I doubt it, USF is my best faction. Find a quote if you want.
Was in the shoutbox around spring of last year.
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
I doubt it, USF is my best faction. Find a quote if you want.
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
why so?
Posts: 951
Posts: 172
Permanently Banned
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
Posts: 172
Permanently Banned
T34 were kind of late war tanks, the game tries to mimic some historical value, so its a double negative.
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
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.
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.
Posts: 172
Permanently Banned
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".
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Over 50% chance to penetrate FRONTALLY from max range meaning over half the time it will penetrate.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 1273
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).
[..]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.
Posts: 518
Do the math... properly this time... you will find that your previous calculation contradicts your statement
Skip T2... its 275 fuel...
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...
it just makes T4 more viable in certain situations like ost rushing for a P4
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
Posts: 264
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
Posts: 518
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...
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
snip
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
26 | |||||
18 | |||||
922 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |