Looking at ingame test, it looks fine. It still performs better than Ostwind. And all over, if Ostheer has 1 Ostwind and maybe 1 PnzIV they perform as a Quad.
The numbers would help a lot though to check for it, since this is one of the very few instances where just calculating the numbers already tells a lot of the story (apart form turret rotation, but overall still very good) |
We can easily further finetune the chance percentage. Though I would like to see a bit more tests or do more myself if I can find the time. AA chance is very RNG, so only ~2 tests may not show the complete picture. At 20 ROF with 2% chance per bullet it should theoretically still have a pretty high chance every second to kill a plane on average. We could try 3%.
I will ask to look into creating a new weapon for the M15's AA mode that can turn 360 degrees to see if that fixes the tracking issues, but I don't have modding experience so I don't know if that is possible.
Do you know the numbers that other AA units have (USF AA halftrack, Ostwind, Centrain, Flak halftrack). |
How do you evaluate efficiency? At only 20–30 fuel and 2 pop more, other factions can get a tank that serves two roles – AI and AT. That's a lot more bang for a buck. It's not just a matter of stats and raw numbers, it'S about what the tank can actually do for the price. Most efficient are tanks that can stack the most firepower/utility/suvivabiltiy per resource and pop investment. Tanks that are easy to keep alive, vet up and kill stuff with. That's P4, OKW P4, T34/85 and certain Sherman variants. T34 is the exact opposite. It's only efficient if you are facing nearly exclusively infantry and don't have to retreat too often.
Efficiency can only be evaluated in the current meta because it depends on thousands of factors.
If StuGs are the meta the T34 will not be very efficient just like any other medium. If heavy LV play, slow and flankable units or heavy artillery are meta then the T34 will do very well. It's by far the best tank to dive since it's fairly expendable in case of failure and sniping even one PWerfer or Stuka pays back the costs. Also it is the best tank for flanks since the penetration barely matters on side armor. It can't stand at the front line and potentially soak a couple of shots like other tanks might, it's not as much of a no-brainer But the T34 with threat of snares can still prohibit a P4 from pushing into the front lines. As I said, it is debatable if that is good design or not, but I'd say Soviets currently fair decently in the late game even without the beefed up version. The SU85 and ZiS provide the necessary AT. |
Overall I agree with OP. Not sure about the exact changes that should be made, but overall the suggestions seem reasonable.
I am not 100% sure about the RA bonus though, since this would somewhat negate one of the counters (infantry push).
I think one of the main issues currently is the damage output. The mortar needs constant support, but especially in smaller modes the game is too mobile to really hit something. In larger modes I found them quite useful. A straight buff to DPS though might throw off performance in larger modes, so maybe OPs suggestions are the right solution even if they do not really tackle the main issue in my eyes. |
yes the T-34-85 is a very good tank... the problem is without the T-34-85 youre left with a mediocre tank thats clearly not as efficient as an M4 or a P4 as your medium line tank... in fact its the faction with the least efficient lategame mainline tank... the P4/M4A3/P4J all outclass the T-34 while the brits get the option to use the comet which is a top tier premium tank...
Efficiency is a completely different thing. The T34 is super cheap for a medium and despite what you say it has comparable AI to the P4 out of the gate (one of the MGs is better).
All the other tanks are also more expensive, that's why they outclass it. I'd agree on the point that the T34 is not a no-brainer unit, but this does not mean it is a bad unit by default. It's just not meant to be used in all situations.
Is that good design? Debatable obviously, but as I said I think the main issue is just that it is coming a minute late, so Soviets do not get the intended advantage of fielding the first cheap but weaker medium in the game. |
no... you get less ai capabilities and even less AT capabilities on a cheaper unit... the P4 actually fires faster than the T-34 with better scatter and with pintle exceeds T-34 MG dps at all ranges...
then why is the T-34-85 such a must have as a commander choice? the thing is the soviets do not have limited AT capability... but they lack an efficient lategame unit that has both AT and AI in a single package... something that every other faction has...
I'd need to check the exact AI performance, but from what I know they are not far apart. Pintle is a somewhat different subject since the maximum power level of a unit should not be balanced by the initial price, but partially by pop and most of all by price of the upgrade.
The T34/85 while being a very good tank is not an absolute must have, there are plenty of meta commanders without it. Fact is though that the T34/85 would also be good in both other Allied factions, so it is not a thing specific to Soviets. It's just very cost efficient by itself.
The game would become allot easier to balance if Patches stop bringing unit earlier and started delaying them instead. That would increase the duration of the phases in the game, increase the window of opportunity of unit and thus make units easier to pay out for the their investment and smooth out things.
This does not have anything to do with how easy something is to balance. The game is paced to give matches around 30-45 min, in this window you shiuld be able to buy and combine many units. It's a game design question, not one of balance.
Redesigning timings now would screw up the whole game, since this also means redesigning all power levels plus actually even the tick duration for strategic points. Pushing mediums back for 5 min for example would make Soviets crazy OP due to the oppressive T70 and would kick out Ostheer (given that victory points are not an issue).
Yes, I'd also like CoH to be a bit slower, but we can't achieve this anymore with community patches that are restricted to advanced stat tweaking and come out every half a year at best. |
Uhm, that's the point. P4 is a complete package with both AT and AI capabilities, T34 is not.
And OST has even better AT gun for AT purposes (better pen, better vet ability), two respectively better tank destroyers that also happen to deal damage to infantry while having better survivability.
M4 has better AI performance than P4, self repair, smoke and it can still threaten P4 and force it away. Risking a duel with an M4 is, well, a risk. T34/76 can do none from that list, so why even bring this up?
You could also phrase it differently: You get about the same capabilities on AI as a more expensive unit, yet also okay-ish AT.
My point mentioning the SUs and Zis was, that Soviets have other (decent to very good) sources of AT. The T34 does not need to have super good AT, because it can already fulfill its role decently: flank on the attack and act as a bumper so that Axis tanks cannot rush the SU85, because they would suffer close range and rear armor hits.
And there are two points from my Sherman example: 1st price increase (as gbem suggested below) would be necessary; 2nd the Sherman still loses at long range by a decent margin. Just performing one test setup that already heavily favors one side by design does only allow limited conclusions, since at close range these tests would work out quite differently.
It could be worth testing. Leave T34/76 vulnerable as it is now, but simply increase its penetration to let's say Sherman levels, just so that P4 needs to take some hits when trading blows and think twice before doing some risky moves. That way it will still win most duels thanks to superior armour and penetration and T34 will typically need to retreat from it when without support, but it will allow SOV to punish mistakes, the bounce RNG is now a bit too favourable to Axis when retreating after overextending. Of course this should be accompanied with a rebalance of tech/build fuel cost of T4 and the T34.
The T34 is also not meant to slug it out frontally on long range. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a T34 rework would not fix any issues, I am saying it would just create others while not addressing the core issues that Soviets have, because I do not see limited AT capability as one. Also, it would standardize yet another unit to make it almost a carbon copy of another one.
To be honest the biggest issue that the T34/76 currently has in my eyes is that it comes one minute late (compared to Ostheers especially) due to Soviets higher tech cost. Actually the P4 often comes earlier because Soviets invest 40 fuel more into LVs than Ostheer. This does not allow Soviets to play the T34 like it was supposed to be played: Amass a couple of them and push.
*EDIT: Sorry, wrong quote allocation in first version |
the difference is the T-34 is the best medium tank the soviets have... they literally have no panther nor comet nor M4A3 nor churchill nor P4 nor P4J to rely on... they are the ONLY faction that suffers from this drawback hence the T-34 needs to be adjusted to be comparable to these units...
???
Axis also only have the P4 as a medium tank. Soviets have the SU85 (even the SU76) and a decent ATG for AT purposes. Regarding AT, the M4A3 will also lose to a P4 since they almost cost the same (making a 1v1 comparison better).
not when a unit is supposed to be directly comparable to it yet still loses despite spending more resources...
So how is decoupling its performance to an artificial test that does not fully represent the in game usage help in describing the performance gap?
Panzerwerfer needs heavy AoE buffs because my max range salvos barely wipe a standing Maxim, yet the Katyusha has a decent chance to wipe the MG42. It does not make sense. Yet this is the wrong conclusion, because the PWerfer wreaks friggen havoc on close range. The T34 is surprisingly cost efficient at close range even without rear armor shots. Yes, it's more dangerous, but that's the way the unit is balanced. A test at max range where it is weak BY DESIGN should not surprise anyone if the result says that the T34 is weak at that range.
setup at open flat ground 3 and a half conscript sandbag length distance no focus fire done in any of the cases...
P4 was 1 shot left in the first test but at half health for 2 of the other cases and at full health for the other...
the T-34 in the case where the T-34 won (with one P4 gun disabled) was 1 shot to KO for 1 T-34 and 1 shot from full health for the second T-34...
Thanks. This (plus the tests that Serrith did) tell us that there might be quite some variation in there, which is only solvable by simply performing more tests... |
does not matter... the T-34 should be dominant against the P4 in a 3v2 shooting match... the T-34 in a 3v2 after all costs some 200mp and 30 fuel more...
Does this also mean that the Puma needs a buff because 3 Pumas < 2 T34s in a frontal stationary engagement? Jackson and Firefly need also heavy buffs because they'd lose to a JP4.
Especially with turreted and mobile units, these comparisons only give very limited information since the main advantage is outnumbering and flanking the enemy. And then you do not note that you're using one of the units at an intended weakness.
Also please give more information on your tests: How was your setup, did you account for focus fire (in a game even a total scrub would focus on one tank), if a tank survived, how much HP did it still have? That's quite some valuable information, since it makes a huge difference in the P4s won 4/5 times with 1 shot left on the survivor or with full HP. |
Why not:
1) Give PTRS penals "fast shooting" ability, they will unload whole magazine of PTRS faster
2) Maybe consider giving them sprint ability at vet2\3 to allow usage of satchels more possible
3) Also PTRS themselfs could fallow tommie AT squad. They have much better acc. vs inf (or at least it feels like it) and aswell I belive they can even out-shoot if they have vision with their AT rifles.
Not sure what the first point should bring. PTRS Penals do well against light vehicles so this ability is not needed at that point. Against mediums+ they do quite badly, faster shooting would not help that much because you'd probably have to double the damage output.
Second point might cause quite some issues to balance, since sprinting satchels can be extremely powerful. Especially at vet3 where they get cheaper. This change might cause more rebalances on other ends, I somewhat doubt that it would really improve the unit.
Last point already is reflected in Guards. |