Are T-80Us OP as ****?

[Juanchis]

I just played my first game, so I chose one Medium AI in my team and 2 Easy on the enemy.
I like the T-80, so I was using it a lot, we are talking about 3 platoons, 1 HQ T-80 with 1 BMP-2 and a Tunguska for AA.

Without ANY knowledge of the mechanics, i just got an 61 to 1 KD ratio. Is this working as designed? I mean, I love the game so far, but maybe some stats should be tweaked.

[Vaakalintu]

modern nato tanks are somewhat deadlier precision weapons and unbeatable in bad weather conditions but the modern soviet tanks are a cheaper but still very modern design and fast and well armed even having a combination of missile and gun, likely you used them in their ideal environment as a critical mass

[Soundwolf776]

Top-tier MBTs can indeed reach the 'critical mass' at ~3 platoons + HQ + AA, making it extremely hard for an AI to deal with them unless the player makes obvious mistakes.

AI adjustments and balancing should eventually resolve this.

[Romka94]

But it should be OP, its one of the best tanks in the world in 1989 after all.

[Juanchis]

It would "bounce" the West German ATGM at point blank range, that ATGM has 20 pen vs 17/18 armor in the T-80, i get that it is a top tier tank, but seems like there is something strange here. Does the AI get nerfs at lower dificulties?

[Romka94]

Originally posted by pardinas_82:

It would "bounce" the West German ATGM at point blank range, that ATGM has 20 pen vs 17/18 armor in the T-80, i get that it is a top tier tank, but seems like there is something strange here. Does the AI get nerfs at lower dificulties?

It depends on what penetration values that ATGM had IRL. T-80U IRL HEAT frontal armor is equivalent to around 1000mm IIRC. So we should just check that ATGM characteristics and compare.

[Stardekk]

Originally posted by Romka94:

Originally posted by pardinas_82:

It would "bounce" the West German ATGM at point blank range, that ATGM has 20 pen vs 17/18 armor in the T-80, i get that it is a top tier tank, but seems like there is something strange here. Does the AI get nerfs at lower dificulties?

It depends on what penetration values that ATGM had IRL. T-80U IRL HEAT frontal armor is equivalent to around 1000mm IIRC. So we should just check that ATGM characteristics and compare.

Does are stats in-game though. IRL the only thing that could have penned the T-80U (if it has its Kontakt-5 installed) in terms of HEAT weapons is the Hellfire and the TOW-2A (With the Tandem) at the time.

[Soundwolf776]

T-80U in-game has 20 armor vs HEAT, which means that a 20AP HEAT warhead won't penetrate it very reliably.
Penetration is chance-based, to account for significant variations in LOS armor thickness most tanks have. IIRC the formula, you need a 6AP points advantage to guarantee a penetration.

[CharChar]

The ATGM and high tactical mobility really shine. It does, however, lose to top Abrams/Leopards inside of 2400m if they spot eachother at the same time; the reaction time is a big deal, here.

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by Soundwolf776:

Top-tier MBTs can indeed reach the 'critical mass' at ~3 platoons + HQ + AA, making it extremely hard for an AI to deal with them unless the player makes obvious mistakes.

AI adjustments and balancing should eventually resolve this.

Multiplayer can fix such issues...

[Wiz33]

Save pts and get attack helos and hit them from the side .

[Schwarzer Haufen]

if you look at the time 1989, you would find out why, the leo2a4 was first produced in 1985 which can be penetrated (later tested by german) by 3bm42(1986) which can be fire from the 2a46m maingun of t80u(1985). while its dm33(1987) can only penetrate partial of t80us front hull. so, the result is pretty abvious

[Delta_Assault]

The T-80U was the ultimate Soviet tank in the Cold War, IIRC. Makes sense.

[Kyso4ek]

I know it all boils down to known information or lack thereof.
However m1a1 and m1ip i think should have the same protection and especially only 350mm KE protection in the hull. T80u have around 600 in the hull.
In game they have the same armor of hull :O

[busboy999]

Observation. "Overpowered" is a relative statement. Is it overpowered relative to the actual T-80U in ~1990 reality, or is it "OP" relative to other units in a game? I've never been a fan of "OP" conversations as I've usually found them to be the latter.

There's a difference between realism and game balance. Just because something is replicated in a "realistic" way doesn't mean it is "overpowered." Conversely, a "realistic" unit can, theoretically, also have unintended consequences to game play.

Personally, I always endorse maximum realism. T-80U was a good tank? It should be a good tank in the game. Its still a T-80, with poor side armor and an extra explody auto-loader.

Game designers should of course look at game balance. However, I'm never a fan of "nerfing" (artificially weakening) units in a decently realistic game because the unit performs too well. There are other things you can do to address game balance without making something that was good be less good.

Warfare is about asymmetrical advantage, and good games simulating this will rightly reflect it. If a platform is performing outside is realistic characteristics; by all means fix it. Otherwise, there are other ways to balance games.

[PLNTRXS]

Actually if you face Leo 2(all variants) in demo operation you will notice the same: it is overpowered in defence, especially when entrenched.