T-34/76 feels plain pathetic

At least the soviet AT gun isn't that bad. Sure it has a low rate of fire which makes it easier for tanks to circle them, but if you can support them, they are quite adequate (i.e. AT-nade the tank, or button it etc.)

There is a bulletin that decreases reload time, and increases accuracy if I am not mistaken. If you plan to make extensive use of ATGs it would probably be wise to select it.

I joined the forum just to make this point known.
As a COH1 veteran i find the latest Russian nerf ridiculous, especially in regards to the t34.
It was fine when it could almost 1v1 a p4, but now it is USELESS and even takes damage from an ostwind...

Also I dont think the extra MG42 gunner is needed.

Devs just look at the ratio of players in MP, it's usually 75% axis, 25% rus, because nobody wants to play as the weaker side.

Also you need to bring back a competitive ranking system, for players who like advanced games.
Regards

Relic please stop listening to people that just complain because they are losing games. I am not a noob, and i just want to make the balance more competitive and therefor improve MP

@Combatmuffin: I agree on ATGs buff. They should, also imo, be a direct falconpunch vs Armor.

I do know their penetration is sufficient and equal. I do know PaK has much better rate of fire. I also know thisnis asymmetrically balanced vs ZiS Barrage option. I THINK their dmg per hit is equal (cant confirm without stat site). I also know ZiS is more surviveable (both from amarmor/hp/modelmperspective). I dont know how accuracy and scatter is (again, due to lack of stat site).

If I remebmer correctly, PaK/ZiS penetration is 160, which is the same as Elephant.

According to a recent PQ post about PaK efficacy vs T70s, the issue seems to revolve around armor unit size vs accuracy. Following from this, the change away from target tables seems to be causing an issue that potentiwly increasing accuracy of PaK/ZiS would result in disproportionate AI.

Im not familiar enough with the integral mechanics of scatter and AoE to informedly suggest a solution in light of this.

Nonetheless, though, I agree completely that vCoH ATG facepunch was a solution more conducive to countering armor with lower tier investment (as mitigated by micro and situatiin required for positioning vs armor inherent faster speeds), thereby allowing all factions a wider viable low tier window vs fast teching armor strategies.

What do?

1) I think rate of fire (Ost) vs Barrage i(Sov)s a functiinal asymmetric balance.
2) I think PaK/ZiS survival is ok, even though it 1/4 favors Sov (pending SU85 oneshotting PaK change, which I take as granted and concluded).
3) That leaves four stats to consider:
i) Accuracy: Increasing presents a problem that PaK can snipe infantry (due to lack of target tables). Arguably counterbalanced by Barrage. Also arguably a way to increase Osts lack of indirect fire options, as direct fire. This is my preferred option, but it doesnt work for ZiS, since increased accuracy + Barragebwould make them OP Meaning it would be a PaK only buff, whereas I feel ZiS also needs better AT. T70 is a particular problem related to PaK accuracy, and one that is exclusive to Ost, because Osthas no light tank to a)reciprocate vs T70 b) that ZiS would be needed to counter.
ii) Damage: I canr confirm the stats, due to no stat site, but as I remember, ZiS and PaK dmg is identical (correct me if Im wrong please). Nonetheless, damage vs armor is exactly what we want to achieve, making this the primary stat for a balance conducive buff IF it only reliably hits armor and NOT infantry (which, with a damage buff, would operate as a direct fire mortar and massacre infantry).
iii) Scatter: Related to accuracy (which is related to unit size) in ways that I do not know. Potentially a secondary stat to be adjusted in relation to accuracy (as a function of unit size) to control dmg vs infantry.
iii) AoE: Again, no stat site, cannot confirm. For purposes of AT with the deliberate intent of making PaK/ZiS more AT oriented than AI, I propose (especially considering ZiS Barrage), that PaK should have better AoE (as reicprocated asymmetrically later by Sovs better armor AoE and the ZiS barrage) than the ZiS. Notably this stat is also very relevant ingame in terms of killing repairing infantry (which I disregard and donot support. CEs/Pios that repair armor in combat is just bl3h and meh).

Conclusion:

Rate of fire: Ok. Ost rate balanced vs Sov Barrage.
Survival: Ok, once SU85 adjusted.
Cost: 3quivalent, manageable and fine.
Accuracy: Problem vs fast movement of T70s and, arguably, T34s. Solution (to avoid too much AI accuracy) increase unit size of T70. T34 is problematic, I think it moves too fast, but anothern solution is single purchase Shreks.
Scatter: I dont understand this functiin sufficiently.
AoE: I propose that PaK have more AoE to asymmetrically balance vs Sov Barrage. Not much, just a touch.
Damage: In asymmetric congruency with increased nominal AoE and rate of fire, considering Barrage but also its muni cost, I think ZiS should hit substabtially harder than PaK, especially considering that its primary meta opponent is either relativeky srmored and fast PIVs or frontally armored Stugs. TLDR: PaK has trouble hitting things, ZiS has trouble damaging them (owing to the stats of relevant targets).

PS: An alterna4ive consideration, is arc of fire. But I feel that essentially:
-ZiS neers more damage (but only for AT)
-PaK neers more accuracy vs AT (owing to fast moving Sov armor at its tier (possibly as a function of entity size) , but also a smidgeon of AoE vs infantry (to create an asymmetric bwlance between ZiS muni cost Barrage vs AI, and Osts continuous, but less effective, AI).

PPS: I just remembered this is a T34 thread. I will transplant this post later to a separate ZiS/PaK thread. I d7d not mean deliberately to derail.

T-34/76 is overpriced battering ram please buff it

personally I think the 34/76 is a very good tool on the battlefield ram ensures as long as you outnumber the enemy in armor you will always win the engagement... just a couple games ago someone charged a tiger into our base so I rammed it then used my other 76 to take it out. sure it took forever but the amount of resources the lost just because of two 76's is a big demoralizer also is the fact that its not that hard to get one star of veteran... and once you have that star who cares about the mg camping the cap point you don't even have to kill it just role up with the 76 and take the point... you guys worry to much about direct fighting the soviets are not good in fighting fair... to play soviets you have to be creative and ignore the 1 on 1 bullshit.

saying this though... realistically I do think they need higher penetration. even just 5-7% is enough but its un nerving to watch shells bounce of the back armor of a p4

Yes it it effective in large numbers, Problem there is that the P4 os just 20 fuel more meaning the only nummerical advatage will last about 1 minuette, and considering how easy they die to p4's any bad micro from you in getting cuaght out will end up in a dead t34.

When they were 75 fuel this numerical advantage actually worked but this also lead to ram spamming which was awfully dull and frustrating to play agasint.

this is why ramming was a bad idea to begin with. they need an utility that enhances perseverance and not the opposite. you simply can't throw away fuel in this game. the soviets have no ability to get the fuck out, as opposed to the OH that can stack blitzkrieg and smoke like there is no tomorrow.

This is so very needed in Company of Heroes 2, A Game Where Armor dies Awfully Fast and it is both more interesting and rewarding than that lousy RAM anyway.

I dont understand why people think T34 should be a PIV counter.

Cost alone disqualifies this argument, let alone assymetric design.

And in each case, T34s categorically counter PIVs due to Ram.

There are two units that characterize the soviet army in world war 2. There are conscripts, and there is the T34. Just like the conscript is the core of the infantry, so too is the T34 the core of the armor. The defining selling point in this game for me is when I saw T34s in a trailer.

After thinking about it for awhile now and playing many games, honestly, I don't like the Panzer4 T34 design as it is now. They should not be so asymmetric as to avoid fighting one another. They should be more or less equivalent tanks. No other way will you encourage the great tank battles that characterized the eastern front so well. If the price needs to be changed to account for this that's ok.

Early in the war, Zealous and inexperienced soviet tank commanders used their tank to ram the enemy on very rare occasions, but this was never the primary go to way to fight a battle.

Here's my suggestion:

-Make the t34 and the Panzer4 rough equivalents just as the conscript and grenadier squads are now.

-Make ram a vet1 ability or

-Add a purchasable upgrade from the Tier3 building called "Remove Speed Governor" costing 200mp and 40 fuel which unlocks the ramming ability for t34s. Alternatively, this could be a per unit munitions cost.

-Allow Germans to purchase an 'upgun' ability to change their Panzer 4s main gun to a high velocity long barreled anti-tank gun costing 200 manpower and 40 fuel. Much like the Sherman upgrade from coh1. Alternatively, this could be a per unit munitions cost.



T-34s, as they are now are some kind of strange warped version as what they were historically. The t34 was an essential and widely used component of nearly every soviet formation from the beginning of the war to its end.

Relic please stop listening to people that just complain because they are losing games. I am not a noob, and i just want to make the balance more competitive and therefor improve MP

Spamming SU-85, sniper and guards does a pretty good job of winning. Do we want to encourage that though? Don't you want to see more variety in units? It's not just about winning, it's about playing a quality game.

There are two units that characterize the soviet army in world war 2. There are conscripts, and there is the T34. Just like the conscript is the core of the infantry, so too is the T34 the core of the armor. The defining selling point in this game for me is when I saw T34s in a trailer.

After thinking about it for awhile now and playing many games, honestly, I don't like the Panzer4 T34 design as it is now. They should not be so asymmetric as to avoid fighting one another. They should be more or less equivalent tanks. No other way will you encourage the great tank battles that characterized the eastern front so well. If the price needs to be changed to account for this that's ok.

Early in the war, Zealous and inexperienced soviet tank commanders used their tank to ram the enemy on very rare occasions, but this was never the primary go to way to fight a battle.

Here's my suggestion:

-Make the t34 and the Panzer4 rough equivalents just as the conscript and grenadier squads are now.

-Make ram a vet1 ability or

-Add a purchasable upgrade from the Tier3 building called "Remove Speed Governor" costing 200mp and 40 fuel which unlocks the ramming ability for t34s. Alternatively, this could be a per unit munitions cost.

-Allow Germans to purchase an 'upgun' ability to change their Panzer 4s main gun to a high velocity long barreled anti-tank gun costing 200 manpower and 40 fuel. Much like the Sherman upgrade from coh1. Alternatively, this could be a per unit munitions cost.



T-34s, as they are now are some kind of strange warped version as what they were historically. The t34 was an essential and widely used component of nearly every soviet formation from the beginning of the war to its end.




Spamming SU-85, sniper and guards does a pretty good job of winning. Do we want to encourage that though? Don't you want to see more variety in units? It's not just about winning, it's about playing a quality game.

Fair point~

as for the reich eagle, its name explains all

There are two units that characterize the soviet army in world war 2. There are conscripts, and there is the T34. Just like the conscript is the core of the infantry, so too is the T34 the core of the armor. The defining selling point in this game for me is when I saw T34s in a trailer.

After thinking about it for awhile now and playing many games, honestly, I don't like the Panzer4 T34 design as it is now. They should not be so asymmetric as to avoid fighting one another. They should be more or less equivalent tanks. No other way will you encourage the great tank battles that characterized the eastern front so well. If the price needs to be changed to account for this that's ok.

Early in the war, Zealous and inexperienced soviet tank commanders used their tank to ram the enemy on very rare occasions, but this was never the primary go to way to fight a battle.

Here's my suggestion:

-Make the t34 and the Panzer4 rough equivalents just as the conscript and grenadier squads are now.

-Make ram a vet1 ability or

-Add a purchasable upgrade from the Tier3 building called "Remove Speed Governor" costing 200mp and 40 fuel which unlocks the ramming ability for t34s. Alternatively, this could be a per unit munitions cost.

-Allow Germans to purchase an 'upgun' ability to change their Panzer 4s main gun to a high velocity long barreled anti-tank gun costing 200 manpower and 40 fuel. Much like the Sherman upgrade from coh1. Alternatively, this could be a per unit munitions cost.



T-34s, as they are now are some kind of strange warped version as what they were historically. The t34 was an essential and widely used component of nearly every soviet formation from the beginning of the war to its end.

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.

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

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

Any mods here?

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.

I cant get a t34/85 out because its locked by doctrine. the t34 is neither historically well represented nor it is balanced, it is currently a 95 fuel joke, a medium tank cost with light tank specs.

remember unupgraded shermans vs p4 in coh1? thats what should be the case right now. t34 should be a sherman equivalent donning a gun with questionable effectiveness against p4, p4 will beat it in a head on fight, but not after a substantial period and taking damage in return. honestly, an ostwind shouldnt even scratch t34s.

moreover, the p4 and t34/85 are not equal, t34/85 still cannot stand up to p4. long reload time + piss poor penetration and paper thin armour all for whooping 4/5 cp cost(i cant remember) 720/200 for 2 throwaway light tanks. no, i'd take su85 over t34/85 anyday.

t34/85 should end p4 reign, while panthers should come and take over when t34/85s are fielded and beat them in a straight fight.

I'll say and say again, tank combat is a joke right now because of the nonsensical damage value designs. tanks and assault guns counter each other so hard and fast, almost every tank in play out there has a damage value of 160 per shot, thats like AT guns on wheels. whats the point of building AT guns when tanks do the same job and do them so much better?

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

You're just BAAAAAAAAD Buzz!

is this company of pussies in a basement now ? lol
i really see nothing wrong with things the way they are now.
i play 90% of my games as soviets and i dont either bother with T4 tbh
t34 rocks

I cant get a t34/85 out because its locked by doctrine. the t34 is neither historically well represented nor it is balanced, it is currently a 95 fuel joke, a medium tank cost with light tank specs.

remember unupgraded shermans vs p4 in coh1? thats what should be the case right now. t34 should be a sherman equivalent donning a gun with questionable effectiveness against p4, p4 will beat it in a head on fight, but not after a substantial period and taking damage in return. honestly, an ostwind shouldnt even scratch t34s.

moreover, the p4 and t34/85 are not equal, t34/85 still cannot stand up to p4. long reload time + piss poor penetration and paper thin armour all for whooping 4/5 cp cost(i cant remember) 720/200 for 2 throwaway light tanks. no, i'd take su85 over t34/85 anyday.

t34/85 should end p4 reign, while panthers should come and take over when t34/85s are fielded and beat them in a straight fight.

I'll say and say again, tank combat is a joke right now because of the nonsensical damage value designs. tanks and assault guns counter each other so hard and fast, almost every tank in play out there has a damage value of 160 per shot, thats like AT guns on wheels. whats the point of building AT guns when tanks do the same job and do them so much better?

Doctrine locked = What I meant when I said you had to make decisions. You can't just get everything you want all the time. If shitty tanks is such a huge deal to you and you don't want to tech to SU-85, use T34/85 doctrine. That's what I do.

The upgun suggestion has come in quite a lot, and unless it costs a lot fuel it's not going to work.

I've made my thoughts on the T34's balance very clear. Replace the 76 with the 85(With the relevant cost), and the doctrine call in is now a single KV-1. Problem solved, imho.

And lol if you think the T34/85 is bad.

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

I don't know what's worse, the trolls that got banned or the fucking idiots who flames people with every post they write.

Well realism shouldn´t be totally unimportant. I agree that balance is the main priority, but if you can combine balance with historical accuracy (to the degree it´s possible) that´s even better. T-34s should be present in almost any game and only the T-34/85 should be on the level of Panzer IVs. Their advantage should be mass deployment and flanking maneuvers. Panther should be the hard counter to any T-34 if kept at distance with the front facing the T-34s.

Problems I have with the T-34:

1) Unavailability of the T-34/85 (only some doctrines)

2) Inflexibility of calling in the T-34/85 (I can´t call in one, but have to take two at higher cost)

3) Cost of the T-34/76 is insignificantly lower than that of the Panzer IV

4) Flanking doesn´t get rewarded. (Shots to German tanks´ flank/rear should penetrate more often)

5) Get´s totally outperformed by SU-85

6) Ram


Possible solution:

1) Make the T-34/85 available in the T-3 building next to the T-34/76. A cost of 330 MP 105 fuel could seem appropriate. To not totally make the T-34/76 useless, the unlock for the 85mm version could require some resources being spent

2) The empty commander slot could be filled with a KW-1 76mm (from the campaign), possibly for less cps. Players are flexible as they can build the T-34/85 now in their T-3 building.

3) The cost for the T-34/85 could be lowered to the 105 or so fuel from (I think 260 fuel for 2). The T-34/76 could be tuned down to 85 fuel.

4) Not sure how the damage model works in CoH2. But there always was a front and rear part on tanks in Coh1. So shots to the rear and side should be more likely to penetrate. T-34s should be used for flanking maneuvers.

5) The thing needs a nerf, hands down. See other thread.

6) I think we shouldn´t totally get rid of this ability. After all it´s a creative feature. I think it should be only available on the T-34/76 model and be replaced on the T-34/85 with overdrive. Could show the desperate attempts of an underarmed tank. It would still encourage building the 76 model.

Well realism shouldn´t be totally unimportant. I agree that balance is the main priority, but if you can combine balance with historical accuracy (to the degree it´s possible) that´s even better. T-34s should be present in almost any game and only the T-34/85 should be on the level of Panzer IVs. Their advantage should be mass deployment and flanking maneuvers. Panther should be the hard counter to any T-34 if kept at distance with the front facing the T-34s.

Problems I have with the T-34:

1) Unavailability of the T-34/85 (only some doctrines)

2) Inflexibility of calling in the T-34/85 (I can´t call in one, but have to take two at higher cost)

3) Cost of the T-34/76 is insignificantly lower than that of the Panzer IV

4) Flanking doesn´t get rewarded. (Shots to German tanks´ flank/rear should penetrate more often)

5) Get´s totally outperformed by SU-85

6) Ram


Possible solution:

1) Make the T-34/85 available in the T-3 building next to the T-34/76. A cost of 330 MP 105 fuel could seem appropriate. To not totally make the T-34/76 useless, the unlock for the 85mm version could require some resources being spent

2) The empty commander slot could be filled with a KW-1 76mm (from the campaign), possibly for less cps. Players are flexible as they can build the T-34/85 now in their T-3 building.

3) The cost for the T-34/85 could be lowered to the 105 or so fuel from (I think 260 fuel for 2). The T-34/76 could be tuned down to 85 fuel.

4) Not sure how the damage model works in CoH2. But there always was a front and rear part on tanks in Coh1. So shots to the rear and side should be more likely to penetrate. T-34s should be used for flanking maneuvers.

5) The thing needs a nerf, hands down. See other thread.

6) I think we shouldn´t totally get rid of this ability. After all it´s a creative feature. I think it should be only available on the T-34/76 model and be replaced on the T-34/85 with overdrive. Could show the desperate attempts of an underarmed tank. It would still encourage building the 76 model.

All this would do is switch tank fights from p4 vs. su85's to sutg vs. t34's. Not to mention you nerf the su-85 even a little, in the way most people want to, it won't be able to deal with even one p4 in the hands of a good p4 user.

If you want the t34-85 get a commander with it and save up for it. Having two tanks come in at once has a pretty big shock value if used properly. Being only able to build one makes less sense to build T34/76 because 85 is better AT will still pretty good AI and T-70 is still better AI then T-34/76.