Login

russian armor

T34/85

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (11)down
21 Oct 2013, 21:48 PM
#181
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

As it is, T34/85 just isin't worth the cost. It's the single most expensive unit in the game, but it sure as hell doesn't have the same impact as an Elefant or IS-2. Sure, IF you use Mark Target, IF they're up against a lone P4, IF you use guards button, IF you ram with one (assuming RNG doesn't shit in your hands), they can be viable, but those are simply too many ifs. With the biggest price in the game, they should have a big impact, but they don't.

I'd buff their firing speed (to 6ish seconds) and reduce cost (to 310/110 per, hence 620/220). As for making them an upgun, Relic has made very clear that it's not in the works. It would be cool, but for whatever reason they adamently want the mainstay of the Red Army in the game's time period to be reduced to a situatinal call-in. But if they DO relent, I'd say the upgrade should be ''unlocked'' for a price (say, 200/60) and then require ammo to upgun your T-34s, about 75 would be OK.
21 Oct 2013, 22:20 PM
#182
avatar of Shell_yeah

Posts: 258

Making it so that player who goes guard motor can upgrade his t34-76s for munitions cost once he reaches 4cp would be cool.
21 Oct 2013, 22:21 PM
#183
avatar of Kalismist

Posts: 46

Just make it a global upgrade, just as pssh's should be as well.
21 Oct 2013, 22:47 PM
#184
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

The only thing I'm cautious of that a too big buff to T34-85s will make Guard Motor doctrine overpowered. Everything else it has ranges from good to great.
21 Oct 2013, 23:35 PM
#185
avatar of Joshua9

Posts: 93

Not sure about how good these guys are if you just hold out with t1 and t2 until 4 cps and then use them exclusively for your tank force, the middle game could be really tough so I'm not sure a buff would really skew too much in this strategy's favor anyway,

but even after going t3 I do find some use for these situationally, even if they are fairly lack-luster. Its really hard to find the resources to build these at all in a tight game, but I find that if the game tacs a certain way and I get about 3 still living t34s out, any more is probably not going to be a good investment, so saving up at that point and having the resources on reserve for the eventuality of needing more instant tanks against a tiger or a panther, or quickly replacing tanks against a couple p4s and stugs, can be handy.

t34's are actually surprisingly good after they get to vet2 themselves...giving them an upgrade of an 85 for no more fuel could be problematic I think.

edit: that is a good point about guard motor doctrine which really is amazing aside from the 85s...maybe the buff would require a tone down of marked target(and I would find that very painful personally).
22 Oct 2013, 00:15 AM
#186
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976

The T34/85 composed nearly 50% of all T34 tanks produced during WW2. It would rather be normal if the unit was non doctrinal. The T34/85 should switch place in T4 with the Su-85 who was a limited variant of the T34 chassis. The new doctrinal Su-85 should be the pre-nerfed version and priced accordingly.
22 Oct 2013, 04:24 AM
#187
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

The T34/85 composed nearly 50% of all T34 tanks produced during WW2. It would rather be normal if the unit was non doctrinal. The T34/85 should switch place in T4 with the Su-85 who was a limited variant of the T34 chassis. The new doctrinal Su-85 should be the pre-nerfed version and priced accordingly.


While this is an interesting proposition, Guard Motor Tactics would be the most godly thing since broken Assault Support Doctrine.
22 Oct 2013, 15:20 PM
#188
avatar of Paranoia

Posts: 93

Dunno if someone saw this, but there is something brewing for the T34/85 and confirmed by Peter (pqumsieh)

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forums/coh-2-balance-feedback/topics/Replace-SU85-with-T3485-in-Tier-4?page=5#post-293847

and I quote: "As far as the T34-85 goes, know that we've got some pretty major changes in the pipeline. Hard to say whether they will be finalized and ready for the next patch."

The new T34-85 is well equiped to go against German T3. Against heavier tanks, they will still need to use combined arms.
22 Oct 2013, 15:48 PM
#189
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

Dunno if someone saw this, but there is something brewing for the T34/85 and confirmed by Peter (pqumsieh)

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forums/coh-2-balance-feedback/topics/Replace-SU85-with-T3485-in-Tier-4?page=5#post-293847

and I quote: "As far as the T34-85 goes, know that we've got some pretty major changes in the pipeline. Hard to say whether they will be finalized and ready for the next patch."

The new T34-85 is well equiped to go against German T3. Against heavier tanks, they will still need to use combined arms.


not sure they understand combined arms, did panther&Tiger need to destroy any soviet tank using "combined arms"
22 Oct 2013, 16:17 PM
#190
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

panthers are made to destroy tanks, tigers are made to destroy tanks. is2 and t3485s are meant to destroy both infantry and tanks but loses some anti tank capabilities to be better at anti infantry.

no, you're not being clever. panther tanks should not need to use combined arms to beat enemy tanks on a straight up in battle, because a panther is anti tank and it's terrible against infantry.

i just wish that soviet tanks like is2 and t3485s be a bit cheaper since soviets focused on numbers of decent tanks that are good against both kind of enemy targets but not best at either of them.
22 Oct 2013, 16:22 PM
#191
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 15:48 PMUGBEAR


not sure they understand combined arms, did panther&Tiger need to destroy any soviet tank using "combined arms"


That cant be discerned from the quote.

It simply states that T34/85 will handle Ost 3 better, and that Sov will need combined arms to deal with heavies.

The Panther and Tiger you mention are both heavies, so Im not sure what your post is trying to say.
But the Dev post states Sov will need combined arms to deal with them, with the implicit context that T34/85 will not be enough, alone, to do so.

Dunno if its a language thing, but you seem to have misunderstood the quote, or inferred something from it that it does not say.

Looking forward to see what the change is!
22 Oct 2013, 17:15 PM
#192
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

panthers are made to destroy tanks, tigers are made to destroy tanks. is2 and t3485s are meant to destroy both infantry and tanks but loses some anti tank capabilities to be better at anti infantry.

no, you're not being clever. panther tanks should not need to use combined arms to beat enemy tanks on a straight up in battle, because a panther is anti tank and it's terrible against infantry.

i just wish that soviet tanks like is2 and t3485s be a bit cheaper since soviets focused on numbers of decent tanks that are good against both kind of enemy targets but not best at either of them.

Yup you find the problem, soviet late game tanks are more expensive and only have moderate AT capabilities but good at AI, and that leads to a problem, cuz only suitable solution to the late game german tank spam is Su-85 not to mention it have been nerfed twice

It's not a wise choice whenever you pay more costy tank in the late game which is lacking AT capability to deal with less expensive tanks
22 Oct 2013, 18:25 PM
#193
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 17:15 PMUGBEAR

Yup you find the problem, soviet late game tanks are more expensive and only have moderate AT capabilities but good at AI, and that leads to a problem, cuz only suitable solution to the late game german tank spam is Su-85 not to mention it have been nerfed twice

It's not a wise choice whenever you pay more costy tank in the late game which is lacking AT capability to deal with less expensive tanks


I seriously don't understand what you are complaining about. You seem to want Soviet tanks to be AT focused like German tanks. This game is deigned to be asymmetrical. It would be boring as hell if both sides had the same units.

You should be building AT guns or SU85s against Tigers and Panthers. The role of T34s in this game is infantry support.

Ram already has over 50% chance of disabling a tiger from the front, which is pretty ridiculous.

I've never had a time when I felt I couldn't handle German tanks with Soviet T3 as it is.
22 Oct 2013, 18:51 PM
#194
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 18:25 PMlink0


I seriously don't understand what you are complaining about. You seem to want Soviet tanks to be AT focused like German tanks. This game is deigned to be asymmetrical. It would be boring as hell if both sides had the same units.

You should be building AT guns or SU85s against Tigers and Panthers. The role of T34s in this game is infantry support.

Ram already has over 50% chance of disabling a tiger from the front, which is pretty ridiculous.

I've never had a time when I felt I couldn't handle German tanks with Soviet T3 as it is.


Did I even bother compare soviet T3 vs. German heavy tanks? I mean specifically Soviet late game tank T-34/85 and JS-2 AT capabilities.

Tiger have 2 advantage Vs. JS-2, it's 40MP/40FU cheaper, and It win against JS-2.
Meanwhile JS-2 only have better AI than a Tiger.

Panther have 3 advantages Vs. JS-2, It's 120MP/130FU cheaper, and it win against any soviet tanks,and it's non-doctrinal but is sucks against Infantry.

I don't consider a more expensive end-game unit 760MP/240FU JS-2 loss to a Tiger(720MP/200FU) or Panther(600MP/130FU) is asymmetrically balanced because of the it's more AI focused. AI is irrelevant in the Late game Tank meta.

as Jinseual said, JS-2 and T-34/85 should be cheaper.
22 Oct 2013, 19:01 PM
#195
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 18:51 PMUGBEAR
I don't consider a more expensive end-game unit 760MP/240FU JS-2 loss to a Panther(600MP/130FU) is asymmetrically balanced


IS2 doesn't lose to the Panther now. I haven't done the math but I'm fairly confident that statistics will back my anecdotal evidence.

22 Oct 2013, 19:04 PM
#196
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954



IS2 doesn't lose to the Panther now. I haven't done the math but I'm fairly confident that statistics will back my anecdotal evidence.



If stand still fight(with in 40m) JS-2 have slightly advantage, if in combat, panther have greater speed, and its main gun out ranged JS-2 by 10m
22 Oct 2013, 21:03 PM
#197
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 18:51 PMUGBEAR

AI is irrelevant in the Late game Tank meta.


This is not true. AI ability is extremely important to both 1on1 and 2on2. Infantry is what caps the map. If you want map control, you need to kill infantry and drain MP. This is why I never, EVER, build panthers or stugs. When I'm playing Germans, it's always Ostwind, P4, or Tiger. And I'm no noob.

I always build AT guns when I go T3 with Soviets. It's a no brainer.
22 Oct 2013, 21:13 PM
#198
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 18:51 PMUGBEAR

AI is irrelevant in the Late game Tank meta.
What game are you playing? Probably not the standard Victory point game, as Russian tanks can lock down a VP for infantry totally. If you want to risk your 4men squad getting insta-killed by JS-2s, feel free to cap the point. German infantry veterancy at a certain part of the game becomes irrelevant because so many squads just get killed off by Russians. So no vet and no cap power for the German player if you use the IS-2 correctly. I prefer that over the Panther any day.
22 Oct 2013, 21:45 PM
#199
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 21:03 PMlink0


This is not true. AI ability is extremely important to both 1on1 and 2on2. Infantry is what caps the map. If you want map control, you need to kill infantry and drain MP. This is why I never, EVER, build panthers or stugs. When I'm playing Germans, it's always Ostwind, P4, or Tiger. And I'm no noob.

I always build AT guns when I go T3 with Soviets. It's a no brainer.


You are quoting out of context, the end game tank which costs more and out matched by the cheaper german tanks only because of it has better AI?
To be honest, is tiger AI bad? Why are you paying 40MP/40FU more for a inferior AT and less durability tank AkA js-2? Asymmetrical balance won't work unless a price reduction of is-2.
Just to be honest, is there anyone saw a JS-2 as often as a tiger? Because it's too good and soviet players want challenge themselves without It or it just can't get the job done?

BTW, why are you keep talking about the soviet T3? I don't think I mentioned T3 any where.
23 Oct 2013, 08:50 AM
#200
avatar of JStorm
Benefactor 360

Posts: 93

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2013, 21:45 PMUGBEAR

Just to be honest, is there anyone saw a JS-2 as often as a tiger? Because it's too good and soviet players want challenge themselves without It or it just can't get the job done?

There's 4 commanders with the Tiger tank and only 2 with the IS2. One of them having no Shocks/Guards/PPSh units/abilities that are fairly popular currently.

In contrast out of the 4 Tiger commanders, Mechanized Assault, Spearhead and Assault Support are fairly popular commanders.

With that in mind I would be quite surprised if I saw an IS2 even half as much as the Tiger.
PAGES (11)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

850 users are online: 850 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
29 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50047
Welcome our newest member, Selvestr
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM