I am sorry but this is just insulting.
I just told you I wrote many paragraphs on why I disagree with you, and you ignore my arguments and jump straight to your opinion, in which you don't put in a similar amount of effort in representing.
Do you want to discuss with me or not? If yes, please actually read my arguments, and address where you think I am wrong, so this discussion can go somewhere. I am not below calling out better ideas from other people, but it's really not nice of you to say, which is basically "I don't care what you say, 85 rocks, it will ruin the game at that point"
And if you don't, then I can't do anything about that.
i posted that before i saw your post above it. read above this for my response. |
going to type out a second post in case someone responds to the previous while i'm typing.
while the 34/85 is roughly balance to the IV it's more expensive and commensurately more powerful. soviet's get the last tier very early because, while they're expensive, they don't have to build anything in between. OKH is slowed down by teching costs and teching times (they have to research and then build which requires some coordination and attention (not huge, but significant).
the 34/85 is an all-rounder tank that is very good against anything lighter than a V and a pair of them will generally beat a V. having them available at their current cost gives soviets too much power early on.
the 34/76 becomes complete shit that no one would use; in effect you're nerfing current doctrines in exchange for buffing the soviet base lineup. i'm not really favor in getting rid of units.
the only way i could see this working out would be to make the 34/76 HIGHLY infantry focused (like current stats but sherman HE shells instead of the current shell) and making the 34/85 more like the V (AT focused). that would leave both units unique and prevent the 34/85 from being the be all/end all of the soviets. |
not against a 34/85. both the 34/85 and EZ8 hardcounter the IV. they're very solid all-rounder tanks that cannot be fought with out significant combined arms, something that you can't guarantee with t3 timings. |
before they buffed the IV's AoE the 34/76 was the better AI vehicle; this is no longer true however. the 34/76 is flatout worse than the IV. |
Which is why the idea is to have 85 replace 76 as the stock T3 tank.
edited mine after you posted without realizing it.
the 34/85 absolutely cannot go in t3/4 without getting a large nerf or very large cost increase to prevent timings that are too early for the current powerlevel.
to further elaborate, the t34/85 is to powerful to be available when t3 timings would allow it; the only way to fix that is to nerf the tank or increase the price (very bad because it makes it cost inefficient). |
yes, but it's still having 2 long range AT and 2 artillery in t4 which is boring, even if it ends up balanced. not to mention that a buffed su-76 would give t3 the hard AT option it desperately needs so soviet can go t1/t3 and not use callin tanks. |
swap the su-76 and t-70. buff the 76 so it's a zis on wheels and increase the fuel cost to ~~80. adjust and/or buff the 34/76 so that it's at least competent at something, even if it isn't better than the IV at anything. i would suggest giving it good armour so it can tank against OKH t3/OKW t2.
end result: t3 and t4 both have clear cut purposes, advantages, and are viable.
the 34/85 absolutely cannot go in t3/4 without getting a large nerf or very large cost increase to prevent timings that are too early for the current powerlevel. |
yeah, the way i see it, soviets don't need another subpar unit. the zis is competent but far from amazing in the AT role. given how little role light vehicles play in the game right now and how little pen, and damage (80 iirc), the M45 has, i think a pen boost would be a good idea to allow it to scale better and be used as a stop gap. |
only once. do not have replay; it was months ago. |
it takes a shit ton of time to lay the foundations of a building when you have one or two people. |