Login

russian armor

Reduce the cost of tier 4

PAGES (8)down
5 Oct 2018, 01:46 AM
#41
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 01:10 AMTobis

I doubt it, USF is my best faction. Find a quote if you want.


Was in the shoutbox around spring of last year.
5 Oct 2018, 04:35 AM
#42
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1



why so?


Theres a many important reasons t3 t34 would be bad, things like getting a medium way earlier than any other faction, making the t70 and su76 irrelevant, the the insane power spike the t34 would get.

Similarly there are reasons the t34 is fine that could be argued, its a cheap very verstaile tank that has good-great mgs and is/can be powerful in groups. I just feel the historically accurate thing isnt a solid argument as its always been a weak argument for balance sake in a game that isn't really historically accurate.
5 Oct 2018, 04:35 AM
#43
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

Here to remind people that arguments should avoid logical fallacies such as ad hominem (attacking someone else in an attempt to undermine their argument) should be avoided.

I will also add that ad hominem is disrespectful and unwelcome.

Carry on in a constructive manner, thank you.
5 Oct 2018, 07:57 AM
#44
avatar of Tactical Imouto

Posts: 172

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2018, 09:23 AMgbem


This would be ridiculously OP... 95 fuel to t3... some 180 fuel to T34... just make t4 separate and make it cost like 120 fuel


Didn't mean moving it back in it's current state but how it used to be or nerfing it for all I care even if its dogshit now but still stuck in t4 making it even more worthless in teamgames
5 Oct 2018, 08:00 AM
#45
avatar of Tactical Imouto

Posts: 172

Permanently Banned


T34 were kind of late war tanks, the game tries to mimic some historical value, so its a double negative.





It absolutely doesn't and t-34 early model came out in 1940 and if you really wanna go that route why are Soviets fighting Late war germans with STG's and so on with outdated early war equipment? Centurions and Is-3s when? Historical accuracy has nothing to do with game balance or you would be fighting 5 soviets without IS-2/ISU caps every game alone.
Not to forget your panther wouldnt be firing much with it's recoil hitting back, smoke lighting engine decks on fire, it breaking before even making it to battle, your child conscript crew not being able to operate it in any German map and so on.
5 Oct 2018, 08:07 AM
#46
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1



Didn't mean moving it back in it's current state but how it used to be or nerfing it for all I care even if its dogshit now but still stuck in t4 making it even more worthless in teamgames


It would still make the su76 and t70 useless if a t34 was in t3, and if it was moved to t3 then it would likely get nerfed to oblivion and then Sov would have no standard medium tank.
5 Oct 2018, 08:10 AM
#47
avatar of Tactical Imouto

Posts: 172

Permanently Banned


It would still make the su76 and t70 useless if a t34 was in t3, and if it was moved to t3 then it would likely get nerfed to oblivion and then Sov would have no standard medium tank.


Soviets might aswell not have a medium tank with t-34 in its current state and wasnt it nerfed few patches ago? 10 fuel up? And yeah well now that I think about it it doesnt make much sense even if u would increase its cost and what not because it would essentially make 85 variant in t4 useless

A good puma micro and your t-34 is useless because you will get penetrated frontally no matter what and even outranged? by a light vehicle with a turret and criticals with vet.
5 Oct 2018, 10:39 AM
#48
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

...
A good puma micro and your t-34 is useless because you will get penetrated frontally no matter what and even outranged? by a light vehicle with a turret and criticals with vet.


A puma firing at T-34/76 at max range (where it outranges T-34/76) has a 53% chance of penetrating frontally. I wouldn't call that low chance as "no matter what".
5 Oct 2018, 12:21 PM
#49
avatar of Tactical Imouto

Posts: 172

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 10:39 AMVipper


A puma firing at T-34/76 at max range (where it outranges T-34/76) has a 53% chance of penetrating frontally. I wouldn't call that low chance as "no matter what".


Over 50% chance to penetrate FRONTALLY from max range meaning over half the time it will penetrate.

5 Oct 2018, 12:39 PM
#50
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Over 50% chance to penetrate FRONTALLY from max range meaning over half the time it will penetrate.


Yes it is quite low, if you add the chance to hit an penetrate it goes down to 29% and 14.5% if the Puma is moving. When someone uses the term "no matter what" it indicates a certainty (100%) or very high probability (above 90%). This hardly the case.
5 Oct 2018, 13:00 PM
#51
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Soo, if allied unit penetrates axis unit 50% of time, its high pen chance, but if axis unit pens allied unit 50% of time, its low pen chance, got it vipper(I remember the rants about reducing panther armor and its sudden "fragility").

Puma DOES hardcounter T34 for the sole fact that it can shoot, penetrate, keep the distance and SEE it without support of any other unit.
Everything above that is semantics.

As for the topic, there is no need to reduce cost of any tier, because there is nothing wrong with current ones.
5 Oct 2018, 13:22 PM
#52
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Soo, if allied unit penetrates axis unit 50% of time, its high pen chance, but if axis unit pens allied unit 50% of time, its low pen chance, got it vipper(I remember the rants about reducing panther armor and its sudden "fragility").

Puma DOES hardcounter T34 for the sole fact that it can shoot, keep the distance and SEE it without support of any other unit.
Everything above that is semantics.

As for the topic, there is no need to reduce cost of any tier, because there is nothing wrong with current ones.

Dear Katitof I see you are in the mood for semantics/flame-war again but unfortunately for you I am not.

My point was and is that sentence:

"A good puma micro and your t-34 is useless because you will get penetrated frontally no matter what and even outranged?"

is actually wrong because the probability of a Puma penetrating a T-34/76 is simply too low to be characterized "no matter what" which indicates certainty (or very high probability), even more so to hit and penetrate.

If in you opinion the puma has a probability to "penetrate frontally no matter" you can argue you case, according to me it definitely does not.
5 Oct 2018, 13:29 PM
#53
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273


jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 13:22 PMVipper

My point was and is that sentence:

"A good puma micro and your t-34 is useless because you will get penetrated frontally no matter what and even outranged?"

I actually wrong because the probability of a Puma hitting and penetrating a T-34/76 is simply too low to be characterized "no matter what" which indicates certainty (or very high probability).


jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 12:39 PMVipper

[..]When someone uses the term "no matter what" it indicates a certainty (100%) or very high probability (above 90%). This hardly the case.


[..]
Puma DOES hardcounter T34 for the sole fact that it can shoot, keep the distance and SEE it without support of any other unit.
Everything above that is semantics.


To help you two, and to return this discussion back to the topic, allow me to constructively contribute to breaking this impasse about English sentence structure. I am trying to help as this appears to be vital to you two, and I'd like to increase the talk around the subject topic, and to reduce discussing the English grammar. This information is supported by my extensive knowledge provided by my English mother tongue.

<english-man> Tactical Imouto's sentence is grammatically correct; it is written as a declarative sentence (future continuous tense). The user makes the statement that the Puma will (in the future) penetrate the T34. This is asserted to be true - the puma will definitely penetrate the t34. Nevertheless, the range, or multiple hits, despite anything, this condition of penetrating will always be met at some point in the future - no matter what, this condition will be true. Tactical Imouto does not talk about predicting the chance of penetration or expected shots needed. If the sentence were written in Present Simple Tense (e.g. The puma penetrates the T34, no matter what), then it'd be wrong (itc, sentence says that condition is always met). Can explain more English Grammar over PM, if interested.</english-man>


I hope this helps to clarify, so we can all return to discussing T4 :)
5 Oct 2018, 15:18 PM
#54
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2018, 22:56 PMgbem


Do the math... properly this time... you will find that your previous calculation contradicts your statement


How so? 275 F - 90 F = 185 F (till you reach T4 as SU). 295 F - 120 F = 175 F (till you reach T3 as OST) --> You need 10 fuel more to reach T4 as SU than OST needs to reach T3


jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2018, 22:40 PMgbem


Skip T2... its 275 fuel...


So the Pz 4 would come at the same time as T 34 ... but guess what? You would have 0 AT capability in case of enemy getting T 70 and even if he woudln't go for T70/ SU 76, then it would be still hard to deal with a T 34 with a Pz 4 alone and you would have no Sdkfz 222/251 to support your infantry either.

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2018, 22:44 PMgbem


That was actually what i was proposing... t4 independent of t3... t4 to 120 fuel... it would make T3 into t4 more expensive... but make a t4 rush strategy stronger...


You know that someone is baised when he demands to get a T 34 after 220 fuel while OKW and OST get Pz 4 after 295(OST) and 315/335 (OKW)Fuel ...

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2018, 22:47 PMgbem

it just makes T4 more viable in certain situations like ost rushing for a P4


If OST rushes for Pz 4, then just get T 70. Or use penals. He won't have 222/251 to counter your infantry nor Pak 40 to counter T 70

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2018, 23:11 PMgbem


Soviet essentials like the m3a1 scout car and the a sidetech to the mortar for smoke add a total of 35 fuel... total fuel is in favor of ost now


Oh yea sure ... lets add Soviet Scout car but ignore 222/251 to make it look like SU needs to spend more in teching up

And sidetech for mortar ??? What if you would just go either T1 OR T2 under normal circumstances like every other SU player too? And btw. we can play the same game for OKW too ... now we have got 3*15 + 25 + 45 + 120 + 140 (375) fuel for Pz 4 ... but yet you demand a 220 fuel T 34.
So till the OKW player rolls his first Pz 4 out you almost got your 3rd T 34

Bias 11/10




5 Oct 2018, 17:11 PM
#55
avatar of Kharn

Posts: 264

We shouldn't reduce the cost of Tier 4 Soviets. Though as stated, it's interesting to note Soviets ALWAYS need tier 4.

But there are plenty of times OST just sits on Tier 3 cause the value of the P4/STUG is so great. They even get more armor upon vetting.

Honestly if the SU76 wasn't so bad people wouldn't really have an issue with it. The unit was OP when it was free barrage city, but now it not only had the barrage nerffed, it costs munitions AND the guns profile was changed for slower reload. I don't get why you apply so many nerfs to a unit at once but you rarely see this unit in a game anymore.

Why? Well the SU85 is actually REALLY good, and the t34 is actually also REALLY good. Kat is great, the Soviet t4 is just GREAT. It's the Tier 3 thats really lack luster, I mean once you lose that first t70 you're unlikely to make another unless you're in the lead. The suppression from the half track is pretty terrible, so not many people go that route.. the su76 was explained.

Some of this could also be because... well the maxim is pretty garbage right? So you need to rely on crutch units. The soviet crutch unit is totally the t70, you can't really play a game without it.

As some people have stated, we just want the faction to feel like like "spam penals/guards and get that 70 out " you want some options!
5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PM
#56
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979



How so? 275 F - 90 F = 185 F (till you reach T4 as SU). 295 F - 120 F = 175 F (till you reach T3 as OST) --> You need 10 fuel more to reach T4 as SU than OST needs to reach T3




So the Pz 4 would come at the same time as T 34 ... but guess what? You would have 0 AT capability in case of enemy getting T 70 and even if he woudln't go for T70/ SU 76, then it would be still hard to deal with a T 34 with a Pz 4 alone and you would have no Sdkfz 222/251 to support your infantry either.



You know that someone is baised when he demands to get a T 34 after 220 fuel while OKW and OST get Pz 4 after 295(OST) and 315/335 (OKW)Fuel ...



If OST rushes for Pz 4, then just get T 70. Or use penals. He won't have 222/251 to counter your infantry nor Pak 40 to counter T 70



Oh yea sure ... lets add Soviet Scout car but ignore 222/251 to make it look like SU needs to spend more in teching up

And sidetech for mortar ??? What if you would just go either T1 OR T2 under normal circumstances like every other SU player too? And btw. we can play the same game for OKW too ... now we have got 3*15 + 25 + 45 + 120 + 140 (375) fuel for Pz 4 ... but yet you demand a 220 fuel T 34.
So till the OKW player rolls his first Pz 4 out you almost got your 3rd T 34

Bias 11/10






1. it means it takes less fuel for OST to get out the SUPERIOR panzer 4 to the T-34
also you forgot to add the M3 to the sov calculation bringing it to 290 fuel... if you wish to add T2 then add the m3 aswell... 1st bias detected

2. and sov has even less AT to deal with the P4 outside of ramming it and using penals to satchel it to smithereens... its effective but soo is a p4 against the T-34 without support... your argument? 2nd bias detected

3. the SOV T-34 is inferior to the P4... i find it odd that it comes earlier thanks to teching being expensive as fuck... OST gets to field a P4 which costs 125 fuel faster than a 90 fuel T-34 because its teching is ridiculously cheaper... 235 fuel makes sure that the teching cost for the 2 factions are even... if you want to OST to have cheaper teching then you are admitting your bias... 3rd potential bias spotted

4. mmkay ill ignore the scout car in the fuel cost... but only if ignore T2 in teching... or are you too biased to ignore it? either way you lose as T2 is more expensive than an m3a1... bias number 4 detected

5. mmkay since you want to add the 222/251 lets add the T-70 as the appropriate counter... guess which faction is gonna get their medium out even longer? ps its not the soviets... bias number 5 spotted

conclusion... all your statements are biased...
5 Oct 2018, 18:47 PM
#57
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

1. it means it takes less fuel for OST to get out the SUPERIOR panzer 4 to the T-34
also you forgot to add the M3 to the sov calculation bringing it to 290 fuel... if you wish to add T2 then add the m3 aswell... 1st bias detected


So I am the biased one? You do realize, that a scout car hasn't the same priority as T2?
While a scout car is nice and dandy with Flamers in it it is no must-have. That is different with T2. Without Pak 40 you are screwed against Tanks of every kind and without Flametruck/222 you will lack a lot of AI power. Not building a damn scout car hasn't even near the same effect as
not building T2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

2. and sov has even less AT to deal with the P4 outside of ramming it and using penals to satchel it to smithereens


But OST without T2 has a lot of AT options right?
(And you know what a Zis 3 is? You don't need to go T1)

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

its effective but soo is a p4 against the T-34 without support... your argument? 2nd bias detected


Don't let your tanks be without support ... you said it yourself in another thread.
Pz 4 won't have an easy game against T 34 + Penals + Cons (or Zis 3) + Mines

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

3. the SOV T-34 is inferior to the P4... i find it odd that it comes earlier thanks to teching being expensive as fuck


So you claim again, that Pz 4 comes earlyer (assuming that you skip T 70 since you claimed, that even then Pz 4 comes earlyer) even tho I showed you 3 times already, that this is not true

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

... OST gets to field a P4 which costs 125

120*

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

fuel faster than a 90 fuel T-34 because its teching is ridiculously cheaper

OST needs 10! fuel less to reach T3! Than SU needs to reach T4. So much to the *hurr durr*
"ridiculously cheaper"

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

... 235 fuel makes sure that the teching cost for the 2 factions are even

How the garden do you come on 235? 10/20+120+90 = 220/230 Fuel
And how would that be even? Even with your "hurr durr OST skips T2" OST would still need
275 Fuel for a Pz 4.

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

... if you want to OST to have cheaper teching then you are admitting your bias... 3rd potential bias spotted


Nice strawman you got there.
Never said I wanted OST to have cheaper theching. All I did was pointing out, that a T 34 after 220 fuel would be broken as garden and that OST teching IS already More expensive than SU one.

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

4. mmkay ill ignore the scout car in the fuel cost... but only if ignore T2 in teching... or are you too biased to ignore it? either way you lose as T2 is more expensive than an m3a1... bias number 4 detected


mmkay Look above ... Btw: Skippin T2 was done exactly 0 times in GSC2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

5. mmkay since you want to add the 222/251 lets add the T-70 as the appropriate counter... guess which faction is gonna get their medium out even longer? ps its not the soviets... bias number 5 spotted


OST: T1/10 F + BP1/40 F + T2/20 F + BP2/ 90 + T3/15 F = 175 F
SU: T1/10 F/ T2/20 F + T3/ 85 F + T4/ 90 F = 185/195 F

OST: 175 F + 222/ 30 F + 251/ 30 F + Pz 4/ 120 F = 355 F Till Pz 4
SU: 185/195 + T70/ 70 Fuel + T34 / 90 F = 345/355 F Till T 34

"I already have T 70 on the field during a time where my enemy can't do much against him except using AT guns but i also want my first medium tank to arrive sooner, even tho he already does"

... and btw. Did you know that you can use T 70 to kill his 222/251 and capture both fuels?
Your T 34 will then comes even more earlyer than his Pz 4 + you will have T 34 + T 70 + Support
and he only Pz 4 + Support

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2018, 17:55 PMgbem

conclusion... all your statements are biased...


So just because I don't want to make the best fraction in game even more OP I am biased?
5 Oct 2018, 19:25 PM
#58
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

snip

He's trolling you or delusional, not worth arguing. Let it go.
5 Oct 2018, 20:07 PM
#59
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21

It's fine as is. No need for 10-11 min t-34/76 rush strats. Talisman showcased the power of t4 in GCS2.
5 Oct 2018, 20:17 PM
#60
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

People arguing Puma hard counters T34 because of kiting but supported the KT nerf when the same strat could be applied :thinking:
PAGES (8)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

854 users are online: 854 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49079
Welcome our newest member, Rodfg15
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM