T-90 stats

[AbhMkh]

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....

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[AbhMkh]

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

[Seeme]

You didnt answer his question:

Over Powered of Under Powered.

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

[AbhMkh]

Well a person should have figured that out himself

Obviously underpowered with what its supposed to do 

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?

 

[TacticalNuke]

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?

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[SublimeSnugz]

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

[AbhMkh]

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)...

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[SublimeSnugz]

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.

[Paciat]

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.

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[AbhMkh]

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)

[HansBlix]

its 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...