T34/85

What I hope to change for the T34/85:

-Increase main gun range to 50.

Push it more into an AT role then AI.

The range increase is totally unneeded. Dedicated anti tank has 50 and 60 range. - Vehicles such as StuGs, Panthers and SU-85. Regular tanks have 40 range. Yet another Russian vehicle outranging the Panzer IV´s gun is unneeded, unbalanced and historically totally inaccurate. I don´t get why Germans don´t have the engagement-range advantage - like they did in reality. Flipping the roles even further by giving the T-34/85 more range, would be the end of good tank combat.

It´s like making a game about the Normandy campaign and giving the Allies no air support at all while the Axis get Stukas, Fallschirmjäger drops, air supplies etc. It´s a total reverse of how the opposing armies really were and in the end a bad depiction of WW2.

What I hope to change for the T34/85:

-AoE and scatter nerfed to 7,5 scatter and 1 AoE.
-Lower reaload to 6 sec.
-Increase penetration to 150.
-Increase frontal armor to 140.
-Increase main gun range to 50.

Push it more into an AT role then AI.

that just sounds as too much , you ll just make a su85 with a turret

that just sounds as too much , you ll just make a su85 with a turret

you are referring Panther I suppose?

1) I came to this conclusion for various reasons the primary ones being the RAM and the fact that mark target gives 50% extra damage , that means that its supposed to be used by uits with relatively small damage and relatively good penetration like atgs su76s , guards and even at grenades ( the 2 latter used from behind ) . Other than that there were many more cooler ways to give a hard at unit on this commander other than the 34/85s (like is2 for example or kv1 ) but they didnt want any because the commander is supposed to buff many aspects of your army but not by much

Mark can be helpful in this scenario but that’s more like using it in desperation when there are no dedicated AT units. I usually use it with my tanks to fight panthers, tigers, and elephant because they have high hit points.

2) I think you are using the commander in the wrong way . 1st of all guards are soft antiinfantry , hard antilightvehicle and soft antitank (though with good micro they get a lot better against tanks and infantry ) and the 120mm hits light vehicles like a ton of bricks . Regardless of that you are supposed to have early game dominance using this commander , that is what i told you in the first place , that is why you have the 120mm and the guards and since you dont have big munitions abilities you are supposed to spam mines and flares like a madman in order for your cons guards mortar atg etc to kille even more germans . Under those premises you should have a large combined arms force kicking ass long before you call in the t34/85s , you aslo should have a fuel and manpower advantage over your opponent which will allow you to call the 34/85s and creaTe a really big combined arms force that can deal with anything , you cant be on the back foot all game relying on just t1 or just t2 and expect to turn around the situation with that ability .

This commander does not necessarily dominate early in the game, it’s unique early ability is the mortar + guards so its most useful against a German player who goes t1 with support units (mg, mortar) and then t2 units (222, ht). Most German players however, go grenadiers + lmg spam followed by t3.

All that said , i do think the 34/85s need a small buff and definitely same fire rate as t34s , i said so before .

But if you want them to beat p4s head on , then you need to have the ram removed and they cant be a call in , they should be recruited like normal units and the mark target and crew repair need to take a hit with the nerfbat as well . Or go the way nullist proposes with a munitions cost upgrade , allthough imo you should also need to upgrade it from the t3 building in order to use

I am suggesting a simpler solution to increase penetration to 160. This will keep everything the same and address the t34/85 biggest weakness. And this will not make the t34/85 beat the panzer4. It will just make it a match.

1) I came to this conclusion for various reasons the primary ones being the RAM and the fact that mark target gives 50% extra damage , that means that its supposed to be used by uits with relatively small damage and relatively good penetration like atgs su76s , guards and even at grenades ( the 2 latter used from behind ) . Other than that there were many more cooler ways to give a hard at unit on this commander other than the 34/85s (like is2 for example or kv1 ) but they didnt want any because the commander is supposed to buff many aspects of your army but not by much

2) I think you are using the commander in the wrong way . 1st of all guards are soft antiinfantry , hard antilightvehicle and soft antitank (though with good micro they get a lot better against tanks and infantry ) and the 120mm hits light vehicles like a ton of bricks . Regardless of that you are supposed to have early game dominance using this commander , that is what i told you in the first place , that is why you have the 120mm and the guards and since you dont have big munitions abilities you are supposed to spam mines and flares like a madman in order for your cons guards mortar atg etc to kille even more germans . Under those premises you should have a large combined arms force kicking ass long before you call in the t34/85s , you aslo should have a fuel and manpower advantage over your opponent which will allow you to call the 34/85s and creaTe a really big combined arms force that can deal with anything , you cant be on the back foot all game relying on just t1 or just t2 and expect to turn around the situation with that ability .

All that said , i do think the 34/85s need a small buff and definitely same fire rate as t34s , i said so before .

But if you want them to beat p4s head on , then you need to have the ram removed and they cant be a call in , they should be recruited like normal units and the mark target and crew repair need to take a hit with the nerfbat as well . Or go the way nullist proposes with a munitions cost upgrade , allthough imo you should also need to upgrade it from the t3 building in order to use

Except the t34/85 isnt only in that commander. There is another doctrine where all it gets is self-repair and is completely overshadowed by the IS-2. You can't balance a commander ability by what is in a single doctrine.

Except the t34/85 isnt only in that commander. There is another doctrine where all it gets is self-repair and is completely overshadowed by the IS-2. You can't balance a commander ability by what is in a single doctrine.

yeah i know about that commander , but imo that was expected , the same would happen if there was a double p4 call in and a tiger (or maybe not i dont know ). Also in comparison with guards motor coordinatrion its use is negligible ). Anyway this commander has its vallue due to the "maphack' and is2 combo even if t34/85s were buffed i doubt the commabder would be substancially altered .

Anyway i didnt say that nothing should be done about it . I am all for a price reduction for example 680 and 200 fuel combined with fire rate increase and the minimum ram range to be reduced cause right now ram is practically useless and perhaps some new combat oriented
vet 1 ability

The whole "call-in without requiring building thing" is pretty cool, and slots the Commanders into the tier structure in an interesting way.

I dont think its really been optimised yet though, especially for Sov, for whom tech progression is different, more costly and time intensive, and where, from my perspective (and as evidenced by the relatively larger call-in pool diversity Sov has), is where it really steps into the meta and asymmetric design.

I mean imagine if you could really, validly, skip t1 as Sov, and rely on infantry call-ins?
That would flatten the tech structure in a way that the current t2-t3 unit split wouldnt be so severe, because youd have saved the fuel and time from T1 for that.

Call me crazy, but thats how I see the potential of call-ins really stepping into its own, on Sov, whereas on Ost, tech progression is hardwired linear, but also provides a comprehensive versatility in every step.

T4 is fairly rare on Ost play, in my perception. People rather invest that cost/time into a single strong call-in piece of armor, such as Tiger or Elephant, rsther than opting for the t4s more versatile base structure.

Know what I mean?

I think call-ins have enormous potential for diversifying the game, laterally, from a Commander specific perspective. BUT, Sov tier structure has to start relying on this already at a t1 infantry level, whereas for Ost, its not even an issue (discounting OstT/Assgren recent commanders), and is usually onky a way to squeeze out a t4 equivalent unit, without actually going t4 (which I think is fine).

TLDR: I think utilisatiin of the Commander specific Call-in potential for making this a really great and diverse game, needs some serious attention on Sov side.

It could, potentially, fix Sov tier structure (different as it is) almost entirely.

So wat da problem?

Problem is related to the non-Commander pool of diversity.
Meaning Sov non-callin options should be more reliable for certain roles, on a generalised level, and the Callins provide specialisation and the key to skipping tiers

I suggest more lateral upgrades for existing baseline units, that spring from the baseline non-Commander options.

Specifically, but not limited to:
-PTSR upgrade for Penals for baseline AT, rather than Flamer. So Guard reliance is reduced. Penals bring the DPS, Guard bring armor, ready AT, and DP uograde, so it doesnt overshadow them.
-Reduced buildtime/cost for Penals to reduce the reliance on Shocks for hard AI.
PPSH Commanders already have this capacity. Any bsseline improvement/upgrade for Cons will just fk the existance of Penals even further. Penals NEED to step into the non-commander AI infantry role. Improving Cons is NOT the option.
-T34 should have an upgun option to face stat superior PIVs, at equivslent cost. The 2xT34/85 Commanders can be adjusted accordingly thereafter, to be cheaper (ie:dont require the upgrade, as weighed against also not requiring the T3 building to produce, meaning T2 builds are opened in a viable way to these Commanders)

I havent gotten to theorising about T4 equivalency, as their impact is comparatively ,marginal in 1v1, owing to the difficulty of amassing that amount of resources.
BUT, there is a noted disparity in AI and AT impetus of these units between the factions.
Ost T4/Callins are very strong AT, Sov are very strong AI, but what does that help, when Osts equivalents will outlcass Sov options in terms of AT? Armor , especially t4 heavies, are already fundamentally a strong AI counter, not because of AI specifically, but because of Crush and even more importantly, the lack of infantry AT options! With the ATNade change you maybe able to, if lucky, to at best, engine dmg a heavy. But the hp pool and armor of these heavies is so, well, heavy, that these infsntry based AT options are barely an annoyance. Even if Sov had a Shrek equivalent, like Bazookas, who I dont even know what unit to put them on, that simlly is not enough to swing the diferring AT/AI impetus of the T4 equivalents and call-ins, to Sovs favor. This, because I think it has heen sufficiently evidenced, that Shreks (or their theoretical ewuivalant) on infantry is a)only really valid vs fixed turret Tank Destroyers b) are seriously expensive (Shrek cost is no joke) c) are really only fit for light/medium Tank dmging (which is impoetant thoug on Ost, because they need something vs T70s, since Ost hss no light Tank).

So as Sov you can kill all the Ost Infantry at t4. So what? His ewuivalents will KILL your Infantry killing armor! Thereby negating that advantage. It could be argued that at that point, map control is more imoortant than at any other stage, and that simoly killing off Ost infantry will cripple their capping to where its no longer capavle of winning the match (a position supported by the capscity of vetted Sov armor to cap points), but is that really happening?

TLDR2: Commander callins are an awesome solution to provide Sov with the diversity that Ost has from its linear tech, laterally. BUT, this relies on a normal vanilla non-Commander being able to carry its weight and have diversity too. The callins are a) a specialisation option, beyond what vanilla can deliver b) much more importantly, a way to flatten Sovs "what tier should I build Oo" dilemma, be ause the call-ins can be brought to the field WITHOUT that tier having to have been built.

Anyways, theres some thoughts of mine, in no particularly structured sense. Just poking some holes to see where some light might shine through.

The whole "call-in without requiring building thing" is pretty cool, and slots the Commanders into the tier structure in an interesting way.

I dont think its really been optimised yet though, especially for Sov, for whom tech progression is different, more costly and time intensive, and where, from my perspective (and as evidenced by the relatively larger call-in pool diversity Sov has), is where it really steps into the meta and asymmetric design.

I mean imagine if you could really, validly, skip t1 as Sov, and rely on infantry call-ins?
That would flatten the tech structure in a way that the current t2-t3 unit split wouldnt be so severe, because youd have saved the fuel and time from T1 for that.

Call me crazy, but thats how I see the potential of call-ins really stepping into its own, on Sov, whereas on Ost, tech progression is hardwired linear, but also provides a comprehensive versatility in every step.

T4 is fairly rare on Ost play, in my perception. People rather invest that cost/time into a single strong call-in piece of armor, such as Tiger or Elephant, rsther than opting for the t4s more versatile base structure.

Know what I mean?

I think call-ins have enormous potential for diversifying the game, laterally, from a Commander specific perspective. BUT, Sov tier structure has to start relying on this already at a t1 infantry level, whereas for Ost, its not even an issue (discounting OstT/Assgren recent commanders), and is usually onky a way to squeeze out a t4 equivalent unit, without actually going t4 (which I think is fine).

TLDR: I think utilisatiin of the Commander specific Call-in potential for making this a really great and diverse game, needs some serious attention on Sov side.

It could, potentially, fix Sov tier structure (different as it is) almost entirely.

So wat da problem?

Problem is related to the non-Commander pool of diversity.
Meaning Sov non-callin options should be more reliable for certain roles, on a generalised level, and the Callins provide specialisation and the key to skipping tiers

I suggest more lateral upgrades for existing baseline units, that spring from the baseline non-Commander options.

Specifically, but not limited to:
-PTSR upgrade for Penals for baseline AT, rather than Flamer. So Guard reliance is reduced. Penals bring the DPS, Guard bring armor, ready AT, and DP uograde, so it doesnt overshadow them.
-Reduced buildtime/cost for Penals to reduce the reliance on Shocks for hard AI.
PPSH Commanders already have this capacity. Any bsseline improvement/upgrade for Cons will just fk the existance of Penals even further. Penals NEED to step into the non-commander AI infantry role. Improving Cons is NOT the option.
-T34 should have an upgun option to face stat superior PIVs, at equivslent cost. The 2xT34/85 Commanders can be adjusted accordingly thereafter, to be cheaper (ie:dont require the upgrade, as weighed against also not requiring the T3 building to produce, meaning T2 builds are opened in a viable way to these Commanders)

I havent gotten to theorising about T4 equivalency, as their impact is comparatively ,marginal in 1v1, owing to the difficulty of amassing that amount of resources.
BUT, there is a noted disparity in AI and AT impetus of these units between the factions.
Ost T4/Callins are very strong AT, Sov are very strong AI, but what does that help, when Osts equivalents will outlcass Sov options in terms of AT? Armor , especially t4 heavies, are already fundamentally a strong AI counter, not because of AI specifically, but because of Crush and even more importantly, the lack of infantry AT options!

So as Sov you can kill all the Ost Infantry at t4. So what? His ewuivalents will KILL your Infantry killing armor! Thereby negating that advantage. It could be argued that at that point, map control is more imoortant than at any other stage, and that simoly killing off Ost infantry will cripple their capping to where its no longer capavle of winning the match (a position supported by the capscity of vetted Sov armor to cap points), but is that really happening?

Anyways, theres some thoughts of mine, in no particularly structured sense. Just poking some holes to see where some light might shine through.

+1 good thoughts

Those who think that the T-34-85s are fine along with the german tanks with the superblitz are either blinds or don't know the game.

T-34-85s are more expensive than P4s, they have the same gun as the Su-85, but they lose in 1v1s against them,
IMO the whole armor warfare in COH2 is bad, it has to be changed (T-34-85, superblitz, Su-76, stupid veterancy).

And pls dont come with L2p or noob 'cause im top +300 with both faction.

It is absolutely not. The soviets have several options. In particular a lot of ranged weapons.

I recommend the strategy section for your problems with the soviet end-game.

The russkies have several options, which require their very expensive building or doctrines, while the germans get them every game due to their build order and cheap buildings. The soviet doctrines meant to fill the gaps in their buildings, so if you choose a wrong doctrine you are forced to build a expensive building. Also the germans can easly shift their tactics after getting half of the map 'cause they get every unit.

The whole "call-in without requiring building thing" is pretty cool, and slots the Commanders into the tier structure in an interesting way.

I dont think its really been optimised yet though, especially for Sov, for whom tech progression is different, more costly and time intensive, and where, from my perspective (and as evidenced by the relatively larger call-in pool diversity Sov has), is where it really steps into the meta and asymmetric design.

I mean imagine if you could really, validly, skip t1 as Sov, and rely on infantry call-ins?
That would flatten the tech structure in a way that the current t2-t3 unit split wouldnt be so severe, because youd have saved the fuel and time from T1 for that.

Call me crazy, but thats how I see the potential of call-ins really stepping into its own, on Sov, whereas on Ost, tech progression is hardwired linear, but also provides a comprehensive versatility in every step.

T4 is fairly rare on Ost play, in my perception. People rather invest that cost/time into a single strong call-in piece of armor, such as Tiger or Elephant, rsther than opting for the t4s more versatile base structure.

Know what I mean?

I think call-ins have enormous potential for diversifying the game, laterally, from a Commander specific perspective. BUT, Sov tier structure has to start relying on this already at a t1 infantry level, whereas for Ost, its not even an issue (discounting OstT/Assgren recent commanders), and is usually onky a way to squeeze out a t4 equivalent unit, without actually going t4 (which I think is fine).

TLDR: I think utilisatiin of the Commander specific Call-in potential for making this a really great and diverse game, needs some serious attention on Sov side.

It could, potentially, fix Sov tier structure (different as it is) almost entirely.

So wat da problem?

Problem is related to the non-Commander pool of diversity.
Meaning Sov non-callin options should be more reliable for certain roles, on a generalised level, and the Callins provide specialisation and the key to skipping tiers

I suggest more lateral upgrades for existing baseline units, that spring from the baseline non-Commander options.

Specifically, but not limited to:
-PTSR upgrade for Penals for baseline AT, rather than Flamer. So Guard reliance is reduced. Penals bring the DPS, Guard bring armor, ready AT, and DP uograde, so it doesnt overshadow them.
-Reduced buildtime/cost for Penals to reduce the reliance on Shocks for hard AI.
PPSH Commanders already have this capacity. Any bsseline improvement/upgrade for Cons will just fk the existance of Penals even further. Penals NEED to step into the non-commander AI infantry role. Improving Cons is NOT the option.
-T34 should have an upgun option to face stat superior PIVs, at equivslent cost. The 2xT34/85 Commanders can be adjusted accordingly thereafter, to be cheaper (ie:dont require the upgrade, as weighed against also not requiring the T3 building to produce, meaning T2 builds are opened in a viable way to these Commanders)

I havent gotten to theorising about T4 equivalency, as their impact is comparatively ,marginal in 1v1, owing to the difficulty of amassing that amount of resources.
BUT, there is a noted disparity in AI and AT impetus of these units between the factions.
Ost T4/Callins are very strong AT, Sov are very strong AI, but what does that help, when Osts equivalents will outlcass Sov options in terms of AT? Armor , especially t4 heavies, are already fundamentally a strong AI counter, not because of AI specifically, but because of Crush and even more importantly, the lack of infantry AT options! With the ATNade change you maybe able to, if lucky, to at best, engine dmg a heavy. But the hp pool and armor of these heavies is so, well, heavy, that these infsntry based AT options are barely an annoyance. Even if Sov had a Shrek equivalent, like Bazookas, who I dont even know what unit to put them on, that simlly is not enough to swing the diferring AT/AI impetus of the T4 equivalents and call-ins, to Sovs favor. This, because I think it has heen sufficiently evidenced, that Shreks (or their theoretical ewuivalant) on infantry is a)only really valid vs fixed turret Tank Destroyers b) are seriously expensive (Shrek cost is no joke) c) are really only fit for light/medium Tank dmging (which is impoetant thoug on Ost, because they need something vs T70s, since Ost hss no light Tank).

So as Sov you can kill all the Ost Infantry at t4. So what? His ewuivalents will KILL your Infantry killing armor! Thereby negating that advantage. It could be argued that at that point, map control is more imoortant than at any other stage, and that simoly killing off Ost infantry will cripple their capping to where its no longer capavle of winning the match (a position supported by the capscity of vetted Sov armor to cap points), but is that really happening?

TLDR2: Commander callins are an awesome solution to provide Sov with the diversity that Ost has from its linear tech, laterally. BUT, this relies on a normal vanilla non-Commander being able to carry its weight and have diversity too. The callins are a) a specialisation option, beyond what vanilla can deliver b) much more importantly, a way to flatten Sovs "what tier should I build Oo" dilemma, be ause the call-ins can be brought to the field WITHOUT that tier having to have been built.

Anyways, theres some thoughts of mine, in no particularly structured sense. Just poking some holes to see where some light might shine through.

+1, I agree with your points.

OMG, I can't believe this, I actually agree with what nullist said.

OMG, I can't believe this, I actually agree with what nullist said.

Thank you, man. Means a lot to me, Especiqlly considering whqt I have to deal with usually.
You too, Thunderhun.

I want a balanced game too. Im not yourenemy in that sense

Thank you, man. Means a lot to me, Especiqlly considering whqt I have to deal with usually.
You too, Thunderhun.

I want a balanced game too. Im not yourenemy in that sense

sadly sometimes u make some sense, sometimes you don't.

most 2v2s already rely on skipping t1 in favour for maxims and mortars to hold out for t3. conscripts are okish line infantry until rifle nades and LMG pops in, then they are hopelessly outclassed. and no other soviet infantry have the equivalent of that much damage output for the rest of the game, so much so that grenadiers can just A+move into position, rifle nade and LMG any opposition and force a retreat and move in with 0 to little casualties.

there's where i see most of the problem, no soviet infantry is able to close in without taking major casualties and retreat before they can do anything as they will get rifle naded and mowed down by LMG fire into oblivion. shock troops get owned by LMG when closing in, guards+dp28 get owned by rifle nades.

the idea of using commander call ins is already in there, as evidenced by elite infantry call ins that fill up different roles in the soviet army, but like you said, there's still a huge gap in effective infantry AT for soviets. ptrs dont cut it, AT nades dont do much either. and that infantry AT must be on a non doctrinal unit.

there's where i see most of the problem, no soviet infantry is able to close in without taking major casualties and retreat before they can do anything as they will get rifle naded and mowed down by LMG fire into oblivion. shock troops get owned by LMG when closing in, guards+dp28 get owned by rifle nades.

the idea of using commander call ins is already in there, as evidenced by elite infantry call ins that fill up different roles in the soviet army, but like you said, there's still a huge gap in effective infantry AT for soviets. ptrs dont cut it, AT nades dont do much either. and that infantry AT must be on a non doctrinal unit.

Where is your artillery? Why aren't you using against stationary Ost during your advance? You should have a mortar or zis by this point, or else your snipers/penals can face up LMG infantry.

The PTRS is very effective against light vehicles, the DP with its button ability buys crucial seconds for your heavy AT (zis/su85) to close the deal against medium/heavy tanks. I don't particularly see a problem with this.

By contrast, PG shreks are high damage, expensive weapons on a fragile 4-man unit. Their AI effectiveness is severely hampered by the upgrade. They create no-go zones for light vehicles, much in the same way that guards do, but they are vulnerable against medium and heavy tanks.

In light of this, the T34/85 seems best suited, with its delicate aim, to supporting the SU85 by picking off infantry at range during late-game battles, while still possessing the resilience to close with and stall the panther when you need to seal the deal. Expensive, yes; Albeit less-so than the panther. And battles at that stage can easily mean win or defeat.

Nice thing about the T34/85 ability as it exists right now is that the Sov do not need T3. They work beautifully in conjunction with T4, rounding it out neatly. They possess a great deal of shock value - enough to wipe a squad or two when they first hit the field. I don't think they should be the first or the only tank a soviet force dispatches.

Where is your artillery? Why aren't you using against stationary Ost during your advance? You should have a mortar or zis by this point, or else your snipers/penals can face up LMG infantry.

The PTRS is very effective against light vehicles, the DP with its button ability buys crucial seconds for your heavy AT (zis/su85) to close the deal against medium/heavy tanks. I don't particularly see a problem with this.

By contrast, PG shreks are high damage, expensive weapons on a fragile 4-man unit. Their AI effectiveness is severely hampered by the upgrade. They create no-go zones for light vehicles, much in the same way that guards do, but they are vulnerable against medium and heavy tanks.

In light of this, the T34/85 seems best suited, with its delicate aim, to supporting the SU85 by picking off infantry at range during late-game battles, while still possessing the resilience to close with and stall the panther when you need to seal the deal. Expensive, yes; Albeit less-so than the panther. And battles at that stage can easily mean win or defeat.

Nice thing about the T34/85 ability as it exists right now is that the Sov do not need T3. They work beautifully in conjunction with T4, rounding it out neatly. They possess a great deal of shock value - enough to wipe a squad or two when they first hit the field. I don't think they should be the first or the only tank a soviet force dispatches.

Good ideas, but good luck getting enough fuel and manpower to make it work without sacrificing map control and having many boots on the field.

Button vehicle is good but Ostheer's smoke ruins it.

Agree with the T-34-85s+T4 combo, but yeah again the cost of teching is too much and we can only dispatch Is-2s from Armored Assault with T-34-85s.

Where is your artillery? Why aren't you using against stationary Ost during your advance? You should have a mortar or zis by this point, or else your snipers/penals can face up LMG infantry.

The PTRS is very effective against light vehicles, the DP with its button ability buys crucial seconds for your heavy AT (zis/su85) to close the deal against medium/heavy tanks. I don't particularly see a problem with this.

By contrast, PG shreks are high damage, expensive weapons on a fragile 4-man unit. Their AI effectiveness is severely hampered by the upgrade. They create no-go zones for light vehicles, much in the same way that guards do, but they are vulnerable against medium and heavy tanks.

In light of this, the T34/85 seems best suited, with its delicate aim, to supporting the SU85 by picking off infantry at range during late-game battles, while still possessing the resilience to close with and stall the panther when you need to seal the deal. Expensive, yes; Albeit less-so than the panther. And battles at that stage can easily mean win or defeat.

Nice thing about the T34/85 ability as it exists right now is that the Sov do not need T3. They work beautifully in conjunction with T4, rounding it out neatly. They possess a great deal of shock value - enough to wipe a squad or two when they first hit the field. I don't think they should be the first or the only tank a soviet force dispatches.

whatever thunderhum said.

my mortar will be busy firing on mg42s and missing them, probably the same for ZiS. penals are as squishy as conscripts and do not out dps grenadiers. rifle nades easily tip the scales into the grenadier's favour, similar to guards+dp28 vs LMG.

button vehicle is doctrinal and soviet real AT is unwieldy, slow and defensive. flimsy and have clear hard counters. to be effective, these guys have to be constantly supported by infantry who would give them the sight needed to be used properly. losing infantry support usually means death for AT guns/su85 who can easily be flanked and circled by advancing tanks.

ptrs are only effective against light armor but offer no real help to medium tanks. due to their low base damage, alpha striking with guards is almost impossible against an alert player who can easily move out of range before serious damage can be done.

compared to their german panzergrens, schrecks are effective tank killers, unlike what you say, they create a no-go zones for light/medium tanks and are great support for heavy tanks due to the insanely high damage/penetration values. what is most important is the units that they support. german tanks are often heavily armoured, armed with machine guns and powerful guns, penetrating soviet tanks with ease and occasionally mowing down infantry and have good mobility. they can quickly get to position and react to threats as quickly. the best part? they are largely independent and remain effective even after losing infantry support.

Good ideas, but good luck getting enough fuel and manpower to make it work without sacrificing map control and having many boots on the field.

Button vehicle is good but Ostheer's smoke ruins it.

Agree with the T-34-85s+T4 combo, but yeah again the cost of teching is too much and we can only dispatch Is-2s from Armored Assault with T-34-85s.

Unimpressed with the IS-2 right now - shots fail to penetrate waaay too frequently. Another example of Soviet armour being more effective in AI roles.

Smoke is only effective in one direction, and you should never ever have your AT unsupported. It's not hard to triangulate enemy tanks with a second guard squad - invaluable in case the first one must retreat.

I'm standing by my points, though, because I think build order is key here. The SU85 should be out before the T34/85s - in the early stages it provides excellent AT support in combination with guards. The 120mm can meanwhile slow or halt German capping units with its long range. And when it gets vet, it practically instawipes anything that isn't carefully watched. Guard/SU85 is enough of a threat against early tanks that Ost must support their tanks, losing map control. When the heavies come out, T34/85 is a fine replacement/supplement to the DP guard squad. 'course, I am talking specifically about the Guard Motor commander. And I agree that the T34/85 does not perform much if any better than the 76, but it's place in the command roster remains fitting and - I daresay - useful. But it isn't hard AT.

And I think that throws players off quite a bit, since the expectation is otherwise.

Now, the IS-2, I could use some pointers on. It's always just been a heap of scrap for me. I have no comment on the effectiveness of that particular commander.

A certain amount of map control is lost leading up to CP1, but easily regained with the shock of these particular units.

I generally agree with Nullist's reasoning here. His suggestions are unlikely to be implemented, however.

My average on predicting changes has been pretty good so far.

My suggested:
Penals/PTSR change aids non-guard light AT, and matches the 221/FHT threat.
Penal reduced build time brings them in in a timely fashion vs LMG upgrades.
T34 upgun is imo inevitable. Ram was adjusted sufficiently to make it a situational option that doesnt upset armor balance. Muni upgun to PIV rough equivalency in AT is too logical and simple a solution to ignore. PIV chassis is still superior, and T34/85 AI is lower than T34, roughly equal to PIV (ie: not good). I believe PIVs can sustain th3 change thanks to Smoke and Blizt, as well as better chassis, MG upgrade and generallybbeing beter supported at that timing by a more stable tier structure.
T34/85 commanders can simply get the equivalent result without muni expenditure or pre-requisite building, meaning t2 builds with these commanders are still eminently viable.

Core Sov issues are imo:
-Penal timing, as AI counter.
-Lack of infantry AT in non-guard builds/commanders
-T34s lack of AT
-T2s overall lackluster (which these changes unfo dont correct, but for which i prupose moving T70 to T2 for, at the admitted risk of too early T70s, but which I think can be accounted for by earlier Shreks at say 20 munis less, and perhaps a penetration increase on 222).