- Problem: T34-76 is extremely MP-inefficient, given its late arrival.
- Meta-Problem: Soviets can't trade efficiently MP-wise in extreme-late game. Unless they pick one of the few valid late-game doctrines
- Meta-Solution: Give soviets a unit that is efficient MP-wise. But make it inefficient FU-wise, so that it can't be spammed too much.
- Let's assume that T34-76 currently performs like a 250 MP / 80 FU unit (debatable)
- Alter the cost of T34-76 and make it cost something like 210 MP / 100 FU (again, subject to debate)
This one doesn't need a very long introduction.
1. T-34 is currently UP
This is because of:
1. Its late arrival and
2. Its inefficiency MP-wise:
- When compared to other medium tanks that come earlier, and
- Especially when compared to late-game machinery of other factions (Allies and Axis), which are de-facto MP-efficient.
AI performance:
- Terrible scatter (horizontal and vertical).
- Slower reload speed.
- Inferior MG DPS (Turret, Hull) to other medium tanks.
- Unable to upgrade pintle MGs.
AT performance:
- Slower moving speed than peers (with Blitzkrieg factored in).
- 50% moving accuracy penalty (like most Axis tanks).
- Gun with the lowest penetration.
- Slower reload speed.
In short, T-34 is plain terrible in all fronts. Even more-so its late arrival. I don't think that its true performance has been really taken into account when pricing the unit.
2. (ignoring teching) T-34 should probably cost around 250 MP / 80 FU
If you compare the T-34 to other medium, generalist tanks:
- Generalist medium tank (Panzer 4, Sherman, Cromwell) MP-to-fuel ratio is around 3:1
- By the time T-34 becomes available, we have Panthers, Comets, etc (MP-to-fuel ratio is 2.8:1)
- The MP-to-fuel ratio for T-34 is 3.75:1
The 250 MP / 80 FU value I picked is arbitrary, but I based it on the following observations:
- Most people will agree that 80 FU is a good price for T-34 (you get what you paid for)
- Most generalist tanks' MP-to-Fuel ratio is 3:1
- T-34's can be still be used to drive over infantry, even if their guns suck (AKA the M10 effect).
3. What would happen if we priced T-34's at 210MP / 100 FU?
(This price is completely arbitrary; The lower bound is that the T-34 should not cost less MP than the T-70. I am open to suggestions though.)
The procedure behind picking the price is the following:
- Find the right MP/FU cost for T-34's (e.g., 250 MP, 80 FU)
- Convert some of the MP cost to FU, using whatever conversion ratio is considered the standard for late-game.
If we gave T-34's a decent price, Soviet players might eventually start building them without shooting themselves in the foot.
However, that's not good enough:
- T-34's become available too late in the game. The opposition already has better MP-efficient tanks on the field.
- Moreover, even a cost-efficient T-34 will not be able to keep up with doctrinal (sometimes no-tech) options that are more micro-efficient. Thus, pricing T-34s appropriately will not deliver Soviets from doctrinal dependencies.
- Finally, what is the reward to the Soviet player for teching all the way to T4? The Katyusha and the SU-85 are both great, but they are severely outclassed by their counterparts.
Idea: what if we made T-34's very MP efficient, at the cost of making them fuel inefficient?
- Soviet infantry (even Maxims) just doesn't scale into the late game.
- Soviets will require some unit that is efficient to recoup some of the MP bleed that is unavoidable. Let's give that role to T-34's.
- In order to prevent spam cheese, let's make T-34's cost more fuel, so that only players with good fuel control can exercise that option.
- Bonus: It gives Soviets a stronger incentive to capture fuel for themselves rather than to solely deny it to OST/OKW.
4. Why offset some of the MP cost to FU cost?
Currently, if you find yourself floating fuel late-game as Soviets, odds are you will never be able to use that fuel.
By attaching a Fuel-to-MP conversion gimmick to T-34, the Soviet player will almost always have something to build on all occasions.
1. Low on manpower? Throw a T-34 into the mix.
2. Low on fuel? Go for a support gun, engineers, infantry (whatever is needed)
3. Resource situation is ok? Buy/save for a specialist unit.
Options 2 & 3 basically mean "Play Soviets as you currently play Soviets" (because most people aren't building T-34's anyway). Option 1 adds a new avenue that will probably help us see more of that tank.
Besides, all late-game capable factions do the same to some degree (for their late-game units):
- OST: Panthers
- UKF: Comet (ever noticed that Churchill-based builds tend to sag a bit?)
- OKW: P4, Panthers, Heavies (KT, Command Panther, JT, etc)
5. FAQ (Why not...)
Q. Why not move T-34 back to T3. Wouldn't that solve the problem with the T-34?
A. In that case we would get to see:
- There would be an overlap between T-34's and T-70's, and most likely the T-34 would phase-out the T-70.
- T-34's will be rushed. This might, or might not create balance issues.
- T-34's would still not be built in the late game. For the same reason nobody builds T-34's in the late-game.
- It still doesn't answer the following question: "Why would somebody ever tech to T4, if you only get the Katyusha and the SU-85?". Thus, trapping the Soviets into the current doctrinal dependencies.
Q. Why not move T-34/76 to T3 and add T-34/85. Wouldn't that solve both the T-34/76 issue and the T4 issue?
A. Perhaps it would. However:
- It would not give Soviets something truly special for teching to T4 (just a shoddier version of OST T4).
- What do we do with those 3 doctrines whose main selling point was the T-34/85?
Q. Why not fix (X, Y, Z) about T-34, but not touch its price?
A. Reread section 4 carefully. Soviets simply lack fuel-sink options that other factions get from their T4. There is no point in having units in T4 that are extremely fuel-efficient, since there is no more teching to be done. You can't use that fuel!
6. Caveats (Soviet Industry, Lend Lease, etc)
If 210/100 T-34's become too spam-y, we have the following options.
- Bundle T-34's into pairs (420 MP, 200 FU for 2 T-34's) or triplets.
This suggestion might favour resource conversion doctrines too much (Lend Lease, Soviet Industry). Maybe propose a way to limit these gains?