Profile of Hannibal

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.

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

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.

''Panzer V Panther (OKW and Ostheer Variant)
Given the Panther's lackluster veterancy 2 bonuses and the unit's reliance on accurate shots over rate of fire, we are improving the accuracy of Panthers that have gained veterancy.
- Panther accuracy from 0.06/0.045/0.035 to 0.065/0.05/0.04
- Veterancy 2 now provides a +10% increased accuracy''

I don't think the panther being a better tank destroyer is good for the balance. I think it will become too oppressive after these changes.
If Axis tank destroying capabilities need to be buffed then perhaps buffing the JP4 and the Stug might be a better route. Something like, higher pen for the JP4 and 60 range for the Stug.

Thinking about it I also do not get it.
The Panther is "suffering" from high scatter especially on the move, not from low accuracy while standing.

IF the Panther needs a buff in that regard, either reduce scatter (I'd suggest angular scatter to go down to 5-6) OR increase moving accuracy.

That general accuracy buff partially reverts the medium buffs as Stormjager pointed out and does not help much vs heavies anyway. The Panther does not need to be even more oppressive vs mediums.

...

Sure mate, sure. If only it would add anything to the discussion...

...

Sure mate, sure. If only it would relate to anything I said.

If you remember me arguing that earlier, you should have no trouble remembering also that I always pointed out how side costs should never be added directly to a unit, but divided by the number of units it affects you've built over the game.

Tech is a matter of timing of the unit and tech costs should always be considered as a timing and not direct cost, I have even pointed this out couple of mins ago on shoutbox against gbem arguments.

Side tech, being optional and limited by its nature, inflates the cost of a unit(s) it affects, the more units benefiting from it on field, the less it inflates their overall cost, but again, it most certainly does inflate their cost.

AEC is a perfect example of cost inflated unit.
It requires side tech to build, but doesn't perform nor should it perform as base cost+unlock cost, but you never built more then 1, hence full side tech cost inflates its value, but does not impact its performance.

I hope that's clear enough to understand.

I do see your point, but in the end it does not change much.
Allied side tech is side tech (even the USF ambulance) is used to delay the main tech and time infantry power levels properly. Not all of it is optional as you say. Not for the early-mid game, and definitely Allied infantry is meant to have at least some of their tech researched. Conscripts need the AT grenade, UKF needs bolster, USF usually also weapon racks (+ ambulance) or grenades. It does not matter at that point if your weapon upgrade is gated behind a "side tech" or a main tech building. The only difference is that the additional "side tech" button gives you a little bit of freedom when you want to have it in a window of +/- 5 min. That's also why we don't see 10 minute Cromwells. Because UKF needs to invest into side tech to not lose the game early on. Allied factions have been balanced and designed around this need for side tech.

If you allocate the cost of e.g. weapon racks to Riflemen or IS, then there is no reason not to split an arbitrary amount of Axis tech cost to Faust, StGs, the rifle grenade etc to Axis mainline. You pay resources to get benefits, and these benefits are access to new units and to weapon upgrades/abilities etc. Teching up just for teching up does not give any benefit, this game is not a science victory in Civ.




Back to the current OST changes though:

Thinking about it I am not sure about the BP1 change. Yes, there are issues with Osttruppen at the moment, but this change further diminishes possible build orders and linearizes the faction. The benefit of saving a couple of MP is just not as high as saving some fuel. I think Ost is very well designed for having trade offs and decisions to make between rushing a unit or steadily building up its rooster. The decision for T3 or T4 rush has already been eliminated by moving all costs to BP2, and with the current change the only thing left to do is to ask if you really want T2 or not. I am not saying all these changes have been detrimental, but compared to what Ost looked like one or two years ago there is just basically nothing left to decide anymore. At this point we could almost delete battle phases and move everything to the buildings themselves.