T-90 stats

Shouldnt the T-90 have stats similar to a m3 halftarck(quad upgraded) or a wirblewind in its damage to infantry???

Its pretty much similar to those vehicles....

Are you complaining that it's not good enough or too good? The unit is fine as is imo, although it probably does too much damage to halftrack vehicles.

what im saying is vehicles with weapons similar to t-90 do massive damage to infantry but no or very little damage to vehicles m3&wirblewind(11 vs infantry),the t-90 should be like tht

You didnt answer his question:

Over Powered of Under Powered.

If you dont know, you shouldnt of wrote this post.

Well a person should have figured that out himself ::)

Obviously underpowered with what its supposed to do  ;D

my point is every aa unit in this game is a bane of infantry then why not the t-90(its stats are very poor in comparision 3,4 something like this

I dont remember precisely!!!!

I think the stats should be 12vs infantry 1 or 2 vs light armor and 0 against the rest???????

8)

Its powerful enough as it is. Always it is: More Power! More!!
Then pretty soon you come running back yelling OP! OP!! Fix it! I don't want to seem rude but sometimes changing the game is the wrong approach. Perhaps you should try changing your tactics when using it to maximize performance?

AbhMkh wrote:
I think the stats should be 12vs infantry 1 or 2 vs light armor and 0 against the rest???????

This says it all. Please, I'm not trying to be mean, but don't post in the balance forum again. These "stats" actually mean nothing and were arbitrarily decided by the game developer to give an indication of role and not effectiveness at said role.

argh man come on a "Wirbelwind" alike vehicle for 260mp 25fuel  :(.....

dude what do you think u use the t-90 for????


Without the stats i mentioned its good for nothing vehicle the t-70 is far better than it in multipurpose role..

And as to your said role thing.. the t-90 is specifically designed for aa role(the game mentions it) , and with the weapons it has(two dpshk 28  mgs) it should shred infantry(im specifically quoting the m3 quad)...

No, you are wrong. The vehicle is very good at it's role and destroys infantry very quickly for it's cost. Comparing it to the T-70 is laughable as well because that thing's crap unless you need a sniper dead. Nothing in this game has an AA role because the scope of the game does not allow it. AA just means it is anti-infantry with the side capability of shooting aircraft. The M3 quad is also quite crap against infantry but has long range and good suppression instead. It is also very effective against PE light armour. Frankly, the fact that you quoted ingame UI stats as your argument leads me to believe that you are not qualified to argue on it's behalf.

The thing is fine. It is far better against infantry than comparable vehicles (and by comparable I mean actually comparable, like to an M8 or so, not the doctrinal, callin, more expensive wirbelwind) and quite strong against PE light armour as well. In fact, the T-90 is probably better against PE light armour than the T-70 even. Sorry if I come across as rude (my computer died today) but you simply can't make balance assumptions based on limited game knowledge and faulty stats.

well dude... theres a big difference between a armoured car and a Wirbelwind or Ostwind etc... The t90 does a "Armoured Car" role.

Your pretty much saying that a Armoured car needs to be as deadly as an wirbelwind. makes no sense it would ruin the balance, remember how early the unit comes.

SnuGGie wrote:
well dude... theres a big difference between a armoured car and a Wirbelwind or Ostwind etc... The t90 does a "Armoured Car" role.

Your pretty much saying that a Armoured car needs to be as deadly as an wirbelwind. makes no sense it would ruin the balance, remember how early the unit comes.

True.
T90 can be compared to a US quad (witch is also good vs PE vechicles) but has only 2 MGs while quad has 4.

Anyway T90 is a little OP for its price. Ist cheaper than an M8! With the possibility to secure points with an outpost Soviets should pay 30-35Fuel for their little tanks.

The tank cost should have nothing to do with the fact soviets can get outposts. US can as well. Rather, the fact that they have more firepower than M8s as well as similar health without having to pay a munitions upgrade should make it cost a bit more.

Mr dennis i think you have never tried a t-90 against a blob of infantry, what good is an armored vehicle that cant perform well against infantry or armor,and as mr pacist mentioned the t-90 is pretty much useless and is not worth the investment and im not comparing the t-90 and the t-70, given a choice between m8 and m3 which one would you prefer to send out first,obviously an m8 cuz of its sustainability on the field


However one would use an m3 quad late game as support anti-infantry

m3 quad can suppress at long ranges and shred blobs of infantry(those irritating PE shrecks)

coming back to the point one would never use t-90 late game cuz neither is it good against infantry nor armor(its just not worth the investment late game or early game)

Thts why im arguing to make it an anti infantry unit(btw there is a scope for aa against those really irritating henschel aircraft),i hate those

& Im no novice to COH ive played the game from the first instalment to the last!!!!!!!(way back in 2006)

Quoteits just not worth the investment late game or early game

I have to disagree. Early game, as first armored unit on the ground it does its bit quite well. Perfect infantry support vehicle. Good vs infantry + weapon teams.

There are some replays here which show how to use it the right way.

Late game I use it to hunt down enemy units ninja-capping deep in my territory...

AbhMkh wrote:
Mr dennis i think you have never tried a t-90 against a blob of infantry, what good is an armored vehicle that cant perform well against infantry or armor,and as mr pacist mentioned the t-90 is pretty much useless and is not worth the investment and im not comparing the t-90 and the t-70, given a choice between m8 and m3 which one would you prefer to send out first,obviously an m8 cuz of its sustainability on the field

Did Paciat said that in this thread? He said that is Overpowered for its price, in other words its cost should be higher. I don't know how do you use your T-90 but it shreds/owns/eats/rapes infantry and light vehicles; yes, T-90 does high damage to them and even if infantry have shrecks they won't live long to tell the story.

Quote
However one would use an m3 quad late game as support anti-infantry

m3 quad can suppress at long ranges and shred blobs of infantry(those irritating PE shrecks)

That's because it earns vet. However, you should take care of both units if you have them in late game... there will be always a ninja pak ready to shot down your light vehicles.

You can decimate everything a PE player can sends to you in early or mid game with T-90, exception being a PIV rush; of course this isn't mean that works alone.

Quote
coming back to the point one would never use t-90 late game cuz neither is it good against infantry nor armor(its just not worth the investment late game or early game)

Thts why im arguing to make it an anti infantry unit(btw there is a scope for aa against those really irritating henschel aircraft),i hate those

...

Most players use T-34 late game, because at that time tanks are serious business but it can flank & engage infantry, weapon teams and pursuing retreating units.

Last edited July 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM by blackbishop

Of course diff players diff strategies

and my apologies(my mistake regarding pacists post), i misunderstood it, as to the role u have mentioned it the t-70 can perform it very well too,i see no reason why i should choose a t-90 over a t-70??

GodlikeDennis wrote:
The tank cost should have nothing to do with the fact soviets can get outposts. US can as well. Rather, the fact that they have more firepower than M8s as well as similar health without having to pay a munitions upgrade should make it cost a bit more.

Sure it has.
Stuart costs 45 Fuel becouse 1 of their trucks is usually parked of a fuel point.
US has to pay much more MP to get a forward base and Observation Points. Outpost is very important to an army without halftracks. Soviet MP spend on Outposts is used by Germans to tech-up.

Nerfing T-70 health would be wierd becouse it was one of the best light tanks in WWII. But it would be great if T-90 had less HP than T-70. Wirblewinds/Ostwinds have only 2/3 HP of a PzIV.
275HP to T-90 but 400HP (less than a Staghound) and Stuarts armor (so that shrecks will be efective vs it) to T-70. Both of them should cost more Fuel (30-35).
T-90 MG penetraton stats should also be nerfed.

It's not a good idea to nerf the health and increase the cost besides nerfing the penetration, one of those have no future.

Bishop's right.

I think the T-90 is fine.

blackbishop wrote:
It's not a good idea to nerf the health and increase the cost besides nerfing the penetration, one of those have no future.

But T-90 is sooo cheap. Its as cheap as PE AC. This is not right.

Allright!!!!!!!! 8)

heck with the t-90 , I'm basically a British player

Each one of us have our own opinions!!!!!!!!!! ;D

Thank You gentlemen for your "valuable" inputs..

But ever since the soviets have been included , i don't fear the German armor anymore ,soviet armor can crack open panthers and tigers with ease(earlier i had to scramble fireflies for the same purpose)....

AbhMkh wrote:
heck with the t-90 , I'm basically a British player

Another reason not to make balance threads, play all factions extensively before you start to yell OP/UP mate.

Paciat wrote:

GodlikeDennis wrote:
The tank cost should have nothing to do with the fact soviets can get outposts. US can as well. Rather, the fact that they have more firepower than M8s as well as similar health without having to pay a munitions upgrade should make it cost a bit more.

Sure it has.
Stuart costs 45 Fuel becouse 1 of their trucks is usually parked of a fuel point.
US has to pay much more MP to get a forward base and Observation Points. Outpost is very important to an army without halftracks. Soviet MP spend on Outposts is used by Germans to tech-up.

Nerfing T-70 health would be wierd becouse it was one of the best light tanks in WWII. But it would be great if T-90 had less HP than T-70. Wirblewinds/Ostwinds have only 2/3 HP of a PzIV.
275HP to T-90 but 400HP (less than a Staghound) and Stuarts armor (so that shrecks will be efective vs it) to T-70. Both of them should cost more Fuel (30-35).
T-90 MG penetraton stats should also be nerfed.

Brits shouldn't enter the discussion, as their OP is free, and we got in trouble last time. Also, the teching cost to get to stuart is quite low. Both US and Soviets have to pay a MP cost to build their OPs so it shouldn't factor into the price of the T-90. What should, is the fact that it is simply too cost effective as a standalone unit. You say it is the same price as a PE armoured car which is approximately correct and, although the teching costs are obviously more, it is still slightly too cheap for it's effectiveness. I wouldn't wish stuart armour on my worst enemy tbh. If the stuart didn't have massive bonuses against halftrack type vehicles it would be one of the most useless units in the game. It can get 2 hit by shreks that almost can't miss for gods sake. I think just a slight cost increase on the unit itself is in order as well as the penetration nerf we already know's coming.

Last edited July 2, 2010 at 4:41 AM by GodlikeDennis

the T90 especially in 1.11 was way too strong.  An Infantry Halftrack would melt to it in 1 1/2 bursts.  If an ATHT treadbroke it, it didnt matter cuz the T90 outranged it and shredded it.  Its speed that it came to the field and its damage against any unit made it way too much vehicle for the price.  Look for changes in 1.2.

Budwise wrote:
the T90 especially in 1.11 was way too strong.  An Infantry Halftrack would melt to it in 1 1/2 bursts.  If an ATHT treadbroke it, it didnt matter cuz the T90 outranged it and shredded it.  Its speed that it came to the field and its damage against any unit made it way too much vehicle for the price.  Look for changes in 1.2.

T-90 MG range is 45 like a US quad.
How about nerfing it to 40 (Wirblewind/Ostwind/Sherman/PE AC)
or 35 (all rifles, all infantry AT weapons).

I appreciated your suggestions but the devs got it taken care of ;)

I love when a Dev or BT sets things striaght!! It makes me feel all warm inside. Thank god for authority!

To bad its not happending :(

BT - Beta Tester

Check just under Budwise's name...

*facepalm*

this whole discussion is making me lol soooo much


ONE HUGE THING ABOUT THE T90'S WEAPON- it has the exact same stats as the quad halftrack, but with 5 more range

so its basically the same weapon as the quad

Why PTRS? Tunk hunters already have it!
P.S. Soviets had 1mln of paratroopers before operation Barbarossa! :D I recommend Victor Suvorov's book - "Icebreaker".

T-90 is fine as it is