Because their side armor is indeed no weakness.
90 pts T-80
armour: 8 Front / 4 Side / 2 Top / 2 Rear
100 pts AMX-32
armour: 5 Front / 2 Side / 2 Top / 1 Rear
The AMX-32 may have more accurate gun, but that's offset by T-80's higher firing rate.
The AMX-32 may have an autocannon, but that's overly offset by its weak armour.
So why is the AMX-32 more expensive?
I think the price of the base T-80 is fine, but some other "medium tanks", (e.g. T72B, KPz 70, AMX-32) are too costly.
Cool let's bump the T80s accuracy to 7 , frontal armour to 9 and give it a good stabiliser then.
We'll need to give the T80 A and B ( should get 9 armour too) higher accuracy and good stabilisers.
Also T72B is 120 points to match Leo 2 we'll need a accuracy bump to 7 and increased armour to 9 and a good stabiliser.
Balancing like a boss, a Kruger/Dunning boss.
+ ATMG's to Leo's. Same units stats for all actions, just different skins. Boring mirror balancing FTW!!!
Fear Me wrote:
+1 It doesn't need anything. It misses... a lot.
Speaking of missing a lot. Is the inaccuracy of all the T-72 models within 40 - 60 pts price range based on something from real life? I mean they're significantly less accurate than every T-55, T-62 and T-64 variant within that price range.
Or is it purely for balance purposes? I had a round using T-72's and it was frustrating watching them miss most of the time, I think no other tank misses as much. But that's OK, variety is good so long as it's balanced by other stats. Personally I find T-62's and T-64's to be more useful, though. What are your thoughts on this, anyone?