Jump to content


T-34-3 and 112 pen


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Poll: T-34-3 and 112 (33 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should the T-34-3 and 112 get a slight pen buff for normal and prem ammo?

  1. Yes,They should get a slight pen buff (26 votes [78.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 78.79%

  2. No, They are fine as is (7 votes [21.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.21%

If you voted yes, how much pen should the normal premium ammo be increased by

  1. 10mm (8 votes [24.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.24%

  2. 20mm (24 votes [72.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.73%

  3. None of the above(only select if you chose no on question 1) (1 vote [3.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.03%

If you voted no, Please choose why you think they shouldn't get a pen buff

  1. It would ruin their matchmaking (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. I can work with 175mm average pen on AP ammo (6 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  3. Other(Please Write down in thread) (27 votes [81.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 81.82%

Vote Hide poll

Alpha_snake #1 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:27 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6069 battles
  • 25
  • [USAFC] USAFC
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

I set up this poll to see what people think the t-34-3 and 112 should get while not changing their ammo types. I have played the former tank long enough to know that, although I can work with the long reload, aim time and below average accuracy. I sometime's find it frustrating to deal with certain vehicles currently within it's MM with the current pen values.

 

If the people want the tank's to get a pen buff, It would most likely only be a 10 to 20 mm pen buff to both standard and premium ammo at the most. In the former's case you would still have the long aim time and long average reload to deal with. The latter I'm unsure of, Though if you applied a pen buff to the chinese t8 prem tanks. You would have to do the same with the normal versions of their 122mm tank guns.

 

I can understand if this is a cause of concern for some people, those who apart of the old guard on here. Are paranoid of another type 59 debacal happening again.

 

Edit Thanks to those who point out my mistake, I always get the 133 and 112 mixed up.


Edited by Alpha_snake, 03 July 2017 - 03:59 PM.


DarkPacifist #2 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:29 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26146 battles
  • 159
  • [CR0WS] CR0WS
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
113 is fine, I'm sure that you are refering to 112 instead ;)

brumbarr #3 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
You mean the 113? the tier10 heavy tank? or the 112? tier8 premium heavy with the same gun as the T343?

gpalsson #4 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:31 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22134 battles
  • 8,117
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

What's wrong with 113? :amazed:

It's pretty far from T-34-3 league.

Also, fck having high pen on HEAT on T-34-3. I want better DPM and better pen on AP.


Edited by gpalsson, 30 June 2017 - 01:32 PM.


DarkPacifist #5 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26146 battles
  • 159
  • [CR0WS] CR0WS
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
Anyway I don't feel that they need a pen buff as, I only own the t-34-3, it has a special MM and can manage to pen most of it's opponent with 175mm. The buff it could need is from the behavior of the gun, maybe a little more of accuracy and aiming time (not to mention is6 on the russian way that is totaly under-powered by the new premiums).

Edited by DarkPacifist, 30 June 2017 - 01:32 PM.


Alpha_snake #6 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:34 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6069 battles
  • 25
  • [USAFC] USAFC
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011
sorry if I got the tier 10 HT mixed up with the 112, I kinde forgot to check the names and got confused there.

satakuua #7 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10673 battles
  • 75
  • [HKI] HKI
  • Member since:
    04-08-2013

I have to say I find it more than just a tad annoying when people create threads without, it would appear, even trying to proof read what they created.

 

EDIT: Fair enough, man. Appreciate it you acknowledged the error.


Edited by satakuua, 30 June 2017 - 01:36 PM.


Homer_J #8 Posted 30 June 2017 - 01:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
Poll needs a 3rd option for the 2nd question.

Tigerfish_Torpedo #9 Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 26339 battles
  • 51
  • [T0MS] T0MS
  • Member since:
    10-08-2013

The T-34-3 is alright, but I get more frustrated by the derpy accuracy.

 

Ahhh, there's an enemy T34, side on, point blank. Pop out, wait for reticule to shrink. Fire! *Poof* The shell hits the ground in front of him. 

 

Blast! I'll aim upwards a tad. Reticule shrinks again. Fire! *Whoosh* The shell flies over the top of the turret. 

 

Now thinking 'what the hell, I'll just drive at him instead!'. It was reminiscent of that Police recruiting video showing the Stormtrooper who couldn't hit a target until he was literally standing in front of it.

 

Only tank I truly have buyers remorse from purchasing! 



satakuua #10 Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10673 battles
  • 75
  • [HKI] HKI
  • Member since:
    04-08-2013

I try to love the T-34-3, but I have to admit it is hard. Still, it is nowadays much better than when I bought it. But even that has not helped my win percentage, sadly.

 

And yes: 175mm is enough if one manages to actually hit what they aim for. Only a fool tries to shoot heavies from the front in a T-34-3.
 



Balc0ra #11 Posted 30 June 2017 - 02:39 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64272 battles
  • 15,374
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Tbh... Premium ammo don't really need a buff. 250 HEAT pen is the only reason why most still find some value in them, along with the WZ-111. Unlike the Russian 175 pen tanks like the IS-6 and sub 170 pen KV-5 that both have 219 gold pen. It's the same reason why the SP did work before the AP pen buff. As it had 258 APCR pen.

scorpiontank1 #12 Posted 30 June 2017 - 03:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26325 battles
  • 837
  • [ARG] ARG
  • Member since:
    10-12-2012

112 is very fine tank , how ever t34-3 is the worst tier 8 premuim tank in the game without a doubt

 

gun handling trash , dpm trash , pentration trash , hull armor = cheese , and turret can be easily penned by 220+ AP  pen guns if they know where to shoot , yet i like it only because some time ,  like 1/4 games it works 

 

t34-3 if played like a meduim that dont shoot heavy;s in front and assuing you are top tier, results would be like this  = 25% shots bounce , 50% shots miss , 25% successful shots 

 

it need massive gun handling and dpm buff first , then if possible a mobility buff , because making it have the same weigh with worse armor than type 59 yet same mobility is dumb 



satakuua #13 Posted 30 June 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10673 battles
  • 75
  • [HKI] HKI
  • Member since:
    04-08-2013
I don't think other tanks should be compared to Type 59 as it can still be considered one of a kind.

1ncompetenc3 #14 Posted 30 June 2017 - 04:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36897 battles
  • 11,490
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
I'd honestly settle for improved accuracy and gun handling on T-34-3. All the penetration in the world isn't going to do you any favours when your shells eat nothing but dirt, tracks and the occasional gun barrel.

arthurwellsley #15 Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:00 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51254 battles
  • 2,810
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011
112 is fine and needs no help given the rest of it's characteristics. 
T34-3 does need a buff of some kind but the issue is how to balance the whole package when buffing it.


Aikl #16 Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:23 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postsatakuua, on 30 June 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

I don't think other tanks should be compared to Type 59 as it can still be considered one of a kind.

 

Hehe, as much flak as the T-34-3 gets for its dispersion stats (which I strongly believe is the worst part of that tank), the Type 59 has them a bit worse. Still wins out on aiming time and final accuracy, but if you've played the T-34-3 you kind of know how the Type 59 plays. 

 

Sure, it still has -7 gun depression, which remains a weird stat that makes buffing other parts of the tank difficult. Oh, and the Type does have a frontal plate that can't be penned by a Cromwell.


Edited by Aikl, 30 June 2017 - 08:36 PM.


Aoishi #17 Posted 01 July 2017 - 04:45 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19723 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    03-19-2016

View Postsatakuua, on 30 June 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

I don't think other tanks should be compared to Type 59 as it can still be considered one of a kind.

 

The only thing the type 59 has that can be considered "one of a kind" is being the only premium to be nerfed without compensation

lord_chipmonk #18 Posted 01 July 2017 - 06:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33204 battles
  • 10,195
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View Postscorpiontank1, on 30 June 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

 t34-3 is the worst tier 8 premuim tank in the game without a doubt

 

T-54 prot would disagree...



Dundato #19 Posted 01 July 2017 - 06:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26139 battles
  • 714
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 30 June 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

Poll needs a 3rd option for the 2nd question.

 

this

Alpha_snake #20 Posted 03 July 2017 - 03:58 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6069 battles
  • 25
  • [USAFC] USAFC
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011
There done, a 'none of the above' was put in for those who voted no the first question.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users