T-90 stats

[Blackbishop]

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.

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.

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.

[AbhMkh]

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??

[Paciat]

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.

[Blackbishop]

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

[Seeme]

Bishop's right.

I think the T-90 is fine.

[Paciat]

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.

[AbhMkh]

Allright!!!!!!!!

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

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

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)....

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

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.

[Budwise]

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.

[Paciat]

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).

[Budwise]

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

[vonhaggon]

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

[Seeme]

To bad its not happending

[GodlikeDennis]

BT - Beta Tester

Check just under Budwise's name...

[Jeff 'Robotnik' W.]

*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