ISU-152 HE shell range should be reduced?

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:






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.

What kinda bias assed analysis is this? Using THE absolute most durable unit in the entire game as a baseline for one faction and not even the axos' most durable unit into account for the other? (the KT is the axis most durable stock unit) To give an accurate picture (which you clearly elected not to) one would use similar targets OR the high end for both factions. Ideally both. One might use the KT as an example counter to the churchill, not a Panther that has SIGNIFICANTLY less health (and still the elefant comes out 17% better? Dealing with an entire medium tank worth of health extra? Can you get more biased?)

Yoi neglected to include the elefant is GUARANTEED to deal more damage (more than 2x as much on an isu bounce) AND does it faster.
Against a medium tank both elefant and isu take 3 hits to kill, but the elefant does them quicker.
Against a premium medium (Panther, comet, t-34/85 ect) the isu needs 4shots or more as it's not guaranteed to pen
The elefant needs only 3 and is guaranteed to pen against all targets.

The fact that an elefant can kill a churchill faster than an isu can kill a Panther means an elefant could literally kill 2 tanks in the time it takes an isu to kill one. That's a fuck lot better than 17% and you damn well know it.

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.

Are you intentionally leaving out the King Tiger in your analysis to make the ISU-152 look better than it is?

Edit: I have to say, and this relates to multiple posts in multiple topics, the obsession with isolated unit stats by some posters is getting really tedious. Everyone knows thats OST T4 isn't up to snuff and needs buffs, yet when suits the axis/allies agenda, suddenly OST T4 will be used as the benchmark to which all others should be balanced. Likewise, everone knows the Elephants AT power blows the ISU out of the water, yet people will throw meaningless stats around like the TTK of the elephant vs Churchill to make it look as if the Elephant and the ISU are really just slightly different. In other topics, tests are performed in vacumes with absolutely no regards to a units micro-potential or mobility and used as proof that X is OP or Y is UP. It's just silly.

Is the ISU good? Unboubtly. It's being used a lot in team games after all. Is it too good? Well, if it was, a map like Rails and Metal would be dominated by it - yet Rails and Metal has been a meme since forever in that it favors axis.

If you want to decide what is too good and which units needs help, the meta and winrates are the best we've got. What strategies are used and how often do they win and on which maps? Those stats are more meaningful than comparing the gun of unit X with the gun of unit Y.

The differences in TDs are actually not that great:

TTK vs a mediums is:
ISU-152 21.79
Panther 19.95
Elefant 17.14
SU-85 16.95

The differences in TDs are actually not that great:

TTK vs a mediums is:
ISU-152 21.79
Panther 19.95
Elefant 17.14
SU-85 16.95

And here we go again...

TDs are compared with literally 1 stat, with absolutely no regard to what targets they will most likely encounter in matches, or their mobility or anything else. and the conclusion is drawn that there really isn't that much difference between the TDs at all.

And here we go again...

Actually here you go again

TDs are compared with literally 1 stat, with absolutely no regard to what targets they will most likely encounter in matches, or their mobility or anything else. and the conclusion is drawn that there really isn't that much difference between the TDs at all.

I have simply provided the stat that prove that when it comes to their guns vs mediums the ISU-152 is close to Panther and Elefant close to SU-85.

Saying that when it comes to AT Elephant is "godlike" and ISU-152 "poor" is not support by those stats.

And I can provide you that stats for any unit you want to compare.

I find it odd that the doctrine that has probably a 70% pick rate in 3v3+ has people saying it's completely fine for either side. If the doctrine is causing issues, nerf it.

Surely if it's OP we would see it a lot in 2vs2, it gets use but not as much as IS-2

I find it odd that the doctrine that has probably a 70% pick rate in 3v3+ has people saying it's completely fine for either side. If the doctrine is causing issues, nerf it.

In 100% of 4v4 RT games you have Ele and/or JT present.
Does that mean doctrines with them need nerfs or they specifically need nerfs, because they are overrepresented there compared to other doctrines?

Different doctrines work for different game modes and will have different pick rates across these game modes.
It just means different game modes require different approaches. It doesn't mean everything that's popular always needs to be nerfed.

And here we go again...

TDs are compared with literally 1 stat, with absolutely no regard to what targets they will most likely encounter in matches, or their mobility or anything else. and the conclusion is drawn that there really isn't that much difference between the TDs at all.

ISU and Elefant are both 70 range, casemate, poor mobility (ISU has a little better speed). And if ISU has AT rounds they are basically heavy TDs. It's as close as you can get in a vehicle class that is highly diverse.

These two units in their role as TDs are then compared doing their job vs some common targets and also in one of the most meaningful stats - the time to kill. If this is not enough to compare these two units then you can't compare any unit in CoH at all. Sherman and P4? Nope, impossible, Sherman functions a bit different. Ost P4 and OKW P4? Nope, OKW P4 comes with higher stock armor, also the gun is slightly different...

Instead of dismissing any comparison as useless, elaborate why you think that comparing the performance of these TDs versus mediums and semi-heavy tanks is not alright and explain which comparison you think fits best or why a comparison can not be made at all.

At 70 range, the ISU has 200 pen, and deals 240dmg, with deflection 120dmg.

ISU HE rounds have 40 deflection damage.
ISU AP rounds have 0 deflection damage.
KV-2 has 50% deflection dmg.

I will say there is a double standard in people saying ISU engaging AT guns so they can't fire back is OP but apparently brumbar doing the same with bunker buster is fine. Usual suspects as always.

My outlook is that this is not really an issue (plenty of heavies like croc bully ATguns and they should, double PAK shouldn't counter everything.)

But ISU armor could be a little lower so meds bully it a bit more. 70 range is protection enough.

...and with this we should be done here, nothing left but pointless name calling....

PS - I just lost a 2v2 because my teammate went ISU and the other team didn't listen to you geniuses that consider the ISU uncounterable. Infernoshat put a Panther in front of it, started hitting it with two paks, pushed it back to the edge of our base, and wiped my teammates entire infantry with a skill plane while killing the ISU. I really wish he would've just dropped when he saw the mighty ISU.

l2p issue

Actually here you go again


I have simply provided the stat that prove that when it comes to their guns vs mediums the ISU-152 is close to Panther and Elefant close to SU-85.

Saying that when it comes to AT Elephant is "godlike" and ISU-152 "poor" is not support by those stats.

And I can provide you that stats for any unit you want to compare.

No, here you go again.
I didn't call the Elephant godlike. I asked if Doomlord considered the Elephants AT power as godlike since he considers the ISUs AT power to be excellent. Which was of course a rhetorical question meant to redicule his position. You know this of course.

You on the other hand actually called the performance of 4 TDs almost the same, then took a cherry-picked stat which only shows maybe 20% of the picture, and called it 'proof' that "the differences in TDs is not that great". You are stretching stats to prove points that the don't prove.

what is difficult in balancing the isu152 is because ther is no other vehicle quite like it, closest id say is elephant because of the cost, timing, hp/armour etc.

elefant - excels in AT but no ai
isu152 - Decent AT but excels in AI

if isu152 maintains strong AI, then nerf its AT or remove AT shell and make it reliant entirely on AT support, similar to how ele relies on entirely on AI support

what is difficult in balancing the isu152 is because ther is no other vehicle quite like it, closest id say is elephant because of the cost, timing, hp/armour etc.

elefant - excels in AT but no ai
isu152 - Decent AT but excels in AI

if isu152 maintains strong AI, then nerf its AT or remove AT shell and make it reliant entirely on AT support, similar to how ele relies on entirely on AI support

Actually, closest to ISU is KV-2, both are breakthrough, primarily AI defense line wreckers with average AT and very low RoF(KV-2 has low rof in tank mode).

ISU can bounce off OKW P4 and that's a medium tank.
Meanwhile there is no allied vehicle in game that Ele can bounce.
AT performance is quite significant here.

We could go KV-2 route with just 1 round, low pen and high deflection damage, but then again, why would you go ISU over cheaper and more reliable KV-2 that can do the same things ISU can, but fires almost twice as fast and more accurately in arty mode?

I will say there is a double standard in people saying ISU engaging AT guns so they can't fire back is OP but apparently brumbar doing the same with bunker buster is fine. Usual suspects as always.

Can't agree here. Brumbar has the range that requires it to be in range of all AT solutions (including handheld inf AT stuff and very close to being snared) to work and is much more micro intensive because you must attack ground with it as without it, it will shoot at the closest model and will usually miss when the units are moving (basically you must predict where the opponent's unit will be in a second or two). The player controlling the Brum must simply have much higher micro input than the player controlling 60-70 tank destroyers, or HE shermans. The bunker buster ability can be activated only after vet 1 as a bonus (I still can't understand why ZiS can't work this way) and still requires a lot of micro to make it work. It also has cool down so can be used similarly to arty barrages. What you basically have here is the problem that has never been addressed - axis players (especially ost) need to make super micro effort to kill stuff with units such as Brum and are much more vulnerable in the process because of inferior range. On the other hand, allied TDs and ISU can park safely behind and deal damage without much player input. What is especially controversial with ISU or ZiS is the fact that for their price they can deal effectively with both armour and infantry and do it from very far. The relatively tiny differences between AT guns stats or armour piercing abilities are simply much less significant than what people believe. The volume of concentrated fire hitting units that are flanking or just closing in to be in their effective range is much higher and the ability of ISU and ZiS to deal very well with both infantry and armour threat makes it imbalanced. What I would call double standard here, is not admitting that is just better to sit back and relax and make the opponent come at you plus have the ability to reliably deal with both armour or infantry (at a price of units that can deal with only one threat type).

My outlook is that this is not really an issue (plenty of heavies like croc bully ATguns and they should, double PAK shouldn't counter everything.)

But ISU armour could be a little lower so meds bully it a bit more. 70 range is protection enough.

Double pack can't always reliably penetrate very heavy tanks (Churchill, ISU, IS-2). You should remember that it is 640 manpower investment that has to setup in correct position and there are only 4 models crewing them. You can delete them with infantry and indirect weapons or even with ZiS or with ISU from behind their range. What you are suggesting is just horrible game mechanics that makes the AT guns not work not only against infantry and indirect weapons but also against armour. You just want no micro solution to all. Such things ruin this game imo.

I also think that a far ranged unit that has to be rushed shouldn't have such heavy armour or simply should be ridiculously more expensive.

ISU HE rounds have 40 deflection damage.
ISU AP rounds have 0 deflection damage.
KV-2 has 50% deflection dmg.

The information is false:
ISU HE rounds have 40 deflection damage.
ISU AP rounds have 120 deflection damage. (50%)
ISU skill shot 80 deflection damage.(30%)
KV-2 direct 120 deflection damage (50%).
KV-2 indirect 120 deflection damage (50%)

The information is false:
ISU HE rounds have 40 deflection damage.
ISU AP rounds have 120 deflection damage. (50%)
ISU skill shot 80 deflection damage.(30%)
KV-2 direct 120 deflection damage (50%).
KV-2 indirect 120 deflection damage (50%)

Aren't there some stuns involved too?

Aren't there some stuns involved too?

Stun from auto shots have removed for all units as far as I can remember.

The information is false:
ISU HE rounds have 40 deflection damage.
ISU AP rounds have 120 deflection damage. (50%)
ISU skill shot 80 deflection damage.(30%)
KV-2 direct 120 deflection damage (50%).
KV-2 indirect 120 deflection damage (50%)

Last patch mention of ISU AP rounds specifically mentions removing deflection damage, 5 years ago.
There is no further note mentioning anything about AP rounds or their pen.

Care to post a patch note saying it was re-introduced?

Last patch mention of ISU AP rounds specifically mentions removing deflection damage, 5 years ago.
There is no further note mentioning anything about AP rounds or their pen.

Care to post a patch note saying it was re-introduced?

Why don't you simply test in cheat mode