Profile of Serrith

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Mid range is 20 , 30 range is exactly between far (40) and mid.

Does penetration reduce dynamically over range? I thought it was just benchmark ranges that determine penetration...

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

And the valentine?

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...

Reducing the timing does not change the stats of the vehicle nor its scalability.

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

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.

1. the puma is doctrinal for ostheer and okw is complete and utter trash soo despite the puma`s performance it really doesn't indicate much...

The quality of the faction overall has no bearing on the "cost efficiency" of a specific vehicle. I am referring to the Puma.

2. the puma isn't a straight upgrade to the AEC... the AEC has better anti-infantry and light vehicles due to its more reliable MG higher accuracy and as you've said before more armor... the puma in comparison is better against medium armor due to its higher speed and longer range... there are actual situations where id rather have the AEC than the puma and vice versa...

So first, the MG on the AEC is better but not even by 10% at close range though it does edge out at long range. Second, the accuracy stats are misleading as the puma has longer range. At equivalent ranges the puma will actually have higher stationary accuracy, though the AEC does have better on the move accuracy. I would also actually argue that higher speed also benefits the puma when engaging light vehicles as it makes it less likely they can get away.

the T-34-76 on the other hand is outright outclassed in both anti infantry and anti armor in both a 1v1 and a critical mass setting by the panzer 4... there is no reason to build a T-34-76 if you have a panzer 4 in your lineup

Unlike the AEC vs Puma, The T-34/76 is substantially less expensive then the Panzer 4. For 90 fuel the stats on the T-34/76 are fine. If there's an issue with soviet tech being too expensive, then reduce that.


Put another way, how much penetration/performance do you think a 90 fuel generalist tank should have?

if the T-34 is "good" or "justified" then what does that make the outright superior in every way P4? overpowered? broken?

The stats it has for 90 fuel lineup with other vehicles. If it were 100 or 110 fuel id expect a penetration or rate of fire increase or both. But at 20 fuel less then a cromwell you really think it should have more penetration than it does?

You want to give it 120/110/100 pen and +10 armor, ok, bump its price up by 10-15 fuel.