ISU-152 HE shell range should be reduced?

The fact that ISU is meta in team games should say something. While it counters AT guns, it counters infantry as well. Same with ele+scope. Just stand near VP watch your flanks and win games. I've seen enough games where units like this single-handedly carried games, not meantioning the diversity of good abilities that doctrines with such assault guns have.
Just take a look at KV-2. The docs which have it are pretty one sided and lack diverse measures. But for some reasons docs with Ele and ISU are op af.

I think either docs, or unit themselves need to be nerfed, or reworked. ISU doctrines needs to let go of bombing strike, maybe AOE tweaked a bit to decrease wiping potential and remove a possibility of scope upgrade on elephant.

didn't know jadpanzer had high pen my bad

JgPzIV 200/185/170
Su-85 200/190/180

JgPzIV armour 230
Su-85 armour 140

You're welcome.

The fact that ISU is meta in team games should say something. While it counters AT guns, it counters infantry as well. Same with ele+scope. Just stand near VP watch your flanks and win games. I've seen enough games where units like this single-handedly carried games, not meantioning the diversity of good abilities that doctrines with such assault guns have.
Just take a look at KV-2. The docs which have it are pretty one sided and lack diverse measures. But for some reasons docs with Ele and ISU are op af.

I think either docs, or unit themselves need to be nerfed, or reworked. ISU doctrines needs to let go of bombing strike, maybe AOE tweaked a bit to decrease wiping potential and remove a possibility of scope upgrade on elephant.

How about they also take stuka bombing and recon from elephant doctrine? Should make it fair.

JgPzIV 200/185/170
Su-85 200/190/180

JgPzIV armour 230
Su-85 armour 140

You're welcome.

You number are out of date:
SU-85
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 220

vetted
Penetration near 312
Penetration mid 299
Penetration far 286

You number are out of date:
SU-85
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 220

vetted
Penetration near 312
Penetration mid 299
Penetration far 286

Can you post actual database link? It's hard to find correct.
I remember that was a nice table of all units.

The fact that ISU is meta in team games should say something. While it counters AT guns, it counters infantry as well. Same with ele+scope. Just stand near VP watch your flanks and win games. I've seen enough games where units like this single-handedly carried games, not meantioning the diversity of good abilities that doctrines with such assault guns have.
Just take a look at KV-2. The docs which have it are pretty one sided and lack diverse measures. But for some reasons docs with Ele and ISU are op af.

I think either docs, or unit themselves need to be nerfed, or reworked. ISU doctrines needs to let go of bombing strike, maybe AOE tweaked a bit to decrease wiping potential and remove a possibility of scope upgrade on elephant.

It says that the meta in team games is very different from 1v1 and 2v2, nothing else. A LOT of things suddenly become viable in large games modes while others are basically useless. OST T4 is regularly teched, you sometimes see Soviet M5s with the quad upgrade as anti air, heavy arty positions, PGren Schreck blobs, Ele and Jagdtiger. Otherwise it says nothing, because the game modes are very different in terms of strategy.


To the general discussion
At the moment I'm not sure if these units need a rework. As a tendency I'd say they are mostly fine. Their design fits very well for 2v2 where there are still unprotected areas to flank and still okay-ish for 3v3. 4v4 I don't know, but balancing to 4v4 has already been discussed plenty of times. They obviously become more efficient the less room there is for flanking, but that is a general issue of the game.

Can you post actual database link? It's hard to find correct.
I remember that was a nice table of all units.

yea sure.
Although it it a bit out of date:

https://coh2db.com/stats/

I can only add it has been a glaring problem for years. It is far more effective than other units as it is basically a unit that deletes its counters (just like many other soviet units such as ZiS being able to barrage infantry and support weapons). You can outmaneuver it being a better player and hopefully not get snared or just ouranged. But you simply have to be significantly better to win, especially as ostheer. It is bittersweet to read about how powerful brumbar, panther or tiger or elephant are and, at the same time, the same people don't see anything wrong with things like, ISU, which is a combination of elephant and brumbar with insane range. The same people keep repeatning that it is the axis that have lategame armour advantage, etc. but fail to understand what tournament results show. The level of twisted logics here is just incredible. But I can understand that it was the allies who won the war and that asymetrical balance means that certain factions should be simply better. Why not admit it just openly? ISU has to be better and more cost effective than other units simply because Soviets won the war. It has to outrange all units and fight against factions without proper tank destroyers. It has to be supported by infantry with satchels because regular snares wouldn't be enough. Period.

I can only add it has been a glaring problem for years. It is far more effective than other units as it is basically a unit that deletes its counters (just like many other soviet units such as ZiS being able to barrage infantry and support weapons). You can outmaneuver it being a better player and hopefully not get snared or just ouranged. But you simply have to be significantly better to win, especially as ostheer. It is bittersweet to read about how powerful brumbar, panther or tiger or elephant are and, at the same time, the same people don't see anything wrong with things like, ISU, which is a combination of elephant and brumbar with insane range. The same people keep repeatning that it is the axis that have lategame armour advantage, etc. but fail to understand what tournament results show. The level of twisted logics here is just incredible. But I can understand that it was the allies who won the war and that asymetrical balance means that certain factions should be simply better. Why not admit it just openly? ISU has to be better and more cost effective than other units simply because Soviets won the war. It has to outrange all units and fight against factions without proper tank destroyers. It has to be supported by infantry with satchels because regular snares wouldn't be enough. Period.

Agre with you. ISU-152, Elephant and JgTiger are cancer of team games.
ISU hard counter all infantry (ISU far penetration 200 dont hurt much)
Ele+JgT hard counter all tanks.

If it is problem, lets make ISU clone of Elephant. Or change for Su-100.

Let me tell u guys the broken units in coh2: Soviet At gun (barrage ability) . T34 . T70 . IS 2 . ISU 152 .
if you dont have support from Zeus or odin ,then these units can send your units to spirits world. By the way god bless RNG.

Agre with you. ISU-152, Elephant and JgTiger are cancer of team games.
ISU hard counter all infantry (ISU far penetration 200 dont hurt much)
Ele+JgT hard counter all tanks.

If it is problem, lets make ISU clone of Elephant. Or change for Su-100.

I, personally, wouldn't like to clone stuff. It is all in the price. Such a behemoth should simply be significantly more expensive if it has such range, so much armour and engages infantry AND armour. Same with heavies. If they are so powerful I'd make them much more expensive compared to mediums and the problem would solve itself. It would also lead to cool decisionmaking - do I prefer have like 2-3 mediums or 1 heavy tank? I'd increase the price of all heavies when it comes to manpower at least 100 but wouldn't nerf them. Same goes for ISU. I'd retain its power but make it simply more expensive.

I can only add it has been a glaring problem for years. It is far more effective than other units as it is basically a unit that deletes its counters (just like many other soviet units such as ZiS being able to barrage infantry and support weapons). You can outmaneuver it being a better player and hopefully not get snared or just ouranged. But you simply have to be significantly better to win, especially as ostheer. It is bittersweet to read about how powerful brumbar, panther or tiger or elephant are and, at the same time, the same people don't see anything wrong with things like, ISU, which is a combination of elephant and brumbar with insane range. The same people keep repeatning that it is the axis that have lategame armour advantage, etc. but fail to understand what tournament results show. The level of twisted logics here is just incredible. But I can understand that it was the allies who won the war and that asymetrical balance means that certain factions should be simply better. Why not admit it just openly? ISU has to be better and more cost effective than other units simply because Soviets won the war. It has to outrange all units and fight against factions without proper tank destroyers. It has to be supported by infatry with satchels because regular snares wouldn't be enough. Period.

The people that keep repaeting that axis "should" have the late game advantidge are mostly the axis players.
Those are also the people complaining about the zis that it can dislodge team weapons also selectivly forget that soviets have nothing like bundle or rifle nades or ai upgrade stock for that matter. When pgrens get a good flank on a 6 man team its a very high chance it wont survive. When a penal does the same to a 4 man ost team its odds to escape are better. Not that this is a problem its just how it was intended/balanced out.
The isu is available in much fewer doctrines then a tiger and viable only in big game modes. Panthers are fast and durable enough to threaten it.
The twisted logic you speak of extemds both ways. Isu one shotting and very strong very short range at satchels are bad, teller/and ST (when it hits) one shotting is ok. Demo bad lets give okw a mobile one. Katty wipes single unit its op. Stuka zu fub wipes multyple its fine....

Expensive doctrinal unit may have the wiping potential if you ask me.

The people that keep repaeting that axis "should" have the late game advantidge are mostly the axis players.
Those are also the people complaining about the zis that it can dislodge team weapons also selectivly forget that soviets have nothing like bundle or rifle nades or ai upgrade stock for that matter. When pgrens get a good flank on a 6 man team its a very high chance it wont survive. When a penal does the same to a 4 man ost team its odds to escape are better. Not that this is a problem its just how it was intended/balanced out.
The isu is available in much fewer doctrines then a tiger and viable only in big game modes. Panthers are fast and durable enough to threaten it.
The twisted logic you speak of extemds both ways. Isu one shotting and very strong very short range at satchels are bad, teller/and ST (when it hits) one shotting is ok. Demo bad lets give okw a mobile one. Katty wipes single unit its op. Stuka zu fub wipes multyple its fine....

I agree with the above - yet imo the tourney results show certain things. OST is at a disadvantage and Sov is significantly better overall. I really play all factions and still can't understand how the same people can complain about Brum and don't acknowledge it is a tier 4 unit and very difficult to micromanage and how fragile it is, yet, they are ok with HE shells on a cheap sherman with a turret, now they want to say tiger is OP while they don't see 70 range beast on their side. Sadly, I really think that being blind (even you do it) to things like overperforming soviet ZiS is not helping the game develop (ZiS should be more expensive for what you get imo). And it is the other way around when it comes to tank perception on this forum - many allied players say Axis armor is stronger so they need those longe range tank destroyers while they have stuff like ISU, churchills, KVs etc and they are ok with that. Still they claim that their armour is fragile so 60 range TD for axis is a bad idea. A lot of twisted logics to really incredible lengths. And don't try to say that I'm crying about it. I really think that details add up and it is easier for Soviets to win.

Hang on the ISU does not at all perform better than the live Tiger. I know Tiger is getting spanked by the nerf hammer very soon, but saying ISU is better than all the ones you listed doesn't seem accurate to me

ISU has also recieved plenty of nerfs in its lifespan? The round switching takes 14 seconds, its reload is 9-11 seconds. How many of the units you just listed have that much time where they aren't firing? The scott fires every 3.5 seconds lol

Post Tiger nerf, the ISU-152 is absolutely going to perform better against infantry than any of those units.

The brummbar requires manually firing every shell to hit anything, and even then, usually only wipes a few models. It only has 45 range.
The Tigers(s) can only fire up to 45-50 range (vet), and is getting nerfed severely.
The Scott is frustratingly inconsistent, but will still require several shells to wipe an ATG. And even then, it's useless against tanks, and incredibly squishy.
The KT has a ton of armor, but is incredibly slow, and also limited to 45 range. And like the Tiger, will rarely wipe more than a few models per shot, unless there's horrible clumping.
The Pershing is similar to the Tiger(s), but with less armor and AT power, but more AI.

Meanwhile the ISU-152 has 70 range and an AoE of 6. Against soft targets, it's by far the best AI-vehicle I listed. Setting it to HE and letting it auto-fire is completely viable, something none of the other units can do (except maybe the scott).

At that point you might as well just replace it with a KV-2, which will be much more usefull in every situation.

The ISU-152 would still have excellent AT power, so it's not a KV-2.

What if... now sit tight.... its MEANT to counter ATGs... because you know.... it outranges them?
Its a unit designed to wreck static defence from long range.

Outside of being limited to 1, these units have nothing in common, so using one as example of what should happen to other is void point.

The unit -IS- a sole exception.
Like many other unique units.
All the other units are either stock, much wider available, can't be killed by 1 tank or 1 AT infantry squad getting next/behind them or much more mobile, often a combination of all of the above.

"Sole Exception" isn't a valid argument, otherwise there are a lot of balance issues that would/could never be fixed; it opens the door to arbitrary balance choices.

Falls can keep their PFausts since they're "elite generalists"
OKW's Tiger can keep 'Panzer Commander', because it's a "Command Tiger"
USF's Pershing can keep its high AI power since it's the only doc-locked AI-Focused "Premium Medium".
etc.

These are all unacceptable responses, so why is it fine for the ISU?

As for unit comparisons, you're partly right, in that the other units are more common. So how about the SturmTiger? It's in one doc, only has 45-range, has to manually reload, can be destroyed by pretty much anything that flanks it, has an incredibly obvious wind-up animation, etc... There's a fairly large disparity between these two units, yet buffing the ST is apparently impossible, without making it over-powered.


Also, any examples of these "other unique units"? Specifically ones which counter their traditional counters?

Post Tiger nerf, the ISU-152 is absolutely going to perform better against infantry than any of those units.

I specifically said the live Tiger is better. It's also more expensive than any of those units besides KT, requires 14 cps and t4

The Tigers(s) can only fire up to 45-50 range (vet), and is getting nerfed severely.
The Scott is frustratingly inconsistent, but will still require several shells to wipe an ATG. And even then, it's useless against tanks, and incredibly squishy.
The KT has a ton of armor, but is incredibly slow, and also limited to 45 range. And like the Tiger, will rarely wipe more than a few models per shot, unless there's horrible clumping.
The Pershing is similar to the Tiger(s), but with less armor and AT power, but more AI.

Why are you talking about these units? None of them is really that similar to the ISU. The heavies don't have to wait 14 seconds to switch between fighting infantry and tanks. They also don't have 9-11 second reload times

The downtime between shots and shell switching was the main point in my last post, and you didn't even mention it

Meanwhile the ISU-152 has 70 range and an AoE of 6. Against soft targets, it's by far the best AI-vehicle I listed. Setting it to HE and letting it auto-fire is completely viable, something none of the other units can do (except maybe the scott).

It's completely viable if you have a large chunk of AT supporting it. Of course you can let it sit back and autofire, what else are you supposed to do with it? You can't exactly send it to any spot on the map like a heavy tank, it has to stay where it has plenty of space/vision

Brumbarr has 35 range btw, and I supported buffing its shell speed. But that has nothing to do with the ISU

thats the thing, no they dont need to be tightly packed to get 1 hitted, ive seen fully spread grens squads get consistently wiped in 1-2 hits

Before it was 1-shotted, now it's 1-2? The ISU, Brumbar, IS2, Tiger, and KT all are pretty good at 2-hit wipes. They all get random 1-hit wipes when models stack up while moving around an obstacle. It doesn't mean that any of them need to be radically changed. The ISU is really expensive, and not very good at AT so it really should be good at AI. It's really good if you're ahead and can keep a lot of support around it but if you don't then it can die pretty quickly to a flank.

Its an outdated unit from the times when axis were 2 shotting medium tanks with 100 range elefants, it needs its range reduced so ostheer have a chance of countering it besides a mass panther dive.

Before it was 1-shotted, now it's 1-2? The ISU, Brumbar, IS2, Tiger, and KT all are pretty good at 2-hit wipes. They all get random 1-hit wipes when models stack up while moving around an obstacle. It doesn't mean that any of them need to be radically changed. The ISU is really expensive, and not very good at AT so it really should be good at AI. It's really good if you're ahead and can keep a lot of support around it but if you don't then it can die pretty quickly to a flank.

1 still includes in 1-2 you know. Its not about the 1 shot or 2 shotting squads, its about how consistently it does it. Go ingame, open cheat mod and test all those tanks u've listed and come back and tell me isu152 ai is on the same level then all those tanks youve listed.

Go ingame, open cheat mod and test all those tanks u've listed and come back and tell me isu152 ai is on the same level then all those tanks youve listed.

Why should its AI be on the same level? Its not as good at fighting tanks as regular heavies are, and regular heavies can fight both at the same time

The brumbarr is the only thing on his list that can't fight tanks at all, and its much cheaper and doesn't require 14 CPs