T-34/76 feels plain pathetic

You want to play WWII simulator 2013? Sorry, that's not CoH2.

History gets sacrificed for balance. Every time. If you want a tank that can duke it out with the PzIV, get a T34/85. This is what decision making is. Instead of getting everything you want with no forethought, you have to think about what you want from your army and what your enemy puts out and make your decision on that.

I think the T34/76 needs a buff but it doesn't need to be a PzIV.

Most every in game mechanic is inspired from the war. Relic already wants to capture the feel of the eastern front. It was their design goal from the start. No this is not a simulator, nor would I want to play one. A simulator would involve driving a tank for 3 days and nights for the chance at running into an AT mine. There are compromises that this game makes such as dramatically reduced weapon/vision ranges, and artillery that can reload fire like a battery without resupply. That sort of stuff I happily overlook. Why not try to capture the feel of the eastern front through? What the battles looked like and the tanks that fought in those battles.

The thing that gets me is the false choice that all historical accuracy comes at the expense of gameplay. I think in this specific case, it does not at all. Currently, the T-70 is the infantry killer tank for the soviets. Why, in addition, have a more expensive, slower infantry killer tank? The ram ability is extremely risky to use alone and is hardly worth it unless you are dominating the infantry war, your opponent gets aggressive, and you are facing something large like a tiger.

In this case, it makes sense from both a historical and a gameplay perspective to make the t34 a more viable unit.

I don't know what's worse the balance in COH2 or the fucking idiots who want it to be a WW2 simulator.

That's so needlessly hostile I don't even know where to begin. I hope you feel better.

Historically speaking, the Panther was germany's answer to the T-34. While the former was better armored and had a *slightly* better weapon, the T-34 had superior range and mobility. It's not as crass a difference as the game displays it.

The PzKw IV was ment as a support tank for the Stug III, mainly vs. Infantry and small Tanks like the T-70. The T-34 wtfpwned The Panzer IV so hard though, that the Germans developed the Panther. Later models of the PzIV (and those in the game) had a much better weapon. What is especially egregious, is that the T-34 can not reliably penetrate PzIV armor, while the PzIV can penetrate the T-34. That's so completely wrong, Stalin just turned over in his grave. Therefore, I think penetration of the T-34 should be upped considerably. That would also have the welcome side-effect of exciting T-34 vs. PzIV duels, instead of those lame stone-paper fights the current game pace provides.

The game has tank balance completely upside down. Balance is more important than realism is correct, but realism had balance as well, and - I am just leaning outside the window here - the leaders and engineers of the two biggest armies of the world did understand tank balance a tad better than relic does.

Please stop before I burst a gut laughing.

The Panther had a *slightly* better gun than the T-34? Does that mean that the T-34's 76mm F-34 gun was the equal of the german 88mm KwK 36 on the Tiger I? I'm asking because the Panther's 75mm KwK 42 was *slightly* better than the Tiger I's 88mm at armor penetration, and tended to be more accurate at long ranges, because the projectile travelled at greater speeds. The numbers are (normal ammo/special ammo, in m/s) 925-1000/1120 for the Kwk 42 on the Panther, compared to 800/930 for the KwK 36 on the Tiger I and 655-680/965 for the T-34's F-34 gun. Please note that the 88mm KwK 36 also had the higher caliber to its advantage (88mm compared to 75/76mm), and that should also be taken into consideration (basically, why the 75mm KwK 42 is only *slightly* better than the 88mm KwK 36), whereas the 1mm difference between the KwK 42 and the F-34 is largely irrelevant.

As for mobility and range, I'll just quote a soviet tanker from the era: "From the point of view of operating them, the German armoured machines were almost perfect, they broke down less often. For the Germans, covering 200 km was nothing, but with T-34s something would have been lost, something would have broken down. The technological equipment of their machines was better, the combat gear was worse.".

The Panther had an inauspicious (to say the least) start at Kursk, where the Ausf D version of the tank was used. Said Ausf D was pretty much a prototype version which the germans rushed to produce on Hitler's insistence especially for the Battle of Kursk. Trying to get as many Panthers on the ground delayed the start of the operation (Citadel) by over two months. The Ausf D were unreliable and broke down often, but the next variant, the Ausf A, came with improvements and by the time the Ausf G was rolling from the factory gates, the Panthers were some of the most reliable vehicles in the german army (and not only).

The only difference that is not as crass as the game displays it is the side/rear armor penetration. The T-34/76 did indeed have a decent chance of penetrating the Panther's side armor, even if only at (relatively) close ranges (say 500m). Other than that, the difference in armor and gun did indeed favor the Panther immensely.

Where did you get the idea that the Panzer IV was meant to back up the StuG III? This is plain wrong no matter how you look at it. The Panzer IV was initially meant to serve the role of infantry support, and mounted the short barrel 75mm KwK 37 gun. Right after the germans first encountered the T-34 and KV-1 soviet tanks, they rushed to upgrade the Panzer IV main gun to the 75mm KwK40 and bolt on 30mm more frontal armor for a combined total of 80mm frontal armor. The StuG III underwent the same treatment. The Panzer III, which started the war as the main tank killer of the german army, had the barrel of its 50mm gun made longer because it couldn't fit a 75mm KwK 40. Later on, it was upgraded to the 75mm KwK 37 (the same the Panzer IV started with) because it could fire HEAT rounds.

So, while essentially the Panzer IV did indeed start the war in an infantry support role, it quickly switched to anti-tank duties. The Panzer IV was NOT a support tank, it was pretty much the main battle tank of the german army for the duration of the war.

The StuG III, on the other hand, was the real support tank. It served in artillery battalions and was initially meant to fulfill the "direct-fire support role for infantry divisions". Later on, with the high velocity 75mm gun upgrade, it was increasingly used in a tank destroyer role, but kept its infantry support roots intact. Basically, you could say the StuG III was the do-it-all of the german army, staying close with infantry and providing fire support against both infantry (HE rounds), fortifications (HE rounds again) and enemy armor (there are several AT rounds, ranging from HEAT and APCBCHE to APCR). It excelled in a defensive role, as its low profile, good optics and good gun allowed it to snipe enemy tanks from a distance, while remaining concealed (which also had something to do with the gunpowder the germans were using, which produced less smoke).

Thing is, both Panzer IV and StuG III had the same armor thickness. That is 80mm front and 30mm sides/rear. The T-34/76 could only penetrate the front armor of Panzer IV/StuG III only at very close ranges. T-34/76 HEAT could not penetrate StuG III/Panzer IV frontal armor with HEAT ammo (only 75mm penetration). Firing APHE rounds would only penetrate 69mm at 500m, so the shot would probably need to be point blank to have any chance to penetrate the 80mm frontal armor. The only thing that could reliably penetrate Panzer IV/StuG III frontal armor was the APCR (tungsten core) special ammunition round, that could punch through 92mm of armor at 500m (so, it could probably go through the 80mm even at about 550-600m). But the APCR round was rare, it's not special ammunition for nothing. Even so, having to get as close as 600m to be effective with special ammunition against unsloped frontal armor does indeed mirror what is happening in CoH2, especially since the Panzer IV/StuG III could reliably take out the T-34/76 at far greater ranges.

I don't care how many times Stalin is turning in his grave. He probably wouldn't, he didn't really care how many soldiers lost their lives as long as the battle was won. To quote the results of american tests made on the T-34 during the war: "The earlier models of the T-34, until the Model 1942, had cast turrets whose armour was softer than that of the other parts of the tank, and offered poor resistance even to the 37 mm shells of automatic AA guns. The heavier German weapons could pierce the turret armour relatively easily.". This is probably why the Ostwind can inflict the damage it does, although it doesn't make too much sense (starting with 1943, T-34s had the new hexagonal turret which was supposed to be made from better materials and provide better protection).

Did the leaders and engineers of the two biggest armies in the world understand tank balance better than relic does? Maybe, maybe not. What should be done about the T-34/76 is as follows:

1. decrease the cost a bit, so it can be had in greater numbers. the cost is not that bad right now considering I've had situations in which I had to face two T-34/76 tanks with a single Panzer IV pretty early on (tried to get the Panzer IV rolling as soon as possible), but the cost is a bit high still. Perhaps increasing build times (for the building or the tanks) would be the answer here.

2. Make ramming a veteran ability. It makes much more sense than capturing points, but I guess the best way to go about this would be to enable ramming with the second level of veterancy.

3. Make ramming respect the laws of physics. The range for ramming should be decreased by 25% or so and have a maximum range once it is triggered (if it goes over this range, it should immediately stop and the driver should be stunned for a couple of seconds or something similar). Ramming should be susceptible to line of sight (how can you ram something you can't see?) and lateral movement. Steering a tank at high speed is a complicated affair and it can even damage the tracks (the tank can shed its tracks or break them rather easily). I've been in a situation where I was fighting two T-34/85 tanks with a Tiger and knowing that I'd get rammed as soon as I would get close to destroying one, I kept the Tiger at a distance. When the first T-34 engaged the ramming ability, I quickly backed the Tiger behind a thick pocket of trees (which blocked vision entirely) right after I popped smoke, and kept on driving backwards. To my everlasting surprise, T-34 came out of the smoke charging, took a 90 degree turn at full speed and was heading for the Tiger. I was lucky that the loading cycle was over and the Tiger destroyed the T-34 literally inches away. And then the second T-34 came out of the smoke charging, pulled the same stunt turn and rammed the Tiger. What. The. Hell.

4. Make the results of ramming more realistic. Why is the main gun destroyed for the tank that gets rammed? This happens even if said tank is targeting another vehicle. It should not happen. The rest (ramming tank gets its gun destroyed, probability of immobilization and degree of engine damage) seem fine as they are right now.

5. To make the T-34/76 better versus tanks, it should be able to purchase special ammunition (the Armor Piercing Composite Rigid with tungsten core) that only ever gets used against medium and heavy tanks (by default). It should have increased damage (say 100 instead of 80), have a decent chance of penetrating Panzer IV, StuG III and Ostwind frontal armor, cost about 20 ammo per unit (projectile) and each tank should be able to stack a maximum of 4-5. Can resupply (purchase more) at base, near halftracks and ammo dumps built over strategic points. This should be in line with reality and should make everyone happy with the T-34/76's AT capabilities.

6. Make side armor a bit weaker overall (for both germans and soviets). The T-34/76 should be able to punch through Panzer IV/StuG III/Ostwind side armor somewhat reliably, at least closer ranges.

7. Availability. Make the T-34/85 available through the T4 soviet building. These tanks were widely available to the Red Army. The SU-85 wasn't so readily available by a long shot. Replacing the T-34/85 with the SU-85 in the doctrine (and vice-versa for the T4 building) is one way to go about things. Another is to simply add T-34/85 to the T4 soviet building, keep it in the doctrine in a changed state (instantly call two T-34/85s at 75% the cost each, add a long reload time) and decrease the SU-85 extended range and speed, slightly decreasing accuracy while increasing reload times for extended range shots. This would keep the doctrine interesting, give the soviet players a more balanced and versatile T4 way of going about things.

Panther was vastly superior to any T-34. It could knock them out from 2km frontally, while the T-34/85 couldn´t knock out the Panther from the front at all with regular ammunition.

Arguably Panzer IV and StuG were superior to the T-34/85 also as they could knock it out from about the same range and had better optics, reload time, crews, crew comfort, protection from infantry (skirts), communication, visibility from the vehicle and where used in the defensive. The 80mm front armor of the Panzer IV and StuG could only be penetrated at roughly 300 metres by the 76mm, while again the T-34 could be knocked out from much farther away.

Most every in game mechanic is inspired from the war. Relic already wants to capture the feel of the eastern front. It was their design goal from the start.

Yes. What's your point? We're talking balance, not game design. Balance supersedes historical precedent in every single way. This is why a single Grenadier squad can not out shoot 4 Conscript squads.

The feel has been captured excellently. As someone who primarily plays Soviet I don't think making the T34/76 a PzIV will improve that in any possible way.

If we wanted to be historically accurate, a StuG III would shit all over an SU-85. If we wanted to be historically accurate, the chance of a turret being jammed by a ram would be extremely low, and you would only be able to damage the tank at all if you hit it from the sides. If we were being historically accurate, an MG42 would shit all over a Maxim MG in every possible situation.

I, for one, will not concern myself with historical accuracy.

You're just BAAAAAAAAD Buzz!

It's impossible to be bad at COH2. When I play German I spam P4s as if they were pre-nerf HE Prowlers and if I play Soviet I spam SU-85s as if they were pre-nerf Magriders. My hundreds of wins support these arguments.

The funny thing about the COH2 "community" is you have two very stubborn groups. One group is the imbecilic Russian nationalists who (wrongly) think that the Soviet equipment should for whatever reason be superior to the German equipment and on the other side of the coin you have armchair historians who think that once the Tiger hits the field it should be neigh invulnerable to all incoming fire because that's how it was in the movie "Saving Private Ryan". Realism has no place in an RTS like COH2 where for it to be competitive balance should come first. Want realism? Go play Close Combat or Combat Mission because COH2 will never have it nor should it.

The fact of the matter is that COH2 right now has some serious balance issues on both sides which result in stale game-play for both the winners and losers. If you want to win you need to follow a very specific build order and play a very specific way which becomes boring. If you try and deviate from these builds you usually end up losing and in frustration go back to the same old boring build you are sick of doing.

The T34/76 ineptitude makes the SU-85 much more desirable which leads to the tank destroyer being spammed. In almost all ways it out preforms the T34/76 which means that Soviets have no other choice other than going right for that vehicle since Germans have no choice but to go to the P4 since the StuG and Ostwind are both equally terrible.

That's so needlessly hostile I don't even know where to begin. I hope you feel better.

Shut the fuck up.

Panther was vastly superior to any T-34. It could knock them out from 2km frontally, while the T-34/85 couldn´t knock out the Panther from the front at all with regular ammunition.

Arguably Panzer IV and StuG were superior to the T-34/85 also as they could knock it out from about the same range and had better optics, reload time, crews, crew comfort, protection from infantry (skirts), communication, visibility from the vehicle and where used in the defensive. The 80mm front armor of the Panzer IV and StuG could only be penetrated at roughly 300 metres by the 76mm, while again the T-34 could be knocked out from much farther away.

source? T-34/76 can only penetrates STUGIII and PZIV at 300m? T-34/76 is capable of penetrating PZIV and STUG III at a distance of 800, T-34/76 never have problem defeating PZIV and STUG, capable of penetrating enemy armor at only 300m sounds fictional,provide source please.





too all those who argue there's nothing to do with historical accuracy :





making T-34 tanks stands no chance head on a PZIV and Stugs is nothing but a bad joke especially it costs 95 fuel not 1/5 or 1/10 fuel of AFVs.

"GUYS LISTEN I KNOW ALL ABOUT TANK COMBAT BECAUSE IN MY SPARE TIME I PLAY WORLD OF TANKS AND THAT IS A VERY HISTORIC AND CREDITED SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT ARMORED WARFARE." - UGBEAR

"GUYS LISTEN I KNOW ALL ABOUT TANK COMBAT BECAUSE IN MY SPARE TIME I PLAY WORLD OF TANKS AND THAT IS A VERY HISTORIC AND CREDITED SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT ARMORED WARFARE." - UGBEAR

"hey guys, look at my waffen SS portrait, is it cool? "


PS:I'm just asking a source of "T-34/76 only capable of penetrating STUG III and PZIV's frontal armor at 300m that's all"

"hey guys, look at my waffen SS portrait, is it cool? "


PS:I'm just asking a source of "T-34/76 only capable of penetrating STUG III and PZIV's frontal armor at 300m that's all"

It is cool. Thanks for noticing.

Unlike you and other delusional people I don't want history to dictate game balance. People who argue history for balance reasons are not worth listening to.

Now go back to World of Tanks and fire some gold ammo at those big mean P4s. You'll feel better!

source? T-34/76 can only penetrates STUGIII and PZIV at 300m? T-34/76 is capable of penetrating PZIV and STUG III at a distance of 800, T-34/76 never have problem defeating PZIV and STUG, capable of penetrating enemy armor at only 300m sounds fictional,provide source please.





too all those who argue there's nothing to do with historical accuracy :





making T-34 tanks stands no chance head on a PZIV and Stugs is nothing but a bad joke especially it costs 95 fuel not 1/5 or 1/10 fuel of AFVs.

You know what, you're right. I think this game could do with a bit more history.

Every time a Soviet squad retreats, I want it to run off map into a firing squad. Because we had Order 227.

I want Conscripts to come for way less manpower, and have a squad of 20, but only have 10 rifles. They do less damage and have less hp than a Grenadier squad, because 5x more Soviet soldiers died than Germans, so we need to have 5 die for every 1. This is historically accurate.

Germans should also start with more resources on summer maps, because without Winter, the Soviets couldn't beat the Germans. This keeps some accuracy.

I think a StuG III should beat a SU-85 every single time, because historically it is the exact same as the SU-85 but with thicker armor.

source? T-34/76 can only penetrates STUGIII and PZIV at 300m? T-34/76 is capable of penetrating PZIV and STUG III at a distance of 800, T-34/76 never have problem defeating PZIV and STUG, capable of penetrating enemy armor at only 300m sounds fictional,provide source please.

making T-34 tanks stands no chance head on a PZIV and Stugs is nothing but a bad joke especially it costs 95 fuel not 1/5 or 1/10 fuel of AFVs.

There you go! T-34/76 versus Panzer IV hull.



Okay, I´ll give you the 100m - it´s POSSIBLE to get the Panzer IV/StuG at 400 metres, although a bounce or non penetrating shot can occur. A hit to the turret could also be possible, but the StuG doesn´t have one and thus is a fairly hard nut to crack for the T-34/76. Explains the exorbitant huge losses of those T-34s from 42-44.

Let´s see the Panzer IVs/ StuGs armament in comparison versus the T-34s hull. That´s about 1km, a huge advantage in tank combat if you ask me. We conclude: The Panzer IV can engage the T-34/76s about 600 metres before it can even hope to get a penetrating shot back (if not hitting the weakspot at the turret). But include German optics and we have a winner.

And Panzer IV versus T-34 hull.




We should stop now about the realism.

Don't you dare correct him. His Kremlin approved book about superior Soviet armor used during the great Patriotic War to fend off the aggressive actions of the evil Germans against the innocent, beautiful, educated and hard working Soviet people told him otherwise.

I'm not sure where you came from BuzzCut, but neither your respectfulness which you do not have, nor your avatar make you "cool" Please discuss the topic at hand and cease insulting people.

I'm not sure where you came from BuzzCut, but neither your respectfulness which you do not have, nor your avatar make you "cool" Please discuss the topic at hand and cease insulting people.

I am not insulting anybody. Don't be so sensitive. I chimed in on the topic in regards to balance and why the T34 is crap. Others are using history which has no relevance to game balance and others (including myself) are calling them on it.

History should weigh very little in regards to balance. Others seem to think otherwise. COH2 is having the same problem that DOW2 had except that instead of arguing 40k fluff they are arguing history and using that as their only basis.

There you go! T-34/76 versus Panzer IV hull.



Okay, I´ll give you the 100m - it´s POSSIBLE to get the Panzer IV/StuG at 400 metres, although a bounce or non penetrating shot can occur. A hit to the turret could also be possible, but the StuG doesn´t have one and thus is a fairly hard nut to crack for the T-34/76. Explains the exorbitant huge losses of those T-34s from 42-44.

Let´s see the Panzer IVs/ StuGs armament in comparison versus the T-34s hull. That´s about 1km, a huge advantage in tank combat if you ask me. We conclude: The Panzer IV can engage the T-34/76s about 600 metres before it can even hope to get a penetrating shot back (if not hitting the weakspot at the turret). But include German optics and we have a winner.

And Panzer IV versus T-34 hull.




We should stop now about the realism.

that's new, which ammunition, BR-350P1 APCR is capable of penetrating 91mm armor at the range of 500m, PZIV and Stugs are both has flat armor, and yes, in game, hitting power(pen) should slightly increase as you getting closer.


my source:http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp

that's new, which ammunition, BR-350P1 APCR is capable of penetrating 91mm armor at the range of 500m, PZIV and Stugs are both has flat armor, and yes, in game, hitting power(pen) should slightly increase as you getting closer.


my source:http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp

Your source is the incredibly bias game World of Tanks. Please stop.

I am not insulting anybody. Don't be so sensitive. I chimed in on the topic in regards to balance and why the T34 is crap. Others are using history which has no relevance to game balance and others (including myself) are calling them on it.

History should weigh very little in regards to balance. Others seem to think otherwise. COH2 is having the same problem that DOW2 had except that instead of arguing 40k fluff they are arguing history and using that as their only basis.

You must have an 85mm size chip on your shoulder or something. Respecting historical detail does not mean you can't have a perfectly balanced game. You can balance firepower and armor with a lot of things, not the least of which is the cost in resources. What UGBEAR is saying about T-34 is total crap, admittedly, but that doesn't mean CoH2 should go arcade mode. It's quite far from a simulator right now, tanks don't one-shot tanks as they did in reality, and that's quite fine. What some people want (and others, like you, seem not to understand)is to make things closer to how they were in regard to relative strength. That doesn't mean the Tiger should one-shot the T-34 or the IS-2 should one-shot the Tiger and so on, but rather more accuracy as to what could (or, for that matter, couldn't) kill what.

I am not insulting anybody. Don't be so sensitive. I chimed in on the topic in regards to balance and why the T34 is crap. Others are using history which has no relevance to game balance and others (including myself) are calling them on it.

History should weigh very little in regards to balance. Others seem to think otherwise. COH2 is having the same problem that DOW2 had except that instead of arguing 40k fluff they are arguing history and using that as their only basis.

Yes, history has no relevance in a game that does everything by the history book. Are you drunk? You want history not to have anything to say about game balance? Go play Red Alert or StarCraft II or Dawn of War II or something ELSE. This is Company of Heroes 2 and history matters a lot here. You don't like that? GTFO.

Unlike you and other delusional people I don't want history to dictate game balance. People who argue history for balance reasons are not worth listening to.

Oh, really? Do tell, what makes your opinion so important? Did you pay for the development of this game or something? What makes your opinion worth listening to and not others? So far, you're just telling people to shut up and go away because their opinion doesn't matter instead of actually coming up with something constructive. You're worthless.

that's new, which ammunition, BR-350P1 APCR is capable of penetrating 91mm armor at the range of 500m, PZIV and Stugs are both has flat armor, and yes, in game, hitting power(pen) should slightly increase as you getting closer.


my source:http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp

Can you say "special, rare ammunition, only available in limited quantities"? It's exactly what I said in my previous post. The normal, widely available rounds for the F-34 76mm gun on the T-34/76 were basically useless against the frontal armor of StuG III/Panzer IV, even at point blank. The turret front had even thicker armor: 50mm turret + 50mm gun mantlet, for a combined total of 100mm.

Hey look another shitter trying to argue game balance in the name of historical accuracy in an RTS game not designed to be 100% historically accurate. Of course this person only wants historical accuracy when it suits his/her argument but ignores the multitude of reasons given as to why this game shouldn't (and wont) focus on historical accuracy over balance.

Kick and scream. Piss and moan. Nobody gives two fucking shits how many hours you have clocked into <INSERT GENERIC WW2 GAME IN WHICH YOU GET ALL OF YOUR HISTORY FROM HERE> or even the amount of hours you've watched The History Channel in middle school. None of that matters because game play always comes ahead of "historical accuracy".

Does the T34/76 need a buff? Yes. Does it need a buff because it isn't 100% historically accurate? Fuck no. It needs a buff because it's fucking worthless in the game and only use is for ramming vehicles which are twice it's cost.

scorpion_amd13 sounds like an "armchair historian" to me, he also sounds like a huge faggot using rhetorical questions and self-pointed questions so it sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

UGBEAR to me seems like a dumb nigger that could use a pack of skittles and a 9mm round through his coon heart

Skittles through his heart? Poppycock.