A radical idea to rebalance T-34/76

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.

I mostly wanted to show the intention. Thus, I picked the numbers almost a bit at random. If I wanted to refine my idea it would be:
- Find the right cost that makes T34's cost efficient for the late-game
- Trade some MP off for Fuel (using the standard conversion ratio or whatever)

I am guessing that you're implying that 210 MP 90 FU would be a price that is better attuned to that goal?

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.

Most T4 units in other factions are and remain relevant until the very end of the game (except for Brummbar which is non-meta). So, I thought "Since T-34 comes late anyway, hey, let's put something in there to keep it relevant until the very end at least.".

From my limited experience playing with Soviets (and watching other people play Soviets), I usually become more and more MP starved the longer the game drags on. And thus, regardless of how good of a map control I've exercised in the match up to that point, I never find myself able to use up fuel that I have accumulated.

Other factions that are strong late-game have mechanisms to burn off excess fuel, using a similar pricing scheme for their T4 units:
- OST: Panthers
- UKF: Comet
- OKW: Specialist Super heavies, P4, Panthers

By attaching a Fuel-to-MP conversion gimmick to T-34, the Soviet player will almost always have something to build on all situations.
1. Low on manpower? Throw a T-34 into the mix.
2. Low on fuel? Go for a support gun, engineers, infantry (whatever is needed)
3. Resource situation is ok? Buy/save for a specialist unit.

Options 2 & 3 basically mean "Play Soviets as you currently play Soviets" (because most people aren't building T-34's anyway). Option 1 adds a new avenue that will probably help us see more of that tank.

(The whole idea of trading Fuel for MP will become obsolete/have to be rethought if something changes to Soviet unit scalability that will allow them to bleed less to begin with).

I little more damage against infantry and i would be very happy.
At this state it is very mediocre against everything.

I mostly wanted to show the intention. Thus, I picked the numbers almost a bit at random. If I wanted to refine my idea it would be:
- Find the right cost that makes T34's cost efficient for the late-game
- Trade some MP off for Fuel (using the standard conversion ratio or whatever)

I am guessing that you're implying that 210 MP 90 FU would be a price that is better attuned to that goal?




Most T4 units in other factions are and remain relevant until the very end of the game (except for Brummbar which is non-meta). So, I thought "Since T-34 comes late anyway, hey, let's put something in there to keep it relevant until the very end at least.".

From my limited experience playing with Soviets (and watching other people play Soviets), I usually become more and more MP starved the longer the game drags on. And thus, regardless of how good of a map control I've exercised in the match up to that point, I never find myself able to use up fuel that I have accumulated.

Other factions that are strong late-game have mechanisms to burn off excess fuel, using a similar pricing scheme for their T4 units:
- OST: Panthers
- UKF: Comet (and Churchill, to a smaller degree)
- OKW: Specialist Super heavies, P4, Panthers

By attaching a Fuel-to-MP conversion gimmick to T-34, the Soviet player will almost always have something to build on all situations.
1. Low on manpower? Throw a T-34 into the mix.
2. Low on fuel? Go for a support gun, engineers, infantry (whatever is needed)
3. Resource situation is ok? Buy/save for a specialist unit.

Options 2 & 3 basically mean "Play Soviets as you currently play Soviets" (because most people aren't building T-34's anyway). Option 1 adds a new avenue that will probably help us see more of that tank.

(The whole idea of trading Fuel for MP will become obsolete/have to be rethought if something changes to Soviet unit scalability that will allow them to bleed less to begin with).

shouldn´t be better tu put t34-76 in the tier where other mediums are??? t34-76 is a t3 unit in my opinion, so put there, adjust price if needed and then, it should be fixed.

if SU is a mp starved faction and it cannot use his fuel as other factions that don´t have this problem in the late game, then nerfing other SU units by increasing his price (maxim) doesn´t seem a very clever thing to do.

Maybe problem is not in the late game, but in other areas....

In my noob opinion, rising fuel price is not going to make people start spamming t34s, as in my opinion, SU player don´t want to field a medium that came late, and that is worse than other mediums....that is the problem. Give to t34 the cromwell stats or put in t3, and then, gonna see if t34 start to being fielded again.....

as far as I remember, putting this unit in t4 was the point since then nobody field this unit....

What about making the T34-76 an optional side-grade at T3, while also leaving it in T4?

The cost could be fairly low (like, 40 MP/40 FU?), which means if you want to amass T34/76 you get an initial discount of 200 MP/50 FU for the first T34/76 compared with going via T4. Timing can be adjusted easily by setting an appropriate build time.

No discount for T4 though; if you decide to build that later on as well, the 40 MP/40 FU would be lost.

AI performance: one thing about the T-34/76 is that its cannon and coaxial machine gun kill infantry pretty good if you could get in close range (about the effective range of SMGs), while not reliable at medium and long range.

A little buff for accuracy at medium and long range and it would be fine. Oh and change the Vet 1 too.

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.

You should try mixing just 1 penal into 2-3 conscripts. No reason to go exclusively penals, but having it there to complement them works well imo. I find it's worth having one on the field just because of how great they are in close range, they make an excellent flanking squad, especially once they get oorah. Makes a big difference in early to mid game fights. Satchel charges are amazing too.

It's like pgrens. They're shock troops, you don't really want them to be your exclusive infantry but having one or two is great.

Actually my opinion about how to improve T34/76 (as many other EFA units) is to first fix abilities and veterancy bonuses.

T-34/76 could probably become far more attractive with a better VET 1 ability and with ram that scaled with veterancy.

Other than that one could make some of the less used doctrine actually provide some sort of bonuses to T-34/76. For instance Industry could allow building T4 without T3 but giving access to only T-34/76.

You should try mixing just 1 penal into 2-3 conscripts. No reason to go exclusively penals, but having it there to complement them works well imo. I find it's worth having one on the field just because of how great they are in close range, they make an excellent flanking squad, especially once they get oorah. Makes a big difference in early to mid game fights. Satchel charges are amazing too.

It's like pgrens. They're shock troops, you don't really want them to be your exclusive infantry but having one or two is great.

Put penals in t2, same tier as zis gun, and then, you will see how people field one or two penals same as Ostheer players field one or two pgreens...


Teching to t1 just to get "one" penal squad is not worth at all in my nooob opinion....

Put penals in t2, same tier as zis gun, and then, you will see how people field one or two penals same as Ostheer players field one or two pgreens...


Teching to t1 just to get "one" penal squad is not worth at all in my nooob opinion....

Having t1 lets you get snipers as well, or even a scout car.

I usually do T1 + t2

I've updated the OP with a FAQ section, which basically addresses the following brought up topics:
- Why not just move T-34/76 to T3
- Why not move T-34/76 to T3 and add T-34/85 to T4

Actually my opinion about how to improve T34/76 (as many other EFA units) is to first fix abilities and veterancy bonuses.

T-34/76 could probably become far more attractive with a better VET 1 ability and with ram that scaled with veterancy.

Other than that one could make some of the less used doctrine actually provide some sort of bonuses to T-34/76. For instance Industry could allow building T4 without T3 but giving access to only T-34/76.

First, let's prioritise fixing the stock Soviet options for the lategame. Soviet lategame doesn't have to be stellar, but it should, at least, not punish the player for building late-game vehicles that the player paid good MP/FU to tech up to.

We can improve things about the T-34/76, sure. However, a terrible pricing tradeoff (MP-for-fuel-at-T4) will still remain a terrible pricing trade-off. Without a decent trade-off, Soviet T4 will remain completely lackluster (other than build SU-85s to counter KTs).

Slightly Off-Topic, but a suicidal ability (Ram) doesn't really feel like a good fit for a Veterancy bonus. Especially given the terribleness of the pricing.

...
Slightly Off-Topic, but a suicidal ability (Ram) doesn't really feel like a good fit for a Veterancy bonus. Especially given the terribleness of the pricing.
...

...and thus ram should increase the T-34/76 chance to survive or be more deadly if the tank was vetted.

The problem with ram is that if it too effective people will start throwing away their vet 0 tanks, if its not it will not be worth used on vetted tank.

On the other hand if it improves with veterancy it can become either a good option for a vetted tanks (better chance or survival, very big cooldown is probably the way to go)or a good trade off for sacrificing a vetted tank (more penetration damage/criticals).

First, let's prioritise fixing the stock Soviet options for the lategame. Soviet lategame doesn't have to be stellar, but it should, at least, not punish the player for building late-game vehicles that the player paid good MP/FU to tech up to.

is this thread generally about T4 or specifically about T-34/76?

Having t1 lets you get snipers as well, or even a scout car.

I usually do T1 + t2

yeah, but what australian magic was saying was that penals cannot become mainline infantery...and you answered that mixing one penal with 2-3 cons do wonders....

Thus, no one is going to tech to t1 to get just one penal squad...people is not using t1 as its delays getting AT platfoms, so if you are not going to get more than 1 penal squad is not justified that risk in my noob opinion...

if you planned to get snipers or m3, then, ok, mixing one penals with you mainline infantery is a great idea, sure....you get a great close quarter squad, you get satchel charge and even a way to clear garrisons that you won´t get if you don´t tech to T1....but if not, then, teching to T1 to complement your cons with just one squad don´t seems to be worth....I´m noob, I can be wrong and surely I´m wrong...just my opinion.


Anyway, do you think T1+T2+T34-76 span is a vialbe tactic againts pro players??? just asking, maybe I should try (at my noob level )

...and thus ram should increase the T-34/76 chance to survive or be more deadly if the tank was vetted.

The problem with ram is that if it too effective people will start throwing away their vet 0 tanks, if its not it will not be worth used on vetted tank.

On the other hand if it improves with veterancy it can become either a good option for a vetted tanks (better chance or survival, very big cooldown is probably the way to go)or a good trade off for sacrificing a vetted tank (more penetration damage/criticals).

That's a fair point about ram veterancy. Even if we go down that road, the T-34 will not become neither the first, nor the last tank that depends on a gimmick to stay competitive (e.g., most non-Cromwell UKF vehicle Vet0/Vet1 abilities).

is this thread generally about T4 or specifically about T-34/76?

I don't think it's a useful exercise to examine units in a vacuum. The T-34 is part of T4, which is part of the Soviet non-doctrinal lategame. If we could solve all problems at once with a minor change, I don't see why we shouldn't do it.

The way I see it, there are three issues:
1. The T-34/76 issue (cost-inefficient for when it appears)
2. The T4 issue (it's too reactive)
3. The Soviet late-game issue (too doctrine-dependent)

Issues #2 & #3 are, naturally, intertwined (you can't tech beyond T4, thus you need doctrines for anything extra). If I'm not completely mistaken, both issues revolve around Soviet pricing (no useful fuel-sinks).

To give you an example of what I mean by fuel sinks, consider OKW. If you manage to secure double fuel as OKW for long enough, you can afford to tech for a King Tiger and, pretty much seal the deal. The pricing of the King Tiger also allows you to field more Volks/whatever MP-thing you need, while you wait for fuel to accumulate. This is a choice you can make proactively. Now, compare to the Soviets.

If Soviets manage to secure fuel sinks for long enough, and they choose to go for a non-doctrinal T4 push, I don't think they have the option to pump anything useful out. Their aggressive T4 options are bottlenecked by MP (how many schecked Volks or Pak-40's does each T-34 have to bleed before it can pay itself off?).

What I am thinking of, now, is solving issue #1 in a way that gives Soviets a useful fuel-sink unit. With a valid fuel sink, and good map control (which has to be earned), Soviets will finally be truly be able to pump out T-34's. If we do that, teching to T4 can become a proactive choice (do I swarm my enemy in T-70s -now- and hope that works, or do I, proactively, invest in T4 and start swarming my enemy in T-34's? -later-).

Then, to address issue #3, Soviets will be able to afford both:
- Having generalist turreted tanks on the field
- Reinforce their infantry (which should be bleeding them quite hard by that point)

Have you tried using the 76 as a slow moving tank that sponges damage for your other forces.

Or perhaps tried to stand still while it shoots, you'd be amazed how much more accurate it is while standing still.

Though it should be a little cheaper, or the same price but with better penetration.

...
- Let's assume that T34-76 currently performs like a 250 MP / 80 FU unit (debatable)
...

If we accept that T-34/76 was balanced around its normal price when it was in T3 than is performing like a 310/100 unit. When it was moved, its stat did not change, it simply become cheaper...

July 21st Balance patch
T34-76
To compensate for the increase in teching cost to produce t34s
Cost reduced from 310/100 to 300/80

The two things that restrict the T-34/76 are timing and vet bonuses.

The vehicle arrives when Ostheer and OKW usually have fielded a Panzer IV which outclasses the T-34/76.

Whether you have a vet0 or a vet3 T-34/76 hardly matters as it receives no defensive bonuses. The T-34/76 will always go down with two salvos of double Paks or double Raketenwerfer, which is meta.

...
3. The Soviet late-game issue (too doctrine-dependent)
...

doctrine dependence is actually faction design, if one want to mess with it one would probably have to reconsider the availability of doctrinal units and their cost efficiency and that would lead to a major overhaul probably similar to OKW and I don't find that necessary.

...
To give you an example of what I mean by fuel sinks, consider OKW.
...

If one wants to introduce fuel sinks for soviet, one could have Soviet building give limited access to units requiring further upgrades for more units.

For instance T4 could require only T1 or T2 but allow access to only T-34/76 requiring T3 building and/or upgrade for access to Kati and Su-85.

Another approach would be that since the main issue with the T-34/76 is actually its performance against heavies one could increase the fuel cost of the SU-85 and turn it into a more specialized heavy tank hunter with slower ROF but more penetration...

Yet another approach would be to make T-34/76 better for doctrines that do not have access to call in tanks....

Have you tried using the 76 as a slow moving tank that sponges damage for your other forces.

Or perhaps tried to stand still while it shoots, you'd be amazed how much more accurate it is while standing still.

Though it should be a little cheaper, or the same price but with better penetration.

The flanker tank that needs to stand still... Relic really needs to decide what exactly each Soviet unit is supposed to do and redesign them one by one.

If we accept that T-34/76 was balanced around its normal price when it was in T3 than is performing like a 310/100 unit. When it was moved, its stat did not change, it simply become cheaper...

1. I would say that 310/100 is WAAAAAAAYYYY~~ to overpriced, but whatever. Let's accept 310/100 as a fair price, for the sake of argument.
Show Spoiler

2. Now, let's have a look at the MP-to-Fuel ratio of tanks of other factions. I am listing them here in decreasing order:

- OST Panther (2.8)
- UKF Comet (2.7)
- OKW Panzer 4 (2.4)
- OKW Pather (2.45)
- OKW KT (2.32)

3. Let's discard OKW MP-to-fuel-ratios as outliers.

Fuel prices to OKW vehicles were hastily applied in a hotfix. Nevertheless, I would argue that this contributes to the Volks-blob-enabling MP float of OKW.

5. Let's pick 2.7 (Comet) as the desired MP-to-Fuel ratio we want to give to T-34's

6. Let's decide on the conversion ratio between Fuel and MP. Let's say it's 1 FU = 5 MP (even though I might be completely off)

A proper, systematic way to determine the proper ratio would be one of the following:
- Look at fuel conversion abilities (OST supply drop)
- Extrapolate from similar-size vehicles with different MP-to-Fuel ratios (e.g., Comet vs Panther, P4 vs Sherman)
- Compare the income rates for MP and Fuel for the lategame (like the one that Dullahan hinted to earlier in the thread)

I'm too lazy to find the right ratio right now, but I will probably edit this post later, once I have determined it.

7. Let's tweak the cost of the T-34 in a way such that it respects the constraints we set in #5 and #6

The algorithm is as follows:

1. Calculate the MP-converted sum cost (S):
- Convert Fuel to Manpower (T-34 used to cost 100 FU. Thus, it the fuel cost translates to 500 MP)
- Add the converted Fuel to the Manpower (S = 500 MP + 310 MP = 810 MP)

2. Transform the MP-to-FU ratio into MP-to-MP ratio (R)
- The desired ratio is 2.7:1
- Thus, for ever 2.7 points of MP, we should get 1 point of FU (= 5 MP according to our conversion)
- Thus, our MP-converted sum, should account for 7.7 parts (2.7 parts for the MP cost, 5 parts for the converted FU cost)

3. Divide S by R.
- We have 7.7 parts in total for 810MP
- Thus, 1 part = 105 MP

4. Calculate the MP cost
- The MP cost consists of 2.7 parts
- Thus, MP = 283

5. Now, calculate the FU cost
- Subtract the MP cost from the MP pool (810 - 283 = 527)
- Transform the cost remainder into FU (527 / 5 = 105)

6. Thus, we transform the cost of T-34 from 310 MP / 100 FU to 283 MP / 105 FU.
The assumptions I made were that:
- 310 MP/100 FU was an OK cost to begin with (it's not)
- That an MP-to-FU ratio of 2.7 is OK (it might be too high, still, for a fragile vehicle)
- That 1 FU = 5 MP in the lategame (this could clearly be wrong)

If any of the assumptions are incorrect, adjust the inputs and rerun steps of the algorthm.
Cheers.

....
2. Now, let's have a look at the MP-to-Fuel ratio of tanks of other factions. I am listing them here in decreasing order:
...

Comet and Panther are not typical "medium tanks".

If one wants to compare the T-34/76 with other factions one should probably compare it with:
M4A3
Cromwell
PZIV
as those are vehicles in the same class/role with the T-34/76