Posts: 2358
Or make the 76 a T3 sidetech, therefore allowing a T70 window and allowing it to be skipped?
Posts: 301
6 Posts: 328
Posts: 50
Problem: T-34/76 is not present in very many games.
Reason: Soviets have better options for the role that come at lower cost, causing little incentive to tech up.
Solution 2: Change Soviet tech requirements to you can build T3 or T4 once T1 or T2 is built, but increase the price of the T4 building. This also makes rushing for a T-34/76 more viable without changing the actual stats or cost of any unit, just the tech order and cost of tech. (I prefer this solution.)
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Posts: 563
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 4474
nah 90 fuel is dirty cheap for a tank
You've spelled sherman wrong.
Katitof-2018
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
nah 90 fuel is dirty cheap for a tank
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 4474
Katitof-2018
Posts: 1289
Posts: 2358
Imo the t34 76 is fine where it is. If moved to t3 it will make the t70 reduntant. And will arive too soon.
Right now it can be rushed and in pairs they do great work. Well worth the price.
Posts: 378
If you put 85 into base tech, what would you even use to replace originaö slots in commanders? Kv 1s? Even more kv 8s?
Posts: 1289
T34 suits better for the core tank for SU, T70 could become a specific role tool or a cheap alternative, nerfing its AI and with some other buffs. T3 T34 have a good window of opportunity that will force axis into a defensive midgame. If the T34 were to fail (wich could happen) the damage is worse than loosing a T70. Therefore a comeback window opens.
Posts: 378
I see your point. But what role would the t70 need to fill? Scouting? Other then that i can not think of anything else.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
I see your point. But what role would the t70 need to fill? Scouting? Other then that i can not think of anything else.
Posts: 3260
Posts: 378
Y'all know this is crazy, right?
The T3 T-70 is already so strong it appears in almost every SOV game.
The T-34/76...
...is only 20 MP 20 FU more expensive.
...has twice the armour.
...has 260 more HP.
...has twice the penetration.
...is similarly brutal against infantry.
...fires three times slower but at four times the damage.
Think this through, people. 75 FU of teching is what makes the difference between Mobile Defence being the sole meta and being on the junk heap of doctrines.
You'll break the game if you stick the T-34/76 in T3.
Posts: 3260
Make a T3.5 then, as others have suggested.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Then you're incentivising not building it, as you'll get to avoid the fuel cost of sideteching it if you don't.
The T-34/76 could maybe do with a +20 penetration buff, but it's timing is fine.
 |
|
|
126 | ||
 |
|
|
55 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
189 | ||
|
|
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
8 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
