gun destroyed

i think that is too far Talarfon, essentially wrecking your own tank for just engine damage and temp damage. seems like a bad trade and active abilities shouldnt hurt you, maybe just immobalise on the t34

LMAO Ppl don't like RAM that much?

Russians tend to have ways to destroy German armour normally but it's often very difficult. They either have to derp so hard that Ram is suddenly useful. Unlike the Amers, the Soviets don't have AP rounds and they also don't have turreted Tank destroyers, making it even harder to fight against heavier tanks.

I suppose Ramming is like stickies except far more expensive. Yes, stickies aren't going to kill a main gun, but engine damage = death in COH1. It's like going "okay, if you want to send your tank unsupported out this far, I'm just going to disable it, then repair the tank I rammed with and proceed to kill." Therefore, I think stickies would be far better than Ram, yet no-one complains about stickies. AT Nades do next to no damage to decent armour. You just want to use AT nades for the crit and that's it pretty much.

t34 is a shock unit, prepare for it like greyhounds and it will not pose much a of threat.

while ram is annoying, its a novelty, panthers have 60range, very capable of sniping tanks like t34. maintain range and ram is pretty much nullified. ontop of that, soviets do not have effective heavy tank destroyers, a rammed panther remains a bitch to take out due to its high front armor and can reliably retreat for repairs while t34 get easily destroyed by support fire. there is no economic gain here, soviet loses 280/75 and barely delays the german player.

honestly the only way i can see t34s being effective is when german players neglect everything and rush for panthers for anti tank dutiea. a simple AT gun can shut down t34 rushes. while panthers are used a breakthrough tank.

Why not the ram deal temporary gun criticals to both tanks, temporary immobilization for both tanks, and light engine damage for both sides?

only way to balance this is let it come with veterancy 1 and when the T34 rams the tank ONLY AND ONLY it should give it crew schocked

I don't get it.
On the one side you say it is completly fine that a tank (panther) can destroy way more than he costs easily and Russians just need to have a bunch (like a lot) of AT to defeat it.
While on the other side you complain about ram on T34 beeing to OP...
Maybe stop sending your tanks without support? I mean, a simple faust usually stops ram.

The only sense i can get out of this, is that people complaining probably are "german only" players.

While i agree that ram should get a cost of some sort, people that want it to be vet or doctrinal or not beeing able to destroy maingun, are just ridiculous.

Grens have some real trouble deploying Faust vs T34 currently.

By the time the Faust goes off, the Gren has lost atleast 2 models to maingun fire and the remaining ones are very close to dying from combined MG/Maingun fire as the Faust finally goes off and the T34 grinds to a crawl (with roughly only 1/10th hp lost to the Faust) a hairs-width away from crushing them.

This is my current experience, for what its worth.

Yes, that is if you fight a gren squad vs a tank...
In a 1v1 between two units one will always come out ahead. That's why you don't send troops alone and was my whole point. A faust usually causes "engine damaged", "engine damged" == no ram.

An unsoported tank ofc will get a ram in it's face and german players will cry because "ram is so op", while they just fail to do what they always tell the russian players, that are ranting about german armor:
Don't send your troops alone and use combined forces.

If I have 2 Grens on site (which I usually do, since I play with many Grens, almost always in pairs), one of the two will still suffer this fate. If I have a P4 on premisis for example, innaddition to my 2 Grens, one Hren will still suffer this fate, because I absolutely MUST get that Faust off, pre-emptively, because I absolutely do not want a Ram to occur.

Considering my own play, I think I need to atleast try more Paks, to help mitigate T34s at a longer range and without eithrr my grens or P4s being vulnerablrpe the the t34s (frankly) excellent anti-infantry and my P4 to the Ram.

I hope this example h3lps demomstrate that I am aware of counters, and am not talking about a 1Gren vs T34 situation in a vacuu,.