T-34/76 feels plain pathetic

Wow these last few pages are amazing....


Anyway, The 76 does need a buff; it's basically a 240mp/95f ram, which is pretty dumb. The problem right now is that it serves no role.

It sucks vs. infantry (and it comes out too late to do anything if it COULD do damage) and it sucks vs. tanks (low damage, weak armor). Personally, I'd buff it's accuracy vs. infantry a bit, and possibly increase its front armor. I don't want to see it beating PIVs and Panthers in head-on fights, but it shouldn't die so quickly to literally everything.

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.

That logic is flawed. I showed you the model with regular ammunition. The BR-350P1 is a rare - and I mean rare - shell that hardly was used with the fifty thousand T-34s deployed. To follow that logic you could say the Panzer IV should beat the IS-2, as it could do so with the (again rare) Panzergranate 40 special ammunition at combat ranges.

To keep this on topic: I think the flanks of German tanks should be more vulnerable to the 76mm gun, not the front. I think the German player should be rewarded if he keeps the frontal armor of his tanks at the enemy and keeps a distance.

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.

Listen, retard, all I've said about the way tanks really were is not based on any dumb game or sensationalist "documentary". Don't mistake me for UGBEAR. All the info I've used is based on studies conducted by either government agencies (during the war) or specialists. Just because your retarded general school troll mind doesn't understand these things, it doesn't mean they're not accurate. And I wasn't suggesting a buff to the T-34/76 because it isn't historically accurate, but because as you yourself admit, it needs one. I just studied the historical context to provide a viable and efficient way to balance things. You just kick and cry and scream every time you read "history" or "historical" anywhere because you are too retarded to understand, but most people playing this game aren't and want to enjoy this game as it should be, not just another starcraft/C&C/DoW clone. I'll say it again, if you want the arcade experience, go play something else.

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.

You're just another retard (or maybe BuzzCutPsycho's other account) who can't wrap his tiny, broken brain around the concept that recreating the overall feeling of a historical battle doesn't rule out balance. Is this plain enough for you?

Please stop ruining this thread. No one needs to read pages of insults in what was otherwise a very nice thread. Stop addressing specific posters and address ideas and talking points instead.

Balance > History every single time. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

People trying to use history to balance the game are failing to understand that. Wars aren't balanced. This is why referring to history for balance purposes makes no sense.

If you want to balance a game, you look at the game. Balancing something in such a way with your only reason being that it's historically accurate is just dumb.

This is why people are being assholes to eachother. Some people want this game to be based on WWII "facts", and others want the game to actually be balanced and fair.

Please stop ruining this thread. No one needs to read pages of insults in what was otherwise a very nice thread. Stop addressing specific posters and address ideas and talking points instead.

I'm actually not trying to ruin anything. Much less insult anyone. Others started throwing insults about long before me. I guess you didn't bother reading my first post, where I was addressing exactly the ideas and talking points, namely a way to make the T-34/76 actually useful in-game. I think my suggestions are quite reasonable and really far from the die-hard historical accuracy fanatics that would have tanks one-shotting each other and whatnot. Here you go:

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.

Balance > History every single time. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

People trying to use history to balance the game are failing to understand that. Wars aren't balanced. This is why referring to history for balance purposes makes no sense.

If you want to balance a game, you look at the game. Balancing something in such a way with your only reason being that it's historically accurate is just dumb.

This is why people are being assholes to eachother. Some people want this game to be based on WWII "facts", and others want the game to actually be balanced and fair.

No, it most surely is not difficult to understand and I agree when it comes to game balance. However, considering we're talking about a historically themed game, I don't understand what's wrong with finding a way that balances the game and retains the historical part. I didn't say tanks should one-shot each other or that they should be able to fire at real ranges. No. I've only mentioned decreasing production costs for the T-34/76 so that the cost difference more closely resembles the difference in effectiveness between a panzer IV and a t-34/76 in the game, introducing the ability to purchase special AT ammunition which would give the T-34/76 a better chance against tanks, balancing the ram ability because right now it is quite over the top no matter how you look at it (both german and soviet players are complaining here), making the side and rear armor of tanks a bit more susceptible to AT gun fire (from both tanks and field guns) and the last one was making the T-34/85 available through the soviet tier 4 building to give the SU-85 some competition for the tank hunter role.

I want this game to be fair more than anything else, what I'm saying is that you don't need to throw history out the window to do it and that there are viable ways aplently to make things both fair and fun at the same time. What's wrong with that?

STUFF

No matter what you say COH2 will always be an "arcade RTS" the same way COH, DOW and DOW2 were "arcade RTS" games. Your fantasy of a WW2 simulator built in the essence engine will never be made reality.

I'm sorry.

That logic is flawed. I showed you the model with regular ammunition. The BR-350P1 is a rare - and I mean rare - shell that hardly was used with the fifty thousand T-34s deployed. To follow that logic you could say the Panzer IV should beat the IS-2, as it could do so with the (again rare) Panzergranate 40 special ammunition at combat ranges.

To keep this on topic: I think the flanks of German tanks should be more vulnerable to the 76mm gun, not the front. I think the German player should be rewarded if he keeps the frontal armor of his tanks at the enemy and keeps a distance.

"T-34/76 Model 1943 typically carried 75 OF-350 HE-Frag, and 25 BR-350A APHE round including 4 tungsten-cored BR-350P round after October 1943."


BR-350A is like standard ammunition for T-34/76, while BR-350P is only 4 for each tank but it's not that "rare" like HVAP for US tank regiment, the game has ISU-152 and JS-2 mod1944, so I don't suppose it is a pre-1943 war.


Not really that flawed right? Or as scorpions said, makes BR-350P only accessible with munition costs? Or increase the T-34/76 pen against medium armor a bit(since ostwind have a decent chance penetrating T-34's frontal armor)


source: Robert Forczyk Osprey Panther vs T-34

76 offered enough storage to carry over a hundred shells? Impresive.

The only other "tanks" I knew would do that were the StuGs but those would actually cover the whole floor the crew was standing on to get from 40 to 100 grenades.

Edith:
but yeah, I dont think I'd scale the AP effectiveness of a t34 (in this game) by just those 4 shells. Especially considering how famous t34s were for missing^^

im pretty sure it did but... not only was it very hard to get to often times making reloading very slow due to horrible placement. but also made it explode and light on fire much more frequently because there is all this ammo lying around. in all parts of the tank making 1 shell bound to hit something in an already jam packed tank.

Yeah, what Orkfaeller said. It´s not justified for T-34/76 to always effectively go through StuGs and Panzer IVs frontal armor.

- It´s only 4 shells
- Even with this special ammunition the Panzer IV/StuG can engage at longer ranges - 1km
- Old phrase of German tankers: "Don´t worry about the Russian, he will miss the first shot." With 4 effective shells that´s no big threat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8NklsPWX1A#t=7m00s (look form 7:00 to 8:30)

As I said earlier: Flanking should be rewarded for the Russian player. Keeping your tanks at distance and the frontal armor to the enemy should be rewarded for the German player. I don´t see much sense in this, when T-34/76 always/often penetrate the front.

I might agree to some special ammunition on veterancy for the T-34 but that´s it. The thing that is needed is a better penetration of the gun versus the sides of German tanks to encourage flanking.

The last game I played using a T-34 I lost. Why?

well besides the fact Ive now lost my voice due to the apocalyptic abuse I was screaming and the inevitable rage quit that followed. Now that I am calm I shall explain.

I witnessed a T-34 fire 8 shells at the rear armor of an Ostwind. And the Ostwind shrugged it off and drove away.... with a blown engine from AT grenades.

That same time, the Ostwind came back and did it again. Also. A Panzer IV, with half health and a blown engine. Was flanked by a full health T-34 which I drove around him specifically and fired into his side and rear from POINT BLANK. The Panzer turned round and killed the T-34 without so much as a scratch.

Now as far as I am aware, the T-34 76 was not a useless tank. In fact it was quite powerful and the scourge of Panzer divisions during the Moscow Counteroffensive in 1941-42. As well as at Stalingrad in 42-43. But as stated earlier "history gets beaten by balance"

But how is it balanced that the USSR if it pulls out its signature tank. Gets blasted and killed by German tanks damaged, overrun at half health. I know that "You played like Sh!t get over it". But I was achieving one to one K/D against a German player of a higher rank in a German stacked map. And LOST. Because my T-34's (thats right this happened more than once) got killed by a Crippled AA gun... and a Damaged Panzer IV..... 2 vehicles.... both damaged.... killed my full health tanks....

Now I know its all about balance... but PLEASE. Make the T-34 cost 100 fuel and BOOST THE GODDAMN AT POWER.

I agree the Ostwind really shouldn't penetrate T34 armor. That's ridiculous.

I agree the Ostwind really shouldn't penetrate T34 armor. That's ridiculous.

Get no argument from me, especially since an Ostwind that ran into even a vanilla Sherman in vCoH was pretty much a dead Ostwind. For all the flaws the T-34/76 had in real life, it should most certainly have the up on the Sherman in the protection department.

Yeah. Maybe Ostwind shells were able to actually penetrate lighter tanks ( I dont know ) but I feel it really Shouldnt in this game atleast.

Ostwinds should definitely have their penetration reduced by a lot, whenever that's realistic or not. A dedicated AI tank being able to damage medium tanks is silly.

What the T-34 needs is survivability and firepower. I could accept its low pen if it got more armor or HPs along with a damage increase to 120. That way it would rightfully lose to a P4 but would be able to dish out some hurt if it managed to flank, and would have a shot at taking on an unsupported StuG. More armor means it doesn't die to a sneeze. Relic have ruled out an upgun, fine, but that means a pretty big buff to the T-34. Because the metagame of SU-85 spam is getting stale already.

Ostwind should be able to beat the T70 easily
The T-34 should be able to beat the Ostwind easily

I dont think the t-34 should beat the Ostwind "easily", its still built on a P-VI hull,
it should just be that the Ostwind cant fight back.

Also, could T70 actually pen P-IVs?

Happened again.

This time, played against a lower level. Not very good (granted Im not pro either). I had complete map control, killed endless numbers of grens and pioneers. Total resource control.

2 T-34s and a Halftrack...

He had 2 StuGs. He destroyed 4 T-34s over the course of the game even though I flanked and blew the engines of the StuG's. The StuG kills a T-34 before it can get close, the armour is so thin that T-34s get killed by 2 StuG's who have been pinned and flanked....

Ive been trying to play the T-34 because like everyone says, no one uses it due to the SU-85 being the only thing that can fight German tanks.

Id be happy for a Medium buff on the T-34 in both Armour and Punch, bringing it up to 100 Fuel and 300 Manpower while taking a slight nerf to the SU-85.

I find it ridiculous that the cheapest German tank outmatches the T-34 in a 1 to 1 engagement.

I am working on a strategy to involve T3 in high level play, collecting replays right now