ISU-152 HE shell range should be reduced?

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

ISU changes, in any form, are very unlikely to make it into the current test patch, so they need to discussed around the state of the game after the current 'patch-in-testing' is released, not before it.

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

All of those units had the ability to fight ATGs head on, and all of them were nerfed because of it; that's the reason they're comparable..

As for the downtime between shots; then what of the SturmTiger? Can we buff it to 60 or 70 range? It's reload is much longer, it's manually fired, manually reloaded, it has an obvious wind up animation, it's doc-locked (in one, pretty bad doc), it's incredibly expensive, and it can't even directly target units. The larger AoE/Damage should be justifiable by the lower RoF and increased user input required. Or can we make the SturmTiger an ISU clone? Less AoE/Damage, but 70 range and auto-firing every 10 seconds - this might even make the ST usable.

I think both of those are completely unreasonable options, but maybe they're fine.

No, the reason I didn't mention reload or switching is because it doesn't matter. The ISU is such a 'set and forget' unit, and its effect is so powerful, that the reload/switch time isn't really a down-side. A single shot either instantly wipes, or forces a retreat, of almost every single OST infantry unit. If the shell was incredibly slow and required manually aiming (similar to the brummbar), then I could see this being a valid argument; but it's not.

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

By the time the ISU shows up, you'll likely have a lot of AT available; either in the form of other tanks/TDs, or ATGs, or infantry squads (penals, etc.). In most 2v2 games, that's how the ISU is used. It requires incredibly little user input for absurd results.

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

So why can't Elefants and Jagdtigers blow up Infantry too?

So why can't Elefants and Jagdtigers blow up Infantry too?

Because an Elephant crewman wrote about how shooting at infantry with the Elephant's main gun was basically impossible, like trying to smash a tiny ant 1km away with a high velocity round.

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.

I already know it's better, but the Tiger has a turret, faster rate of fire, doesn't have to switch shells, etc, etc.

Ultimately, this entire thread is a waste of electrons and time. Reducing the shell range is a bad idea that none of the elite players want and the balance team wouldn't consider. If they really thought it was OP, it would get an AOE adjustment like all of the other heavies.

Because an Elephant crewman wrote about how shooting at infantry with the Elephant's main gun was basically impossible, like trying to smash a tiny ant 1km away with a high velocity round.

We really don't want to get into the "historical information" situation. If we start accepting that, then the Sturmtiger should out-range the ISU-152's AP shell by over 66%.

The ML-20s firing the 'BR-540' APHE shell had 4,000m of range.
The 'Raketen Sprenggranate 4581' (ST's HE shell) had a range up to 6,650m.

A SturmTiger with 115 range would be... interesting.

/edit

Additionally, the Churchill AVRE only had 91m of range, and had to be reloaded from outside the tank. Realistically, the ST's old "decrew when hit during reload" should be applied to the AVRE.

Because an Elephant crewman wrote about how shooting at infantry with the Elephant's main gun was basically impossible, like trying to smash a tiny ant 1km away with a high velocity round.

Although "realism" argument hold little merit the 88 gun was a very capably gun.

It actually could be fired with timer to explode mid air above enemy troops with devastating effects.

The Elephant where used in real life both against vehicles and against enemy strong points.

Although "realism" argument hold little merit the 88 gun was a very capably gun.

It actually could be fired with timer to explode mid air above enemy troops with devastating effects.

The Elephant where used in real life where used both against vehicles and against enemy strong points.

I guess one of the biggest shocks of new players is that some tanks shoot their cannons at infantry and nothing happens.

"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.

Were you living under a rock last 2 years?
There are no generalizations of units for units that are a class of its own, these are some of the most specialized units and they have to keep their identity to be functional.

The balance isn't generalizing anything that doesn't have its own unit group, closest unit to ISU is KV-2 and guess what? KV-2 1-2 shoots infantry squads and ATGs from long range too and it does it more frequently(higher RoF in arty mode, lower scatter, meaning better accuracy vs inf).

Units are balanced at individual basis for years now and ISU was balanced years ago, even before JT and Ele lost their 2-shoot med potential. There comes a time in game where you need to accept that 260 fuel investment is going to roll over your 240mp generalist infantry and you'll have to engage properly with panthers.

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

Say what?
There is no allied unit in the whole game that can bounce elephant and it fires faster then ISU, dealing greater damage.

ISU can bounce off OKW P4.

What your "excellent AT power" argument comes from? Shooting at kubels AI just won't stop making?

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

"Excellent" really? Then what is the Elephants AT power? Godlike? The ISU-152's AT power isn't excellent. It's poor at best against anything heavier than a P4.

"Excellent" really? Then what is the Elephants AT power? Godlike? The ISU-152's AT power isn't excellent. It's poor at best against anything heavier than a P4.

That is incorrect the ISU-152 does not have "poor" at capabilities.

The penetration values comparable to the Panther and it will do 120 deflection damage even if it does not penetrate.

The chance to Penetrate a Panther at range 70 is around 77%.

On top of that the kill shot has 400/350/300 penetration.

On one hand i could see merit on reducing range to 60 on HE shells so it gets shot back by AT guns. On the other, i think that's one of the reasons you go for that unit. If you only need an infantry killer you get an IS2 or anything else.

It has AT performance but it's inferior to an Su85 due to RoF. You don't get an ISU152 because you need an AT unit.

ISU changes, in any form, are very unlikely to make it into the current test patch, so they need to discussed around the state of the game after the current 'patch-in-testing' is released, not before it.

If you're of the opinion that the ISU is currently so OP that you need to reduce its range by 20-25, then it makes sense to talk about compared to the OP performance of those units. The ISU has far more balancing around its ability to wipe infantry than the live Tiger does

All of those units had the ability to fight ATGs head on, and all of them were nerfed because of it; that's the reason they're comparable..

In heavy tank cases it was that ability, IN ADDITION to dominating every vehicle on the field besides TDs. In the brumbarr case, I will say again, it is much much cheaper, and doesn't require 14 cps

You specifically get the ISU to engage support weapons and infantry at range. That's literally the reason you buy it. I don't know why you keep trying to explain what it does

As for the downtime between shots; then what of the SturmTiger? Can we buff it to 60 or 70 range? It's reload is much longer, it's manually fired, manually reloaded, it has an obvious wind up animation, it's doc-locked (in one, pretty bad doc), it's incredibly expensive, and it can't even directly target units. The larger AoE/Damage should be justifiable by the lower RoF and increased user input required. Or can we make the SturmTiger an ISU clone? Less AoE/Damage, but 70 range and auto-firing every 10 seconds - this might even make the ST usable.

I think both of those are completely unreasonable options, but maybe they're fine.

Make a thread about the Sturmtiger. What on Earth does this have to do with the ISU? Have I come out and said I am totally fine with how much the ST has been nerfed? Nope. Not really. Why are you turning this into a "why doesnt this faction get anything like it" argument? I don't know, because Relic decided it. USF doesnt have a heavy assault gun of any kind, AT or AI

No, the reason I didn't mention reload or switching is because it doesn't matter. The ISU is such a 'set and forget' unit, and its effect is so powerful, that the reload/switch time isn't really a down-side. A single shot either instantly wipes, or forces a retreat, of almost every single OST infantry unit. If the shell was incredibly slow and required manually aiming (similar to the brummbar), then I could see this being a valid argument; but it's not.

It is totally a valid argument now you're just not making any sense at all. Reload time is irrelevant? Its reload time literally means it has worse AT power than an SU85, a unit that is more than 100 fuel cheaper....

The ISU will only 1-shot a squad in the same scenario that many tanks can 1-shot: if the squad is clumped up awkwardly because its moving around cover or something. It will usually take at least 2 shots, the second of which you have plenty of time to react to

Btw I specifically just told you I supported increase brumbarr shell speed

By the time the ISU shows up, you'll likely have a lot of AT available; either in the form of other tanks/TDs, or ATGs, or infantry squads (penals, etc.). In most 2v2 games, that's how the ISU is used. It requires incredibly little user input for absurd results.

All heavy assault guns are used that way. The elefant and JagD trade having no AI power (minus JagDs muni ability) for being much much better at killing tanks. They don't require much micro either, that's also how these units are used

You will have fewer of them if you invest the fuel in an ISU... OR your ISU will be arriving very late if you decide do get tanks and TDs

...
It is totally a valid argument now you're just not making any sense at all. Reload time is irrelevant? It literally has worse AT power than an SU85, both in dps and chance to penetrate (especially if su85 vets up) The reload time is absolutely a factor
...

Taking into account only reload is simply misleading.

ISU-152 can kill a medium with 3 shots (2 reloads) while SU-85 need 4 shots (3 reloads).

The difference is lower than the ROF indicates.

And SU-85 probably has one of the top guns in game.

Taking into account only reload is simply misleading.

ISU-152 can kill a medium with 3 shots (2 reload) while SU-85 need 4 shots (reload).

The difference is lower than the ROF indicates.

No one is only taking reload in account, but saying it "doesn't matter at all" is just ridiculous

"Only" comparing the difference against mediums is also misleading. ISU gets no penetration bonuses with vet, SU85 does.

Because an Elephant crewman wrote about how shooting at infantry with the Elephant's main gun was basically impossible, like trying to smash a tiny ant 1km away with a high velocity round.

I've also read about it. But we're playing an arcade version of ww2 where people with smgs miss 50x at point blank range.

Were you living under a rock last 2 years?
There are no generalizations of units for units that are a class of its own, these are some of the most specialized units and they have to keep their identity to be functional.

The balance isn't generalizing anything that doesn't have its own unit group, closest unit to ISU is KV-2 and guess what? KV-2 1-2 shoots infantry squads and ATGs from long range too and it does it more frequently(higher RoF in arty mode, lower scatter, meaning better accuracy vs inf).

Units are balanced at individual basis for years now and ISU was balanced years ago, even before JT and Ele lost their 2-shoot med potential. There comes a time in game where you need to accept that 260 fuel investment is going to roll over your 240mp generalist infantry and you'll have to engage properly with panthers.

There are no units in a "class of their own". Every single unit in the game has a counterpart on the opposite 'side' that is similar, if not identical, in role. It's 'power level' might be different, as could its cost, but there are counterparts.

ISU/JT/Ele
KV2/Brummbar
SturmTiger/AVRE
Tiger/Pershing/IS2/KT
STUG-E/M8A1 Scott

Further more, you completely missed:

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

Say what?
There is no allied unit in the whole game that can bounce elephant and it fires faster then ISU, dealing greater damage.

ISU can bounce off OKW P4.

What your "excellent AT power" argument comes from? Shooting at kubels AI just won't stop making?

"Excellent" really? Then what is the Elephants AT power? Godlike? The ISU-152's AT power isn't excellent. It's poor at best against anything heavier than a P4.

See Vipper's post. The AT power, when using AP shells, its actually quite good. It's not as good as a JT/Ele, but that's because those two units can only deal with vehicles, whereas the ISU can actually do damage to infantry.

Let's compare the ISU and Ele, against the toughest non-doc targets they can face, and at max range.

At 70 range, the ISU has 200 pen, and deals 240dmg, with deflection 120dmg. It has an average RoF of 10.26s. The toughest non-doc Axis vehicle is the panther, with 260 armor and 960hp.

This gives it a 77% chance to pen (and deal 240dmg), and a 23% chance to bounce and still deal 120dmg. That means, on average, it deals (185+27.6) 212.6dmg per shot. That works out to 4.5 shots (i.e. 5) to destroy a panther, which means 4 reloads, meaning 41s on average.

At 70 range, the Ele has 360 pen, deals 300dmg, with 0 deflection damage. It has an RoF of 8.76s. The toughest non-doc Allied vehicle is the Churchill, with 240 armor and 1400hp.

This gives the ele a 100% chance to pen (and deal 300dmg). That works out to 4.66 shots (i.e 5) to destroy a Churchill, which means 4 reloads, meaning 35.04s.

41/35.04 = 17%

So the Elefant is 17% better than the ISU against the heaviest targets they can face.


Against mediums?

An M4A3 Sherman has 160 armor and 640hp. That gives the ele a 100% chance to pen, meaning 3 shots, or 2 reloads; so 17.52s.

An Ost P4 has 180 armor and 640hp. That gives the ISU a 100% chance to pen, meaning 3 shots, or 2 reloads; so 20.52s.

20.52/17.52 = 17%

So the Elefant is 17% better than the ISU against an average medium tank.


I'll trade that 17% AT power for the ability to 1-shot squads.

I'll trade that 17% AT power for the ability to 1-shot squads.

It doesn't 1 shot squads under any normal circumstances. If the squad is clumped, maybe. But lots of units can wipe under those circumstances

Under any normal circumstances, it will take 2 shots, hence the importance of the reload time

Be fair, ISU has too much range. Reduce it by ~5-8 ingame-meters.

Edit: Why Brummbär got less range? It is the same, ISU is OP, and there is no counter-argument.

Edit: Or simply remome all other stuff on commanders, which are too potential in cooperation. So no weak-point etc.

-> In my opinon also Elefant commander shouldn't have scopes. e.g.

It doesn't 1 shot squads under any normal circumstances. If the squad is clumped, maybe. But lots of units can wipe under those circumstances

Under any normal circumstances, it will take 2 shots, hence the importance of the reload time

It's "1-shot" radius is 1.01; and grens have a horribly tendency to 'blob' together in cover.

Regardless, let's image a "best case" scenario, where the shell only lands perfectly on one model. The squad is now at 3 models. However, the 2nd closest model was likely in the "mid" damage range, so it took 56 damage, and the other 2 models were likely in the "far" damage range, so they took. 32.

That leaves 1 model with 24hp, and two with 48hp: for a total of 120hp - or 37.5%. That squad is now forced to retreat, and wait a lengthy period of time to heal (not to mention, paying ~30mp). To remove that entire squad from combat, all the Sov player had to do was have the ISU within 70 range.

There simply aren't (and shouldn't) be any units with that level of performance for zero user input. It's the same argument as with the M8A1 scott and Pack-Howitzer. The Brummbar actually has it right in that the player needs to manually target the shell, and be within AT range, to do anything.

It's "1-shot" radius is 1.01; and grens have a horribly tendency to 'blob' together in cover.

Regardless, let's image a "best case" scenario, where the shell only lands perfectly on one model. The squad is now at 3 models. However, the 2nd closest model was likely in the "mid" damage range, so it took 56 damage, and the other 2 models were likely in the "far" damage range, so they took. 32.

That leaves 1 model with 24hp, and two with 48hp: for a total of 120hp - or 37.5%. That squad is now forced to retreat, and wait a lengthy period of time to heal (not to mention, paying ~30mp). To remove that entire squad from combat, all the Sov player had to do was have the ISU within 70 range.

"All they had to do" was set there 14 CP, 720mp 260fu unit to a mode where it cant damage most tanks

Edit: Elchinos test show that the 1 shot of clumped squads is not "common" at all. Even 2 shotting wasn't that common against grens

There simply aren't (and shouldn't) be any units with that level of performance for zero user input. It's the same argument as with the M8A1 scott and Pack-Howitzer. The Brummbar actually has it right in that the player needs to manually target the shell, and be within AT range, to do anything.

Its not zero user input. You have to switch the shells and spot for the tank. You have to protect it from flanks with whatever else you have left, it takes up a lot of pop and resources

This is the exact reason you will never see one in 1v1. It only gets used in team games, nerf it more and we won't see it in any game modes