Profile of gbem

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1979

General Information


Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 15:39 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 15:23 PMDharx But what I generally dislike is the fact the SOV has no upgrade path options in the late game. yes exactly... id be fine with the T-34 if the T-34 werent the best stock medium tank in the soviet lineup if the soviets actually had a proper lategame medium like a P4/m4 analogue... but they dont have it at the moment and i dont think the balance team is ever gonna make the T-34-85 nondoc... hence the best course of action is just to buff the T-34-76 in order to make it comparable to other lategame options like the P4/M4 when critically massed... whether its making the T-34 cheaper or improving its performance.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 15:34 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 15:21 PMVipper Tank slugging it out stationary does not say much for their balance. Most tank fight involve moving and trying to flank slower vehicles with faster vehicles. does not matter... the T-34 should be dominant against the P4 in a 3v2 shooting match... the T-34 in a 3v2 after all costs some 200mp and 30 fuel more... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 15:18 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 14:26 PMSerrith The point isn't that the calliope is stronger which it is, the point is that timing is unimportant when comparing the strengths of these units because they have similar or even identical roles. Such as it is with the valentine and T-34 the point is that timing is also a major factor to the effectiveness of a unit and that cannot be ignored... in any case the valentine should not be compared to the T-34 when the T-34 is intended to compete with the panzer 4... the valentine is not... plus the T-34 is also the most powerful stock tank of in the soviet arsenal... the valentine meanwhile is supplanted with far more powerful lategame alternatives like the comet and churchill... wanna give the T-34 the valentine treatment? fine... give the soviets a proper core lategame tank and make the T-34-85 nondoc... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 14:26 PMSerrith I don't care what the balance team "intends" or what you think the balance team intends. The balance team could intend for the elefant to be an anti infantry extraordinaire, that does not change the practical use of the vehicle. it doesnt change the fact that for a medium tank generalist the tank underperforms badly when compared to contemporaries like the P4/sherman/P4J... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 14:26 PMSerrith At 90 Fuel yeah, its halfway between a "real" medium tank and a light vehicle like the puma or AEC. And its stats reflect this, except that its HP and damage per shot is that of a medium tank, not a light vehicle. Also, I'd say +80 armor, +120 damage per shot, +240hp, +40-70 penetration definitely gives it a distinct reason to use it over a T-70. in exchange the T-70 not only comes earlier but kills infantry much faster at a lower price... the increased armor and damage per shot the T-34 is not relevant of many of its matchups since as a T-34 you would be avoiding any medium armor like the plague anyways while the T-70 has good light armor DPS due to its ROF... there is only once case where a T-34 is superior in a matchup to the T-70.... and that is fighting the ostwind... thats it... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 14:26 PMSerrith The Mid range penetration for the T-34 IS 13% less then the panzer 4 which is why I used the number. Also the close penetration is only 3% less, in a theoretical rushdown which the T-34 is capable of due to better speed characteristics, that 27% long range penetration advantage doesn't look so good. and any half decent P4 player would easily keep the distance between them and a T-34... mid to long range penetration is far more relevant than mid to close range penetration... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 14:26 PMSerrith Well at -30 fuel, I'd hope the its outclassed by the panzer 4. its not just outclassed... its outcosted... 3 T-34s cost 270 fuel and 2 P4s only cost 240 fuel... yet the T-34 loses to the P4 and that shouldnt be the case... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 14:26 PMSerrith By the way, you never answered, Is 120/100/80 penetration ok for a 90 fuel generalist tank? if not, what should the penetration be? You keep dodging this, as if you know the answer and don't want to say it... again how many times do i have to repeat my answer... increase its penetration to the point that it no longer loses a 3v2 against a panzer 4... i dont know if its +30 + 20 + 10 or even +5 it doesnt matter so long as it WINS a 3v2 as intended... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Nov 2020, 14:10 PM id say massed zooks schrecks and piats outclass massed PTRS but ok... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 14:06 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 13:31 PMSerrith Doesn't the Stuka and land mattress come far earlier then the Calliope? But they are still both rocket artillery and it's fair to compare them. the calliOP is a quite calliOP... its a poor point of comparison Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 13:31 PMSerrith I feel like you are taking what your interpretation of the intended purpose is and using that as your metric to determine with the vehicle is performing. I'm not even convinced that's what was actually intended... But even if it was, that doesn't change the objective hard stats of the vehicle. it isnt what i intend the vehicle to be... its what the balance team stated the vehicle is supposed to be... and it clearly doesnt do its job if that were to be the case... at the moment (without ram) its really only a premium light tank whose purpose is to engage infantry and engage in an opportunistic flank not the attritional critical mass tank it was intended to be... in which case theres no reason to use the T-34 since the T-70 actually exists... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 13:31 PMSerrith For 25% reduced fuel and -2 pop, the T-34 suffers an average of -13% penetration, -10% rate of fire and -17% armor, though it does gain in all speed categories. I'd call that a fair exchange. long range and midrange penetration matter quite alot soo that figure of 13% for penetration is misleading... a 27% reduction in far penetration is quite significant far more than the reduced fuel manpower and popcost... and yes 25% reduction in fuel cost but only a 14.28% reduction in manpower costs soo the unit is still incredibly manpower inefficient in an already manpower starved faction... finally there is still no case where id rather have a T-34 than a P4... my point is it is simply outclassed by the P4 and this shouldnt be the case since they are supposed to be contemporaries... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 13:16 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 12:23 PMSerrith So... you are saying the valentine isn't a contemporary of the T-34? Isn't the M10 a contemporary of the stug? doesnt the valentine come far earlier than a T-34/P4? also the T-34 was intended by the balance team to be an excellent attrition tank... if it cant beat the P4 via attrition/critical mass then it simply doesnt do its intended role... hence the point is the T-34 doesnt do its intended role properly Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 12:23 PMSerrith My tests were conducted at 30-35 range since sight range is 35, it is unrealistic to expect engagements to begin at and maintain above 35 range. Granted this is hitting the mid range penetration instead of long which for whatever reason I was thinking was 30-40. Either way, 30 range is far more realistic for the scenario. idk... i simply set them to attack at range 35 and the T-34 lost now 8 out of 10 times... point is it shouldnt be losing since its an attritional tank In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Nov 2020, 13:12 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 11:37 AMthedarkarmadillo They have one! It's called merging cons. merge retains target size hence one really shouldnt use it outside of combat situations... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 10:36 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 06:46 AMSerrith And the valentine? the T-34/crom are contemporaries of the P4 P4J and sherman.. Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 06:46 AMSerrith Reducing the timing does not change the stats of the vehicle nor its scalability. no but it changes its effectiveness or impact/cost since an earlier vehicle has much higher impact Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 06:46 AMSerrith Here's how you answered my question regarding how much performance a 90 fuel vehicle should have: "As much as it needs to." Well thanks, you've given me zero information on what that entails. As far as I'm concerned, 3 T-34s are plenty match for 2 Panzer 4s. At long range, the Panzer 4 has a 73.3% chance to penetrate a t-34 and the T-34s a 44.4% chance to penetrate the Panzer 4- a difference of 29%. 2 Panzer 4s will fire 21.8 shells per minute. 3 T-34s will fire 29.5 shells per minute -35% more 3 T-34s will fire ~35% more shells per minute and have a 50% larger HP pool. And this is only assuming at long range. At close range the gap closes considerably with the T-34s having a 66.6%(50% increase) chance to penetrate and the Panzer 4s having an 88%(20% increase) chance. Now if you think that a ~30% chance to penetration can offset a difference of 35% shells per minute and 50% HP, I'm not sure what to tell you. I am going to run some tests shortly just to see how it pans out. Edit: Tests I ran the test some 15-20 times, a few at first were just getting an idea for how I wanted the tanks best positioned. My setup was all tanks at least 30 meters distance, with one tank being in front(but no less then 30meters) to encourage focus fire and all tanks being otherwise side by side. Of the ~15 or so actual test engagements, the Panzer 4's won 5. Of those 5, only 3 were won through the Panzer 4's just brute forcing to victory, one of them the smoke from a T-34 obscured the line of sight of another and resulted in a 1v2 until the smoke cleared, the other, 2 of the T-34s suffered main gun crits. Of the ~10 or so T-34 victories, 3 of them had one of the Panzer 4's receiving a main gun crit. The x3 T-34s have a ~71% chance of at least ONE shot penetrating on any salvo, the panzer 4's have a ~92% chance at least one shot will penetrate on any salvo but only a ~53% chance that both will penetrate. Generally what ends up happening is that one of the Panzer 4s is knocked out early, and one of the T-34s is knocked out around the same time. But this leaves a 2-1 scenario which greatly favors the x2 T-34s. Keep in mind this was done at long range which favors the panzer 4s. I did not test it at mid or close range. did you conduct those tests at 40 range? i did mine with 4 conscript sandbag lengths (40m) and showed the T-34 losing 4 out of the 5 engagements... ill try conducting them again with a larger sample size and see if i can replicate the results edit* repeated the tests again with all tanks at a 35m distance test 1 = panzer 4s destroyed T-34s with 1 T34 gun disabled and 1 P4 loss test 2 = panzer 4s destroyed T-34s with 1 P4 loss test 3 = T-34 destroyed panzer 4 with 1 P4 gun disabled 1 T34 lost test 4 = P4 destroyed T-34s with 1 T-34 main gun destroyed no P4 lost test 5 = P4s destroyed T-34s with 1 P4 lost soo basically 900 manpower and 270 fuel loses to 700mp and 240 fuel... the T-34 is supposed to fare better than this especially since its an "attrition" weapon... either increase performance to match price or reduce price to match performance edit* i also figured out that 4 T-34s cost the same fuel as 3 panzer 4s soo ill be conducting tests on those shortly... but judging by the results of the last test its most likely that the T-34 will lose the fight... also the manpower cost of T-34s seem to be relatively high to its fuel cost aswell... just to let you know... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Nov 2020, 06:07 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 21:35 PMmiragefla The problem with the Penal PTRS, however, and why it could maybe have 3 is that the Penal PTRS squad doesn't scale really well into late-game. It's not incredibly dangerous to armour, it's snare while potent - is short-range and you're giving up an 8 population 300 manpower tier-locked squad to light anti-vehicle work that falters against infantry the moment it takes losses and the unit often doesn't have enough time to sustain DPS before getting butchered. I can see the need for increasing rate of fire, but at the end of the day, it's essentially a dedicated AV squad so it does need to threaten vehicles later in the game. just give penals a mutually exclusive anti infantry weapon upgrade like 2x DPs or a bar... problem solved... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 06:05 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 04:06 AMSerrith The cost efficiency of the stats of a vehicle is going to be relative to its peers, not relative the strength of the faction its in. That's why you have vehicles like the E8 which are actually considered cost effective, but are simply outshone by the M4 and the Jackson. i consider "its peers" as units of its class... in which case the T-34 and Cromwell both fall flat compared to the panzer 4 the sherman P4J Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 04:06 AMSerrith If the T-34 was moved to tier 3, the cost effectiveness of the vehicle would not increase. i mean it kinda would in terms of its impact... therefore having a much higher effectiveness/cost ratio since it comes at a time where it had greater impact but that's my take on it... Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 04:06 AMSerrith Since you didn't answer the original question, would you say that 80/100/120 penetration is too low for a 90 fuel generalist vehicle? i did answer the original question... "Put another way, how much penetration/performance do you think a 90 fuel generalist tank should have?" "enough to cost efficiently engage the panzer 4 as it was intended to..." therefore the T-34 should have its penetration adjusted to be able to beat the P4 3v2 In: COH2 Balance