Profile of Turtle

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.

Nullist likes to bandy around a lot of words and concepts he doesn't quite understand.

The post is there to find by searching through your history. I don't have the time to dig through your crazy posts for one more crazy thing you've said, and you've about burned up any good will built up for you with your recent posts on ignorance. So, make yourself less ignorant and go look it up yourself.

Thing is, Soviets don't have tiers so much as a building tree. Very rarely will Soviets tech back due to the time and resources it takes.

Germans have more solid tiers.

They need more AT options in Building 1, so that Building 1 and 3 becomes more viable. As it stands, if you plan to go Building 3 for T-34s, then you need Building 2 for the zis-3.

It is not the player's job to have to learn every detailed stat in the game.

Not only that, if everything about a unit that was specifically made by the developers says they are expendable assault troops, it's very safe for a player to assume they are expendable assault troops, and to be disappointed when they don't quite work as such for their cost.

It's not the fault of the player for forming preconceptions when the developers themselves have planted that preconception.

Good design involves being able to make a unit such that just using a unit should tell the player how to get a good base of use out of that unit. That's regardless of whether there are detailed tool tips.

Then, looking at stats will give you a small edge in certain situations. That's the edge that expert level players use alongside good micro/macro to win.

When the very core power of a unit is hidden away in obscure stats, and everything about stats says to use that unit in a way against what it is presented as, then you have a problem. It doesn't matter how many people point out that hidden power exists, what matters is that it's confusing and inaccessible to most.

It's like if SC2 zerglings were crazy good at ranged combat, but die in droves in melee combat. Everything about zerglings, including description, graphics, animation, voice overs, even most of their tool tip say that you charge them into melee to do damage, soak up gunfire, and tie up units. Players wouldn't stand for such strangeness in the design of them, and they shouldn't.

It's telling that you hardly see any expert replays, or people in streams using them, even if they're supposed to be that powerful in the right hands.

I actually think the T-34 is in a pretty good place now. Effective when initially brought in, but they quickly become a resource sink if relied on to finish the job or chase down weakened fleeing units. So they can become a trap that leads to a downward spiral in resources and army composition. You start building more T-34s, and stuff to support them, and end up losing to the things that counter both of them.

Up until the recent patch, it's backup, the AT gun wasn't effective enough. And teching to other options for Soviet takes a lot of time and resources, hard to do while fighting off the very things you need to counter.

This is why the T-34 can still be fine as a unit, and still be a problem overall. If the game was just Panzer 4s vs T-34s, it would be a wonderful and interesting match up, but it's not that.

And that's why there's topics like this trying to come up with solutions for the Soviet army overall.

Awwww...