A radical idea to rebalance T-34/76
19 Apr 2016, 17:53 PM
#21
Posts: 354
I think there is no reason for such changes, just small MP cost reduction and same for popcap could be a trick, something like 280-270/80 and 10-8 pop. But I would prefer some changes with vet, ram rework and maybe some kind of MU based upgrade.
19 Apr 2016, 18:18 PM
#22
Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1
Give T-34 stats of Cromwell and adjust price. Problem fixed. THis will be real T-34
Like this idea, but fuel price should be 120, because in my opinion cromwell is too good for his price.
19 Apr 2016, 18:23 PM
#23
Posts: 113
wow the op in this thread seems to think atleast ... (Y)
btw i would really appreciate any change
btw i would really appreciate any change
19 Apr 2016, 18:26 PM
#24
Posts: 670
- Meta-Problem: Soviets can't trade efficiently MP-wise in extreme-late game. Unless they pick one of the few valid late-game doctrines
- Meta-Solution: Give soviets a unit that is efficient MP-wise. But make it inefficient FU-wise, so that it can't be spammed too much.
How about giving Soviets a unit that is both efficient manpower-wise and fuel-wise?
I myself bought 14 OKW factions during a Steam sale last year for alt accounts
19 Apr 2016, 18:38 PM
#25
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
How about giving Soviets a unit that is both efficient manpower-wise and fuel-wise?
This is also a valid option. However, this might lead us to a new meta where we see nothing than T-34's spammed, 222-style. Especially given that T-34's can somewhat hurt both infantry and tanks (just inefficiently, currently). It might be fun for a while, but it will get stale and unfun pretty fast.
Also, this option might leave very little breathing space for T-34/85's. Ideally what we should aim for is more variety, not a meta inversion.
The whole idea with manipulating the price like that is to give Soviets a good way to spend their resources if they end up floating fuel. On a higher level:
- Axis will want to have to cut Soviets off the fuel, unless they want to be swarmed with T-34s
- Soviets will be able to spam armoured vehicles and still have MP remaining to buy supporting troops/weapons (in a similar way to the pre-rework float of OKW)
- The Soviet player will also have to make a strategic decision. Do I buy T-34's now, and potentially hurt my fuel reserves, or do I buy a different unit and put off T-34's for later?
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
19 Apr 2016, 18:56 PM
#26
Posts: 97
I vote for making it a 7CP call-in, make 34/85 non-doc. Have a really long cool down on the call-in ability.
19 Apr 2016, 19:38 PM
#27
9 
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29
I think the main issue is their performance against volks with schrecks. They do very little damage to them, take heaps in return (giving them a boatload of vet in the process) and are then out of commission for ages being repaired because eastern front engineers repair so much more slowly.
 | Playercard of tightrope | |||||||||||||||||||
|
19 Apr 2016, 19:45 PM
#28
1 
Posts: 2885
I like the 210/100fu idea, it would both support less used doctrines late game and blend well into 1 heavy tank limitation of used doctrines that leaves lots of fuel to spend. It copies the unique feature of t-70, but in same faction and different tier so its ok IMO.
19 Apr 2016, 20:51 PM
#29
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
I don't like making it more fuelwise expensive but avaible from T3.
It will change nothing. It still will be the worse medium in game by a far.
It's like making Penals 220MP and avaible from T0. Earlier, cheaper but still not useful.
It will change nothing. It still will be the worse medium in game by a far.
It's like making Penals 220MP and avaible from T0. Earlier, cheaper but still not useful.
19 Apr 2016, 22:10 PM
#30
Posts: 1216
I've been saying this since the day that they put T-34/76 into T4, "Put T-34/85 in T4 and T-34/76 in T3 but with an increased cost of fuel not MP." And no one is listening to me.Probably because you don't explain why that's so great an idea you can completely ignore the multiple implications that result from adding doctrinal units into base tiers.
19 Apr 2016, 23:56 PM
#31
Posts: 5279
MY suggestions
-give the soviet a side grade that increases manpower income and pop cap in both t3 and t4 (10 each, off of base number)
-sliiiightly reduce manpower cost (280?)
-improve pen when shooting at rear armour with vet (so...you know they can actually pen when risking their lives)
-improve pen of su85 and reduce Rof so the t34 has something that can actually scare the enemy in the tier with it
-give the soviet a side grade that increases manpower income and pop cap in both t3 and t4 (10 each, off of base number)
-sliiiightly reduce manpower cost (280?)
-improve pen when shooting at rear armour with vet (so...you know they can actually pen when risking their lives)
-improve pen of su85 and reduce Rof so the t34 has something that can actually scare the enemy in the tier with it
#stalinwept
20 Apr 2016, 00:21 AM
#32
Posts: 658
The Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history betwen the Germans and Russians was interesting. Prior to this, most tank warfare was done at max range possible but in the battle of Kursk, the superior armor of the Germans didn't mean much due to the short range combat. T34 tanks were able to penetrate Tiger Tanks.
Currently the T-34 has this for penetration :
Far : 80
Mid : 100
Near: 120
https://imgur.com/JFfx4Wq
Proposal : When handling Infantry, certain units are better at different ranges (Such as Shock Troops, Panzer Grenadiers etc needing to be close) When dealing with Tanks this is not a consistant gameplay that you encounter throughout the game as most Tank Warfare is basicaly "poke, poke, retreat,repair". It would be interesting if Tanks such as the T-34 would be excellent close range while still being terrible at Mid and Far ranges. This would fit its "style" or theme as a flanking tank.
Currently the T-34 has this for penetration :
Far : 80
Mid : 100
Near: 120
https://imgur.com/JFfx4Wq
Proposal : When handling Infantry, certain units are better at different ranges (Such as Shock Troops, Panzer Grenadiers etc needing to be close) When dealing with Tanks this is not a consistant gameplay that you encounter throughout the game as most Tank Warfare is basicaly "poke, poke, retreat,repair". It would be interesting if Tanks such as the T-34 would be excellent close range while still being terrible at Mid and Far ranges. This would fit its "style" or theme as a flanking tank.
20 Apr 2016, 00:44 AM
#33
Posts: 5279
The Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history betwen the Germans and Russians was interesting. Prior to this, most tank warfare was done at max range possible but in the battle of Kursk, the superior armor of the Germans didn't mean much due to the short range combat. T34 tanks were able to penetrate Tiger Tanks.
Currently the T-34 has this for penetration :
Far : 80
Mid : 100
Near: 120
https://imgur.com/JFfx4Wq
Proposal : When handling Infantry, certain units are better at different ranges (Such as Shock Troops, Panzer Grenadiers etc needing to be close) When dealing with Tanks this is not a consistant gameplay that you encounter throughout the game as most Tank Warfare is basicaly "poke, poke, retreat,repair". It would be interesting if Tanks such as the T-34 would be excellent close range while still being terrible at Mid and Far ranges. This would fit its "style" or theme as a flanking tank.
this
did you know that if you plant a t34/76 DIRECTLY behind a tiger, it still can bounce 1/3 shots?
nothing says flanker like the potential to bounce while you are parked in enemy territory shooting at the "weak" armour
#stalinwept
20 Apr 2016, 01:04 AM
#34
Posts: 1026
Make it 100 fuel and give it a gun comparable to the Sherman (without HE and no MG upgrade) and the Cromwell (but it's not as fast as crom).
20 Apr 2016, 01:18 AM
#35
Posts: 1384
I don't like making it more fuelwise expensive but avaible from T3.
It will change nothing. It still will be the worse medium in game by a far.
It's like making Penals 220MP and avaible from T0. Earlier, cheaper but still not useful.
I think you'd find if you actually used things you'd find out what they're good at for them. Penals are better than cons in almost every way as a fighting unit, dealing nearly double the damage up close, beating out both volks and grenadiers. At 220MP and T0 they would excel greatly.
Likewise, a T-34/76 coming out a minute or two after an AEC or a stuart would be a pretty big deal. It is better than both of those units in nearly every way.
I like the 210/100fu idea, it would both support less used doctrines late game and blend well into 1 heavy tank limitation of used doctrines that leaves lots of fuel to spend. It copies the unique feature of t-70, but in same faction and different tier so its ok IMO.
You're trading half a minute of manpower for almost minute of fuel... cost correlates to time. Unless you're massively bleeding manpower due to bad engagements, you're not saving any time but instead decreasing the speed at which you can produce t-34's.
In the hyper late game where manpower income is reduced but you're floating fuel because you haven't built anything other than an IS-2, sure that makes some sense. But that's really not the scenario we should be pricing the t-34/76 for.
20 Apr 2016, 01:56 AM
#36
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
Totally OT, but Mr. Smith should totally write a "How to make a Balance Thread" guide that is required reading before you can create a post there.
20 Apr 2016, 02:03 AM
#37
Posts: 954
Im still for making T34/76 a doctrinal call in.
Make T34/85 Non doc, while T34/76 would be cheap and weak call in with T3 required.
+1
T-34/85 is still far better suitable for current late war scenario
First off all. Tripwire so gud, 10 ammo for a whole dead squad ? + sight.
Vehicle capture point can win games, blitzkrieg save a tank. Fair Deal i think
20 Apr 2016, 02:08 AM
#38
Posts: 2742
I for one would much prefer tank battles be about positioning and armor penetration than accuracy. Most map designs severely limit the chances for suitable flanks unfortunately, which certainly complicates matters for getting a feel for units' (intended) performance.
Close range bounces are frustrating, but point blank misses are even moreso.
Tanks at close range should have reliable chances to penetrate rear armor. This is probably most true for the T34/76.
Frontal armor should be fair game to bounce all sorts of shells at ranges further than point blank though.
Close range bounces are frustrating, but point blank misses are even moreso.
Tanks at close range should have reliable chances to penetrate rear armor. This is probably most true for the T34/76.
Frontal armor should be fair game to bounce all sorts of shells at ranges further than point blank though.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
20 Apr 2016, 05:55 AM
#39
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
I think you'd find if you actually used things you'd find out what they're good at for them. Penals are better than cons in almost every way as a fighting unit, dealing nearly double the damage up close, beating out both volks and grenadiers. At 220MP and T0 they would excel greatly.
Likewise, a T-34/76 coming out a minute or two after an AEC or a stuart would be a pretty big deal. It is better than both of those units in nearly every way.
Oh, of course Penals can be useful. I did triple Penals strat many times but after 10-12mins they start to become useless thanks to their squishy character so in the end they cannot become your mainline infantry through enitre game like Volks, Grens, Tommies or Rifles etc.
Making weak unit 1-2mins faster to hit the field is just lazy solution to make this weak unit look stronger but after initial pressure, it will still remain weak, with no purpose.
20 Apr 2016, 06:41 AM
#40
Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1
I like the idea of "T34 battlegroup". Not balance-wise mind you, it's just seems cool to call in 3 t34s
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
193 | ||
 |
|
|
39 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231