T-34/76 feels plain pathetic

remove ram and make t34 a proper medium tank, it was after all armed with a proper gun and had effective sloped armor.

some of us dont care for ram because it is effectively a suicide move that german tanks can pull back and retreat away from while the t34 is stucked with a destroyed engine, not worth it for that 95 fuel.

in fact, p4 and t34 should come out close like shermans vs p4 back in coh1 and winning the engagement should come down to amount of support either side has.

right now, the t34 is relegated into the light tank role in the soviet arsenal while costing the same as a medium tank. something i find extremely ridiculous, basically doing what the t70 is supposed to do.

lastly, 160dmg for any tanks rounds are too damaging, considering the health of tanks. tigers/IS-2 should do 140dmg per shot. su-85 and panthers should do only 110dmg and medium tanks should do 90. elefants and ISU-152 are in leagues of their own and taking their range into account they should also only do about 120 per shot or so. because tanks are so expensive in game, there's a limit to how lethal they are to each other, superiority of tanks should boil down to penetration values and armor values. give tanks a chance to retreat rather than getting taken out in 3-4shots.

the mechanic of tank fire on infantry is extremely finicky, it all boils down to luck right now due to AOE and what not, basically all tank shots miss their infantry targets, but rely on splash to kill infantry, to the point where sometimes becomes too effective when troops are clumped up or doing nothing in 4-5 shots because AOE didnt kick in.

I recommend a reduction in PIV maingun infantry dmg, and a buff to the MG upgrades infantry dmg, to more severly relegate it to AT duties, at vanilla cost.

This would indirectly improve the position of the T34 in asymmetric timings and medium tank balance.

As to Sov AT potential, its split/squished between the tier buildings.

The T34/85 provides the "upgunned" AT potential that people seemingly would like to be on the T34, but is doctrinal and prohibitively expensive due to the double purchase requirement, which causes problems in timing, due to having to save resources for so long to field them.

I recommend making T34/85 a non-doctrinal "upgun" option for vanilla T34s at say 100 Muni.

Result would be a more versatile T34 that people can develop individually in three directions, either in vanilla as AI and AT support, as a Ram, or a more dedicated AT option.

I recommend a reduction in PIV maingun infantry dmg, and a buff to the MG upgrades infantry dmg, to more severly relegate it to AT duties, at vanilla cost.

This would indirectly improve the position of the T34 in asymmetric timings and medium tank balance.

As to Sov AT potential, its split/squished between the tier buildings.

The T34/85 provides the "upgunned" AT potential that people seemingly would like to be on the T34, but is doctrinal and prohibitively expensive due to the double purchase requirement, which causes problems in timing, due to having to save resources for so long to field them.

I recommend making T34/85 a non-doctrinal "upgun" option for vanilla T34s at say 100 Muni.

Result would be a more versatile T34 that people can develop individually in three directions, either in vanilla as AI and AT support, as a Ram, or a more dedicated AT option.

this is best idea to help the t-34 without hurting the game balance in some other way. RELIC whip out that notepad!

Troll suggestion: Remove the gun from the T-34-76 and turn it into a 30 ton ramming machine. Ram instakills any P4 and does 80% damage to a Tiger

The Panzer IV was weighed to be a more cost effective anti-tank. In contrast, the T34 was weighed to be a more cost effective anti-infantry unit.

Fair game, but then again Soviets already have a lot of AI, so ignoring T3 for a quick SU-85 is mandatory with the current unit pool. That is the main issue. Half-Track, T-34, T-70 are all useless, pretty much. I am not saying that those units are bad, but you can get their job done just as good with any other T1/T2 unit combination. Considering PzIV hits @ 10min, going T3 is a death sentence, unless you desire to be on the defensive and spam Paks for the next 10 minutes.

Ideally, since Soviet progression isn't tiered, going T3 or T4 should be a real decision. The only reason I see going T3 first is if Ostheer is spamming inf like mad, but then again, some instagib mortars will do an even better job and let us not forget that the SU-85 is also very capable to give Infantry a run for their money. And Katyushkas are T4 aswell, so...

To solve, I would try this:

HT from T3 to T2
Zis-26 from T2 to T3

Half-Track, T-34, T-70 are all useless, pretty much. I am not saying that those units are bad, but you can get their job done just as good with any other T1/T2 unit combination. Considering PzIV hits @ 10min, going T3 is a death sentence,

Have you tried getting T34's and T70's?

T70 can finish off rammed tanks, kill halftracks and just about everything else short of german T3. Add onto that m5 halftrack is fairly good anti aircraft and AI and you can REINFORCE from it.

Ram+t70 is more than enough to deal with a p4 an ostwind or a stug(entire german T3).

In fact Ram even counters the best armor(elefant, tiger, panther, you name it).
Hardly "useless" or "a death sentence" imho

T-34 is a high risk - high reward kind of unit. If you build t-34s just for "rofltstomp" purposes you're doing it wrong.

T-34 is a high risk - high reward kind of unit. If you build t-34s just for "rofltstomp" purposes you're doing it wrong.

95 fuel 240 for a ram wagon is a "high reward"

Can reliably penetrates the Rear armor of a Panzer IV and Stug or a Panther instead of having a penetration lower than the Rear armor of each one of them is called "ROLFSTOMP"?

not sure you are joking....

240 manpower is the same as one conscript or combat engineer squad.
the 95 fuel is a reward you get for having decent mapcontrol.
there are a lot of options that open up to you if you get a t34 instead of a conscript unit in the mid/late game.

let me reformulate what i meant by "roflstomp". you don't get t34 to lead the charge and rush in with it, that's not his purpose.

let me tell you more about the high risk - high reward part also.

You ram into a tank that is supported by other tanks/at guns and you have no follow up to back up your t34, he will get destroyed and will do nothing with it besides taking out the gun of a tank that will be repaired= no reward

On the other hand, if you can support your t34s and use them to surprise your enemy tanks and disable them in a position where they can't have any backup available; you take them out and repair your tanks = high reward

240 manpower is the same as one conscript or combat engineer squad.
the 95 fuel is a reward you get for having decent mapcontrol.
there are a lot of options that open up to you if you get a t34 instead of a conscript unit in the mid/late game.

let me reformulate what i meant by "roflstomp". you don't get t34 to lead the charge and rush in with it, that's not his purpose.

let me tell you more about the high risk - high reward part also.

You ram into a tank that is supported by other tanks/at guns and you have no follow up to back up your t34, he will get destroyed and will do nothing with it besides taking out the gun of a tank that will be repaired= no reward

On the other hand, if you can support your t34s and use them to surprise your enemy tanks and disable them in a position where they can't have any backup available; you take them out and repair your tanks = high reward

I'll take a huge grain of salt when I saw "surprise attack your enemy"

con+ATmine+T-34/76= 240+125/25+240/95= 605/110 vs PZIV 320/115, your point in invalid

ok man, take it easy. i just stated my point of view and you disagree with it, i respect that. fact is i have had games when i used t34s and they worked really well, even if they are fragile and are weaker than ostheer t3.

ok man, take it easy. i just stated my point of view and you disagree with it, i respect that. fact is i have had games when i used t34s and they worked really well, even if they are fragile and are weaker than ostheer t3.

Despite a lot of peoples attitude in saying it is a gloried battering ram everyone here knows the tank works, ram with support will kill most german tanks out there.

The problem a lot of people are having is the fact that it is very cost ineffective, you can skip t3 get t4 and only 20 fuel later get an awesome su-85, getting a t34-76 does not feel as rewarding as it should for spending 90 for t3 and 95 for the tank.

Let me put it like this why do very few german's buy the stug atm, it is not really a "bad" tank it is simply not as cost effective as the P4. yes the stug can kill other tanks with support but why bother when you feel much more rewarded with a P4

Crells pointed out one prevalent attitude problem.

People think T34 is shit, because T70 abd Su85 are so awesome.
Its a massive fail in logic that somehow from this one should conclude that T34 should be buffed.

Second problem in attitudes, is the contrived notion T34s should be a PIV equivalent.
This is wrong on so many levels. The asymetric balance of the factions could in no way support this kind of direct equivalency. Result would be Ost being armor overun immediately upon reaching T3, and be forced to tech to T4 for Panthers, for armor superiority. Current timings and cost do NOT make this feasible. PIVs would become redundant, and you would NEVER AGAIN see a Stug on the field.

I understand that people "feel" from a misunderstood tiering system, from historical bias, and for "T34 is supposed to be a TANK" misxonceptions that they are justified. But consider the Ost perspective to such a scenario even for a second. Etf is he supposed to do? Spam redundant PIVz vs squadrons of equivalent T34s? Spam redundant Stugs that T34s flank and Su85s categotically outmatch?

Its ironic that usually the proponents of a PIV equivalent T34, are the same ones who cry about the "need for asymmetric design", yet fail to realise that the PIVs stat superiority to T34s is exactly an element of that, owing to Ram.

Wtf is Ost supposed to do vs T34 spam if your suggestions are implemented?
Answer me that.

Nullist this has been pointed out over and over again, people do not want an equivalent they want proper costing and a viability, IF it got better at dealing with armour the price would go up, like 5 or 10 fuel, 105 fuel vs 115 fuel means there will be no spamming of T-34s, or if there price was reduced but ram changed to stop that retarded ram fest in beta. What is the issue is the fact that the T 34 does NOT behave like a 95 fuel investment, this is what people are complaining about. yes it "can" work but it is over costed for its effectiveness.

I have a level of respect for your generally open mindedness but in this thread you seem very out of wack defending the huuge gap between the T 34 and the P4 for the very very minor fuel gap of 20 fuel

crells explained it perfectly. cost wise it's hard to value a t-34 right now. from a historical standpoint. there was like a 5 to 1 ratio of t-34s to p4s in the war. i'd say do one or two things. make fuel for t-34 cost 65-80 (balancing act here so that t-70s are still used at all based on cost) or as crells suggested earlier: give t-34's a munition upgrade which turns that tank into a t-34/85

crells explained it perfectly. cost wise it's hard to value a t-34 right now. from a historical standpoint. there was like a 5 to 1 ratio of t-34s to p4s in the war. i'd say do one or two things. make fuel for t-34 cost 65-80 (balancing act here so that t-70s are still used at all based on cost) or as crells suggested earlier: give t-34's a munition upgrade which turns that tank into a t-34/85

Thanks Warmoneky, but credit where credit due, Nullist sugested the upgunning of the t34 for a Muni's cost, which i think is a marvelous idea, though i think 100 is quite alot, i would think 80 would be more fair.

Thanks Warmoneky, but credit where credit due, Nullist sugested the upgunning of the t34 for a Muni's cost, which i think is a marvelous idea, though i think 100 is quite alot, i would think 80 would be more fair.

lol oops. too many L's in both of your names for me when i'm about to crash

This sounds hilarious.

Here's a box. In order to put a gun on it, you need to pay 80 muni.

Can't we have something like an upgunned Sherman in VCoH?

Ok, maybe a fuel reduction then. I could live with that to reduce its economic impact.
But I cant see its stats, particularly not penetration, being increased without it crippling Osts PIV reliance. The closer T34 comes to PIV, the more the Ost is forced towards Panthers, which is a huge threshold in timing and cost.

I dont agree with penetration suggestions, unless it takes the form of a non-doctrinal muni cost "upgun" to T34/85 levels, as I suggested eaelier.

Supporting this argument is the prohibitively expensive 2xDOCTRINAL T34/85 choice, which cripples T34 versatility in all other doctrines in comparison.

I suggested 100 munis because it would fit inbetween 222s 70 muni 20mm, and FHTs 120 muni Flamers, ehich are two of the few precedents for upgun option costs.

As I suggested in my T34--> 85 upgun post, I feel this would grant the T34 more versatility, therefore making it a more viable "main battle tank". It has excellent AI, Ram, and with upgun can stand up to PIVs, albeit at muni cost (which I am certain most people will agree is a resource currently in abundance for Sov).

In other words, T34 balance can be adjusted not by fuel/MP cost, or stats, but by Muni costs, which is a parallel solution that doesnt directly imbalance the existing status quo, but does provide Sov with more options.

Crell got a point, a dedicated AT variant like Mini-Panther T-34/85 is indeed a good idea