The T34/85 got a cost-reduction, I believe, simply because of the teching cost increase (when it got integrated into the tech-tree after dominating the call-in meta).
1. IMO, 'imbalancing' a units production/replacement cost simply because of the teching requirements to build it is a folly:
- This kind of balancing only takes account for the first appearance for the unit
- You can't predict how long a game will drag after the unit is called in.
- The longer the game has the tendency to drag (e.g., 4v4), the more efficient the unit becomes (while also eclipsing other commanders)
To see why this kind of balancing is flawed, look no further than the Bofors:
- I would argue that the first Bofors comes late enough.
- However, it is ridiculously cheap to replace a lost Bofors.
2. The reason for all this, is 1v1 call-in meta.
Call-in spam simply laughs in the face of teching. If T-34/85's weren't crazy-cost efficient, what hope would you ever have to keep that unit relevant vs no-tech, call-in Tigers?
IMO:
- It's fair for the T-34/85 to get a cost nerf. It will still remain useful
- However, it will be even better if we also locked all other call-in units behind tech requirement; not just E8 and T-34/85.
I agree, its damn stupid that the p4 has 110 pen while sherman AP and cromwell have 120. Especially as even in the model you can see that p4s gun is longer barreled and thus should have better pen. I would even suggest buffing p4 to 120 pen while nerfing cromwell and sherman to 110 at the same time.
Note that penetration also depends on range. What you see listed on stat.coh2.hu is only the mid-range penetration. Some tank guns gain/lose penetration at a higher rate than others.
For instance:
Panzer IV:
120 - 110 - 100 (Near - Mid - Far)
Sherman
140 - 120 - 100
Cromwell
135 - 120 - 105
T-34/76
120 - 100 -80
T-34/85
160 - 140 - 120
Puma
160 - 120 - 80
What this means is that even though P4 penetration looks pretty low compared to the Sherman, they become equal at max-range.