Soviet T3 Mega thread

So there's alot of SU76 and M5 threads floating about, thought it would be a good idea to stick all ideas/thoughts in 1 topic.

This thread will address each unit in Soviet T3 and the cost of soviet T3. (please keep replies and your opinions in this sorta structure).

Cost for T3 - I think the cost for soviet T3 is 10 fuel too cheap. (since they start with 50 and can save 10 fuel by going T1).

T70 Light tank - I feel this tank is in a good place and is a good price for what it brings to the field. However it could use a tiny bit more acceleration to better get out of the range of AT guns.

M5 Halftrack - This unit currently only really over-performs when it is upgraded with the quad cannon. However can be used as an early double flamer vehicle.
It does arrive too early but i think that could be helped with the first point of T3 cost. To balance the unit itself, i would suggest ONE of the following...
- 10 fuel cost increase
- Quad armor pen nerf (quite heavy)
- Change quad upgrade from 120 ammo to 100mp + 25 fuel. (To bring it in line with the USF and OKW flacktracks)
- Give it a setup time.

SU76 - I think its a good call to move this unit to T3 to give soviets some decent mid game T3 with the light vehicles. However i feel it overperforms for its cost and is spammable. Fixes id suggest for this are.. (Again id only want ONE of these used, not all).

- Fuel increase of 5
- AP decrease of 30 (its currently 10 higher than the stug).
- Ammo cost on Barrage (30)
- Turning speed decrease so it is easier to flank a group of them.
- Range decrease on the barrage so AT guns can be more effective vs them.

Nerf them all.
No problem win as any side in 1v1. Check this: http://coh2chart.com/
3v3 and 4v4 still OP axis.

Nerf them all.
No problem win as any side in 1v1. Check this: http://coh2chart.com/
3v3 and 4v4 still OP axis.

Showing me what the top 200 people prefer to play doesn't really mean anything.

Keep replies constructive! Thanks.

Showing me what the top 200 people prefer to play doesn't really mean anything.

Keep replies constructive! Thanks.

So click above the 1v1 to 4v4 part where you'll be shown the top 200 win-loss ratio.
Navigating websites is hard after all, internet just came out yesterday and not all people are used to it

So click above the 1v1 to 4v4 part where you'll be shown the top 200 win-loss ratio.
Navigating websites is hard after all, internet just came out yesterday and not all people are used to it

According to that the game is balanced in 1v1

Nah navigating websites isnt the issue understanding data is...

These are the top 200 players. Not all verses the top 200 players. Alot are vs worse players (201-5000 sorta bracket).

Its expected most of these games would be wins.

3v3 and 4v4 balance doesn't really apply, it cant.

According to that the game is balanced in 1v1

Nah navigating websites isnt the issue understanding data is...

These are the top 200 players. Not all verses the top 200 players. Alot are vs worse players (201-5000 sorta bracket).

Its expected most of these games would be wins.

3v3 and 4v4 balance doesn't really apply, it cant.

It still makes the average for all of the top 200 payers.
Top 200 allies fight just as much lower ranks as top 200 axis.

This is why the W/L ratio is above 60% instead of being around 50%.

The sample shows top 200 ranks, but there is even less then 800 unique top 200 players as its often same person for 3-4 armies, which makes it even more likely for top 200 to fight lower level, regardless of the side they are on.

Lower level players always over exaggerate balance problems, this is why we have players with 12k rank complaining how overpowered conscripts of partisans are.

The game might be balanced for a 1v1 and somewhat 2v2 player, but is not for 3v3 and 4v4 and definitely not because of soviet T3.

My opinion:

Lower the SU76 penetration, the ruskies already have a Tier 2 heavy armor penetrating unit. This will mean the axis can go heavy armour to counter and punish ruskies for staying in T3 AND skipping T2.

Lower damage and penetration of the Quad by a little. The Ostheer scoutcar should be a real danger to it when combined with other forces. That's it.

My opinion:

Lower the SU76 penetration, the ruskies already have a Tier 2 heavy armor penetrating unit. This will mean the axis can go heavy armour to counter and punish ruskies for staying in T3 AND skipping T2.

Which goes against the soviet tech of being able choose T1 or T2 and transition T3. Derp.
Being punished for wrong decision was what made shitty soviet design since release, we don't want that again. Ever. This is also what USF suffers for currently.

The Suppression including the dmg and penetration is just redicioulous on the M5. Nerf that and it will be fine. Else a setup timer like OKW HT is fine. All the advised adjustments for SU-76 is a good plan.

Cost for T3 - The cost for T3 depends hugely on the "powerlevel" of T3 units. If you nerf all of said units, you don't necessarily need to increase the fuel cost.

T70 Light tank - The T70 is totally overshadowed by the Quadmount. For the fuel cost it performs appropriately, although i would prefer a slight reduction in AI capabilities (think Stuart) and slight fuel cut, to give it more the role of an affordable scout and less of a two-shotting-clumped-up-squads-in-seconds unit.

M5 Halftrack - The Quad does not need to shred light vehicles in 1 or 2 bursts. It wins against every light vehicle except Puma. To make it a more even match between the 222 or 251/17 it should receive reduced penetration, damage or armor.

Even with a 40 fuel price tag it would still be a jack-of-all-trades.


SU76 - Poor SU76. Nobody used to love you. And now that you shine, your light is to bright.

The SU76 benefits greatly in conjunction with the quad - if you nerf the quad, you nerf the SU76.

There is no real need for the much more expensive SU85, because the SU76 already does an excellent job even against heavier tanks. The SU85 should be desirably as a main tank destroyer, therefore i would reduce the penetration or range on the SU76. It could receive a camouflage ability in return, so it stays relevant with proper use.


That said, i think T4 needs more incentive to be build. Currently T3 is enough to bridge the gap between ISU, IS2 or M4C and only the Katyusha offers real value. A better buildable, non-doctrinal tank than the T34 would go a long way.

Just make a T3 side upgrade, which allows production of T70 and M5. The upgrade would cost something like 200mp and 30 fuel.

Derp.

Katitof, perhaps you should post less? You know, let people have a conversation rather than reply to every other post. It would make for a better overall experience (for you too).

It's like having a dinner-party with 10 friends and then this one person, just trying to reply to everything that's being said. It's weird and annoying. Ease up

Katitof, perhaps you should post less? You know, let people have a conversation rather than reply to every other post. It would make for a better overall experience (for you too).

It's like having a dinner-party with 10 friends and then this one person, just trying to reply to everything that's being said. It's weird and annoying. Ease up

He has been doing that forever.

Just get used to him, its hard but we all did

For the Su-76, I think a small decrease in Ap, maybe 15-20 is fine. I'm not sure how it compared historically to the StuG III G, but IMO it should have slightly less AT than the StuG, as it's cheaper, and has arty. The M5 needs a setup time badly. That being said, I think all AA halftracks need a setup time just to standardize and balance things. The US AA halftrack, OKW AA halftrack, and Soviet AA halftrack (M5) should all have a setup time. No idea how the new UK thing will play though.

Cost for T3 - The cost for T3 depends hugely on the "powerlevel" of T3 units. If you nerf all of said units, you don't necessarily need to increase the fuel cost.

T70 Light tank - The T70 is totally overshadowed by the Quadmount. For the fuel cost it performs appropriately, although i would prefer a slight reduction in AI capabilities (think Stuart) and slight fuel cut, to give it more the role of an affordable scout and less of a two-shotting-clumped-up-squads-in-seconds unit.

M5 Halftrack - The Quad does not need to shred light vehicles in 1 or 2 bursts. It wins against every light vehicle except Puma. To make it a more even match between the 222 or 251/17 it should receive reduced penetration, damage or armor.

Even with a 40 fuel price tag it would still be a jack-of-all-trades.


SU76 - Poor SU76. Nobody used to love you. And now that you shine, your light is to bright.

The SU76 benefits greatly in conjunction with the quad - if you nerf the quad, you nerf the SU76.

There is no real need for the much more expensive SU85, because the SU76 already does an excellent job even against heavier tanks. The SU85 should be desirably as a main tank destroyer, therefore i would reduce the penetration or range on the SU76. It could receive a camouflage ability in return, so it stays relevant with proper use.


That said, i think T4 needs more incentive to be build. Currently T3 is enough to bridge the gap between ISU, IS2 or M4C and only the Katyusha offers real value. A better buildable, non-doctrinal tank than the T34 would go a long way.

Thanks for keeping us on track. Agreed with your post too.

T3 is fine for the most part, each unit fills a specific role and all are getting used. SU-76 is always one flank away from death, and the t-70 is still as useful as it's always been. Quad upgrade might need to require tier-4 but thats about it.

Sounds unfair to nerf the performance while increasing cost.

Sounds unfair to nerf the performance while increasing cost.

I even made it BOLD and underline that i recommended only ONE of the changes... not all of them..

What does a guy have to do around here to make his points clear lol.

I even made it BOLD and underline that i recommended only ONE of the changes... not all of them..

What does a guy have to do around here to make his points clear lol.

Woops!