Profile of Serrith

What people seem to overlook about the T-34/76 is the great vet bonuses it get. At vet 3 the unit fires 3.7 sec while it has great mobility with Speed: 7.8 Accel: 2.3 Rotate: 43.2.

The common theme though is that the T-34 has 120/100/80 penetration which is admittedly poor compared to 110-150fuel tanks. Because of the poor penetration, that means the T-34 isn't "cost effective" or in other words, its not worth 90 fuel. I disagree with this sentiment.

the E8 isn't nearly as good as the T-34-85 against infantry... the 105 sherman is a specialist against infantry and the dozer sherman is also a good contender as one of the best core medium tanks ingame...

And they all can take an extra hit.

you're taking the argument out of context... here's the original context

"the P4 actually has better scatter and ROF on its main gun while having more machinegun DPS if it upgrades to pintle... the only real advantage the T-34-76 has is its lower cost but this is also in exchange for being completely helpless against armor..."

as you can see I DID mention the P4 being more efficient against infantry as part of the original post... it is you instead who argue in favor of comparing anti armor capability in a vacuum... something I will not subscribe to...

And I am disagreeing with the T-34/76 being helpless against armor, there was no caveats to the statement about being "helpless", T-34 is helpless against tanks, full stop. Anti tank capability is a separate category from anti infantry, being good or bad against infantry has no bearing on whether a vehicle is capable of engaging tanks. The centaur is "helpless" against armor, the hetzer is "helpless" against armor.

I get the feeling that from your perspective, the T-34 has 5% chance to penetrate a panzer 4 and if it does, it does half damage, because that's what its like for vehicles which are ACTUALLY helpless against armor.

the original point was in the shoutbox... sanders93 argued that the T-34 was cost efficient and was to be used in critical mass and not to be compared 1v1 against the P4... i argued that the T-34 was NOT cost efficient when fighting the P4 and was NOT efficient to mass at all since there are no situations where I would mass T-34s as opposed to panzer 4s....

tldr: the balance team INTENDS the T-34 to be used as a cost efficient massable unit as opposed to a unit stronger in a 1v1 vs enemy armor... the problem is it ISNT cost efficient and massable when contrasting it to a PANZER 4.... the P4 is BETTER than the T-34 at its intended role as a cost efficient massable unit...

The T-34 is cost efficient. That is entirely separate from what its optimal role is. In my opinion, the T-34 is useful as a general purpose medium tank that you either get 1 to support your other armor, or you go for a critical mass given their low expense and pop cap.


For 90 fuel and 10pop you have a vehicle which is mobile, capable in the anti infantry department, and can be a threat on the flanks of heavier vehicles. Sure it isn't going to go toe to toe with a panzer 4, but its just as dangerous to an overextended panzer 4 as an M4 sherman is.

but there is... stug spam can cost efficiently take down allied heavy TD spam as the stug can reliably 1v1 any of the allied tank destroyers (provided they don't back away) while being 38% cheaper and having better AI than allied tank destroyers with pintle (though is almost never used in this capacity)...

the T-34 loses to any of the medium tanks including the P4 (provided the T-34 doesn't back away) and has even less AI ability than a panzer 4 while being only 25% cheaper....

Time to kill for the stug against any allied tank destroyer is 15 seconds. The time to kill a stug for the firefly is 16 seconds, for the Su-85 its 16.2, for the Jackson its 18.9.

Looking at these time to kills one might assume the Jackson is the worst of them, after all it does have the longest time to kill vs 640(or 580) medium tanks. But we all know its not, is it.


As for the stug against the Su85 and firefly, there is at best a coin toss chance the stug will win, and in a realistic scenario it should never win. Plus both the Su85 and Firefly have powerful abilities which supports them in their roles- long range self spotting, and tulip rockets.


Despite being cheaper, nobody in their right mind would want a stug over an Su85. That doesn't make the stug a bad vehicle. In the same way the Su76 is actually very cost effective if you look at its stats compared to similar priced vehicles. The reason nobody takes them is for reasons other then its cost to performance ratio.

or a specialist with a bit more AT... its still terrible compared to other medium generalists even for its price

No it isn't. For an extra 40 fuel, the T-34/85 gets +40 penetration at all ranges and some extra hitpoints, and the T-34/85 is considered a very good tank. So for 20 fuel more than a T-34/76(110fuel), we might expect to see say... a 20 penetration increase at all ranges and maybe +10 armor? Well guess what, that would put the T-34/76 into the same realm as the cromwell or sherman. For its cost and AI performance, its AT is fine.

I'm pretty sure the E8 is pretty meh against infantry... which unlike the T-34 the P4 is actually superior against infantry in contrast to both the T-34 and the E8 while being superior against armor to the T-34 and cheaper than the E8... soo its an argument in favor of the T-34 (or the E8) being inefficient...

Im sorry but the E8 being good or bad against infantry wasn't the point. You mentioned that the T-34 was "helpless" against medium tanks of its class(panzer 4). My point is that it isn't, and I used the panzer 4 vs e8 as an analog.

yes the zis just got nerfed penal ptrs is a bit of a waste and the M42 and guards may work but are doctrinal... not to mention there's only like 1 doctrine with IL-2 and guards in the same lineup...

You also appear to have missed the point here too. The point being that even with LIGHT(ptrs or mini at gun) AT support, the T-34 can stand up to the Panzer 4. It wasnt about NEEDING the AT support but rather an example of how the T-34's power level isn't as far off from the Panzer 4 as you make it seem.

its cost effective because it has a snare that sacrifices itself in exchange for ripping 60-70% the health of a superheavy tank... without that ability its dirt useless... there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s... would I rather spam a medium tank generalist that can beat armor and infantry or spam a unit that can beat only infantry and does it worse than the medium tank generalist but at a lower price?

No. Its cost effective because it has 640hp, 160 damage per shot, 28dps from mgs at 10 range and 150 armor for 300mp 90 fuel.
By comparison, the Valentine has 480hp, 120 damage per shot, 7dps from MGs at 10 range and 120 armor for 300mp 80 fuel.

The T-34 is fine for its cost. Its not fine for its timing.

The problem is not reckon planes them selves but being stock.

I have already said that the CD of flares need a massive increase but using flares and off map not only requires a specific but also a second one for the off.

If in your opinion the problem is there is little warning from flares than simply add a warning.

The stock reckon planes multiply the effectiveness of most UKF/USF off map. One wants to use P47/Typhoon loiter ? add the reckon planes and you get both vision and more to divert AA fire.

My point is that reckon planes should not be available stock.

The strength of flares is more specific to team games. Sure, the spec ops(or brit) flares are good in 1v1s, but its in team games that they shine and I was careful to specify that. The rest of the post is made with TEAMgames in mind.

Now, I wholeheartedly DISagree with your examples. Single pass recons are NOT good with loiters. Loiters require you to maintain line of sight for additional passes. Recon LOITERS are good with offensive loiters but not single passes.

They do mean that you will always have a recon for off map artillery without having to select a commander for it as USF or UKF. This is largely necessary since both UKF and USF each only have 1 commander with recon.

But in the case of Ostheer, 10 of the 21 commanders have recon either loiter or single pass, and the best team game commanders have them. Really you should never not have a recon option in your axis loadout and there isn't much opportunity cost since the best commanders have them.




Look, in the end USF, UKF and Ostheer all have ready access to aerial recon through various means and that's fine. OKW and soviets lag behind in this regard though soviets compensate with a wide selection of land based non doc recon options(mortar flares, T70, sniper flares etc). Only OKW is somewhat lacking and that could be solved by getting the infrared halftrack fixed up.

I always just attack move my Brummbar. Always just wrecks shop at 0 effort or micro. Guess I don't have a high enough IQ to hold fire and spend the whole game microing this 1 unit.

I've also found that it isn't bad on autofire. But that's out of necessity since my multitasking sucks. I know good players can get a lot more out of it then I can and that's just going to be something that separates them from me.