I have been gathering these for a while with a simple script (I also use a script that hides Nullist posts if anybody's interested )
put that script on filehosting site, please
Posts: 531
I have been gathering these for a while with a simple script (I also use a script that hides Nullist posts if anybody's interested )
Posts: 46
put that script on filehosting site, please
Posts: 308
Posts: 896
-Remember
Remember
Remember
He won't, you know why, because it most likely doesn't exist.
Posts: 896
I really don't want the T-34/85 to be equal to the Panther. The reality was that only the turret and gun was upgraded, the hull was mostly the same.
However, the additions to the turret were substantial, it had a turret basket, positions for loaders, commander, and gunner, so a 3 man turret. In the 76 version, they would stand on top of ammo boxes to reach the 2 man turret controls. T-34 crews would steal the seats out of American supplied Shermans.
It doesn't take crack German training to load a gun quickly.
Posts: 954
Increasing penetration to 160 will never do that and here are the numbers to illustrate the change:
T-34/85 finishing off a Panther: (960/160)*8.575/(40.74%) = 126.288 sec
T-34/85 (buffed) finishing off a Panther: (960/160)*8.575/(59.25%) = 86.835 sec
Panther finishing off T-34/85: (800/160)*6.45/(100%) = 32.25 sec
I think you can see that currently T34/85 takes 126 seconds to finish a panther and post suggested buff takes 86 seconds, where as the panther takes only 32 seconds to finish T34/85. The current difference is so insanely huge.
I hope that clarifies my suggestion.
Posts: 371
Posts: 954
This thre3ad has been so much derailed .
Imo the 34/85 needs either a small cost reduction 10% mp + `10% fuel or a combination of slightly increased weapon reloading speed and some additional damage . Anything more and the commander who has both 120 mm , guards and mark target and doesnt need engies to repair tanks freeing them to plant mines etc will become OP and mess up soviet internal balance
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedPosts: 896
This thre3ad has been so much derailed .
Imo the 34/85 needs either a small cost reduction 10% mp + `10% fuel or a combination of slightly increased weapon reloading speed and some additional damage . Anything more and the commander who has both 120 mm , guards and mark target and doesnt need engies to repair tanks freeing them to plant mines etc will become OP and mess up soviet internal balance
Posts: 2561
The sheer volume of valid suggestions for T34/85 improvements speaks to the issue being real.
I side with a non-Commander upgun for muni solution that specialises the T34 from AI to AT, at roughly PIV equivalency in penetration and RoF, for the following reasons:
-This doesnt upset PIV balance because its still a superior chassis.
-The cost is laterally diverted to Muni, which is a largely voluntary resource pool that doesnt directly screw with tech speeds, but rather diversifies each respective tier internally. Basically allows a 0.5 tier progression.
-I think its crucial, that this is non-Commander. This kind of dedicated AT is needed to reinforce Sov roster UNIVERSALLY vs more AT dedicated armor options, which, as someone very validly pointed out recently, and damn that I cant cite the writer, is a systemic problem for Sov, that basically Ost armor, throughout, is always a Sov armor counter, because it is almost all AT centric, whereas Sov armor has an AI impetus it doesnt even really need.
-I model this largely on the 222 precedent. Its a 0.5 tier muni upgrade that makes Ost vapable of responding to, primarily, T70s.
-For the T34 to be the "workhorse" it is touted as, it needs this AT upgrade option. It used to be argued that Ram provided thr necessary slack, but that is now an outdated notion due to Ram changes and indirectly AtNade/Faust changes.
-Let Sov specialise its T34s for AT, at muni cost, and relative detriment to AI. Atleast give Sov the choice to do so.
The next is radical, but I still suggest it for future and larger meta consideration. It concerns ATGs.
-Im a huge proponent of imprpving MP and infantry specific AT options, specifically the ATG. I cant speak for 2v2+, but in 1v1, I want to see infantry/MP builds extending further in the meta, rather than the game incentivising teching, hard, to armor. Imo 1v1 has TOO MUCH ARMOR as is, and the nature of this armor, as AT centric on Ost, systemically creates a problem for Sov.
-PaK is graced with a better RoF, ZiS gets Barrage. But wtf, Sov doesnt NEED AI Barrage, it NEEDS better MP AT!
-Give PaKs the Barrage, and ZiS the better RoF.
--Ost lacks indirect fire options vs larger Support teams, Sov lacks better T2 AT. Swap them, and both units fit their meta role better.
Now for the really radical part:
-Move ZiS to T1.
-Move T70 to T2.
Posts: 829
Not until the game is okey balanced(revised 5 days ago)
Top 25 1v1
German WR 80.568% (81.03% today)
Soviet WR 76.5% (76.5% today)
Top 25 2v2
German WR 81.992%
Soviet WR 74.98%
Top 25 3v3
German WR 82.116%
Soviet WR 75.356%
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
-Move T70 to T2.
Posts: 2425
Permanently Banned
t70s in the first few minutes? sorry but thats a horrible idea.
Posts: 223
This thre3ad has been so much derailed .
Posts: 371
You see from the previous numbers I posted the t34/85 can not beat a panzer4 1v1 even with mark vehicle enabled. As for the other commander abilities, guards can button the pnazer4 but so can pg fire shreks on the t34/85. I think if you look at the tank numbers and use this unit you will have no doubt that its severely under performing its cost and role.
Posts: 248
T34/85 didn't get changed when the T34/76 got a 50% damage and a small penetration buff. At the time T34/85s weren't too unpopular because the SU-85 was OP enough that someone supplementing one with the other wouldn't really notice. Hence they massively underperform against everything compared to the T34/76 now.
Hence, they need a buff. Rate of fire seems like the most sensible one.
Posts: 896
t34/85 is not supposed to beat a p4 head on even with mark target ( which benefits all the units so its kinda silly to use on a head on 1on 1 tank fight ) , the reason being , because its just marginally more expensive , retains the ram ( even though its stupidly implemented ) ,doesnt doesnt need t3 thus enabling to use t4 and allowing more flexibility and doesnt have any build time .
Guards are not the only ability this commander has to offer , in fact if the commander didnt have the 120mm , mark target and maybe the crew repair thingy id hardly ever pick him , its the whole commander that is supposed to work with 34/85s not the other way around . If you fail to gain map control with guards , 120mm , mollies , atg indirect fire , mines , flares and su76s then 34/85s are not your problem you d loose even if they were panther like
Posts: 105
Posts: 371
How did you come to that conclusion?
The devs always stated that the t34/76 was mainly an AI unit and not meant to be good counter to tanks yet they decided to buff it's AT ability. I personally never heard them say that about the t34/85. And even if they did their design concept could prove to be wrong in game play.
Looking at the commander as you suggest, I see almost half its abilities dedicated to AI including heavy mortar and guards (except for button they dont do much damage to tanks). Field repair helps tanks but hardly when rounds keep bouncing. Mark vehicle also helps allot again if rounds penetrate and that's the problem with this tank it just doesn't penetrate.
See where the problem is?
PS. often times in 1v1 you have to skip t4/su85 to get the t34/85
51 | |||||
12 | |||||
226 | |||||
14 | |||||
10 | |||||
8 | |||||
1 |