No one force you, and you can win without elite infantry and without call in
You can also win as OKW without T4 so let's remove SchwererHQ!
T 34s
18 Mar 2016, 16:57 PM
#41
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
You can also win as OKW without T4 so let's remove SchwererHQ!
18 Mar 2016, 16:59 PM
#42
Posts: 742 | Subs: 1
You can also win as OKW without T4 so let's remove SchwererHQ!
What is the relation with our discussion ?
We are no talking of stock units
18 Mar 2016, 17:05 PM
#43
Posts: 40
lol, way before that. The T-34 has been pretty useless since the game came out.
It used to be great and RAM was OP as hell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7VMkiVLOEw
18 Mar 2016, 22:07 PM
#44
Posts: 5279
T34/76 are true soviet tanks. They are only 80 fuel, create a swarm, flank enemy armor, crush enemy infantry under the mighty Soviet threads! If you want a medium tank that will perform well by just shooting at max range at enemy tanks from the front, you can go for a doctrine with T34/85s or just play axis.
Problems with swarm tactics:
Manpower cost- 300 manpower for a mostly useless unit that needs to be masses WHILE maintaining an army to get the resources needed to mass isnt feasible.
Pop cap- same reasoning as manpower costs
Abundance of hard AT that doesnt impact enemy armour quantity/timing for axis forces- I saw a t34 bounce a shot and assumed it was a visual bug because it happens so seldom
Pathing- one unit frequently cant move around the map with ease, relying on multiple to work together... Its a mess...
#stalinwept
18 Mar 2016, 22:14 PM
#45
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Really compare to idk the usf half truck and centaur
While a few tweaks to the FHT and Ostwind would be nice, the Greyhound makes them look like release Tiger Aces.
18 Mar 2016, 22:21 PM
#46
Posts: 4474
While a few tweaks to the FHT and Ostwind would be nice, the Greyhound makes them look like release Tiger Aces.
lest stay on topic i voced my opinion
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
18 Mar 2016, 23:49 PM
#47
Posts: 556
Its always been a useful tank in my games, i always buy them in pairs for harrassment and support operations and if i intend to attack i always build in mass mainly because they are very cheap to replace.
They are fine.
They are fine.
19 Mar 2016, 01:02 AM
#48
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Problems with swarm tactics:
Manpower cost- 300 manpower for a mostly useless unit that needs to be masses WHILE maintaining an army to get the resources needed to mass isnt feasible.
Pop cap- same reasoning as manpower costs
Abundance of hard AT that doesnt impact enemy armour quantity/timing for axis forces- I saw a t34 bounce a shot and assumed it was a visual bug because it happens so seldom
Pathing- one unit frequently cant move around the map with ease, relying on multiple to work together... Its a mess...
Fine! Then just make 1 or 2! In any case. The T34/76 is pretty much fine. The Soviets are blessed with a good roster of armored vehicles capable of dealing with any threat and the T34/76 fits in nicely as a cheap medium tank. Building 1 or 2 is quite easy and you can then supplement them with specialist vehicles to deal with specific enemy threats.
19 Mar 2016, 08:37 AM
#49
Posts: 168
T34/76 are true soviet tanks. They are only 80 fuel, create a swarm, flank enemy armor, crush enemy infantry under the mighty Soviet threads! If you want a medium tank that will perform well by just shooting at max range at enemy tanks from the front, you can go for a doctrine with T34/85s or just play axis.
Just play axis XDDDDDDDD
Did you realize how ridiculous you sounded?
Of coursh
19 Mar 2016, 09:54 AM
#50
Posts: 275 | Subs: 1
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
19 Mar 2016, 10:26 AM
#51
9 
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29
It has real problems against volks with shrecks. It damages them very slowly and in return they get crazy vet from it and then it is out of commission getting repaired for ages.
It still goes ok for cost vs axis (non panther) mediums but has trouble penetrating the rear armour of heavies so flanking with them isn't rewarded enough.
It still goes ok for cost vs axis (non panther) mediums but has trouble penetrating the rear armour of heavies so flanking with them isn't rewarded enough.
 | Playercard of tightrope | |||||||||||||||||||
|
19 Mar 2016, 10:31 AM
#52
Posts: 471 | Subs: 1
I think lowering the penalty to accuracy it gets from moving would be a good start, considering it costs 80 fuel it's not even that bad right now. It has set up for off maps and crush, if it got buffed the price would go up and it will still see no play because T70 and SU76 are fine while you stall for callins or you can just end a game on T3 with Partysans 
l2p
l2p | Playercard of Siddolio | |||||||||||||||||||
|
19 Mar 2016, 14:14 PM
#53
Posts: 1217
The real problem is Soviet vet. A vet3 T-34/76 will blow up to 4 Pak hits just like a vet0 T-34/76. This means keeping your T-34s intact until lategame barely helps you. You have a bit faster reload and better mobility. Yet if you drive into a single ambush your vet is almost absolutely useless.
19 Mar 2016, 14:37 PM
#54
Posts: 5279
A vet 1 bonus to pen vs rear armour would be awesome, even if its an active ability. I also always thought if t34s are supposed to be used en masse a pen bonus for every one attacking (say a 10% buff per?) to simulate overwhelming firepower or a huge boost in pen when close to enemy armour (like 5-10 range) because atm they wont beat anything at long range and at close range they are shrek fodder that wont beat anything...
#stalinwept
19 Mar 2016, 14:52 PM
#55
Posts: 275 | Subs: 1
I also always thought if t34s are supposed to be used en masse a pen bonus for every one attacking (say a 10% buff per?)
My T-34-76 have 2x4% pen bulletins. It does not change anything. To break through, it is necessary to hit the target. And that Т-34-76 do bad.
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
19 Mar 2016, 14:59 PM
#56
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Cool, T34 is spammable (what is a bit arguable with 12 pop cap and 300MP) but what if we made in Schwerer HQ Pz4 with short barrell and AI stats like Sherman with AT rounds and the proce would be 320MP 100F. Who would even use that? I guess some for sure but only becasue it would be easy to make 3 of them and just drive behind AT wall.
But now imgaine that every single Cons squad has PzSchreck and suddenly this Pz4 would become useless for you, and great free vet for enemy.
Schrecks on mainline ifantry are big part of T34 issue.
But now imgaine that every single Cons squad has PzSchreck and suddenly this Pz4 would become useless for you, and great free vet for enemy.
Schrecks on mainline ifantry are big part of T34 issue.
19 Mar 2016, 16:37 PM
#57
Posts: 48
Fine! Then just make 1 or 2! In any case. The T34/76 is pretty much fine. The Soviets are blessed with a good roster of armored vehicles capable of dealing with any threat and the T34/76 fits in nicely as a cheap medium tank. Building 1 or 2 is quite easy and you can then supplement them with specialist vehicles to deal with specific enemy threats.
T34/76, as a stock medium tank that is the work-horse of Soviets, is cheap but its performance and timing (that hits the field) is bad!
It used to be at T3 and when they pushed it to T4 I doubt they made it any better...
19 Mar 2016, 17:28 PM
#58
Posts: 49
People apparently will never be happy no matter how cheap it gets, as long as t-34 is weaker than PIV. Just make it a clone of the latter for the same cost and be finally done with it already.
19 Mar 2016, 17:44 PM
#59
Posts: 5279
People apparently will never be happy no matter how cheap it gets, as long as t-34 is weaker than PIV. Just make it a clone of the latter for the same cost and be finally done with it already.
Its not that it needs to be identical to the p4, even a p4 clone would be worse than an actual p4 because it has to face generally harder and more accessible AT. A lone p4 is a threat, a lone t34 is free exp, a vetted p4 can bounce even at gun shells as well as some dedicated, nearly equal in cost tank destroyers.. A t34 wont bounce anything ever aside from a p4 at long range, hell even a schwere is a threat to a lone t34..
Cheap is only good if its at least cost effective, but for a tank that is supposed to flank it doesnt have the survability OR the offencive capability (anyone else seen that video of the t34 chasing a tiger to base bouncing off its ass the whole way then getting destroyed by said tiger?)
Again im not asking for a 04 clone, just something worthy of a t4 slot
#stalinwept
19 Mar 2016, 19:22 PM
#60
Posts: 2561
People apparently will never be happy no matter how cheap it gets, as long as t-34 is weaker than PIV. Just make it a clone of the latter for the same cost and be finally done with it already.But it's not cheap. Not where it matters. You can point to the fuel cost all you want, but if you actually try spaming them you'll quickly realize you'll start to float fuel, because the manpower costs are too high. The low fuel cost never actually helps.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
45 | ||
 |
|
|
37 | ||
|
|
|
|
27 | ||
|
|
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
46 | ||
 |
|
|
23 | ||
|
|
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.278110.716+16
- 2.269144.651+1
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.558230.708+2
- 5.968565.631-3
- 6.253150.628+14
- 7.22491.711+11
- 8.8120.802-1
- 9.19078.709+4
- 10.211115.647+16
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
772
Board Info
524 users are online:
524 guests
12 posts in the last 24h
41 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
41 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45263
Welcome our newest member, Amon
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Amon
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM