ISU-152 HE shell range should be reduced?

We had this ISU for years now. Why is this a problem now? The 2 v 2 players are complaining because Grand offensive strategy of infantry spam only to wait for Tiger isn't working against it?

In 4 v 4 ISU is always a given and also with Elephant so that cancels it each other out. No to mention you have 3 other players to worry about Panther flanks in large game modes.

We had YEARS of fighting the ISU and now someone loses to a skill ISU player to complain about it?

We had this ISU for years now. Why is this a problem now? The 2 v 2 players are complaining because Grand offensive strategy of infantry spam only to wait for Tiger isn't working against it?

In 4 v 4 ISU is always a given and also with Elephant so that cancels it each other out. No to mention you have 3 other players to worry about Panther flanks in large game modes.

We had YEARS of fighting the ISU and now someone loses to a skill ISU player to complain about it?

Yep, pretty much.

We had this ISU for years now. Why is this a problem now? The 2 v 2 players are complaining because Grand offensive strategy of infantry spam only to wait for Tiger isn't working against it?

In 4 v 4 ISU is always a given and also with Elephant so that cancels it each other out. No to mention you have 3 other players to worry about Panther flanks in large game modes.

We had YEARS of fighting the ISU and now someone loses to a skill ISU player to complain about it?

Its because people completely ignore reasonable threads with actual arguments, but absolutely LOVE to drag for 20 pages threads created by angry noobs claiming ridiculous things without replay or even a description of game/situation.

People love to REEEEEE and some people are just waiting for ability to complain about anything and everything and suddenly all of the units these noobs complain become "problematic" despite being perfectly fine, balanced meta units for years with no changes.

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 did claim that "AT performance of the ISU-152 poor vs anything above a PzIV"
(edited since I could find the original post and mistakenly though it was edited. My apologies to any one offended)

I provided that stat that proved that claim false. The AT performance of the ISU-152 is good specially since it will do 120 damage on any target it hits. PLS move on

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.

PLS be more carefully about your claims and accusations.

I did not stretched stats, I provided the TTK of 4 units to demonstrate that they close.

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

Just because 1 unit is vastly OP doesn't mean another isn't.

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.

Yes, I'd say they need nerfs. Jaegar armor has always been one of the be all doctrines and they refuse to nerf it for some reason. Just because something isn't used in 1v1 doesn't mean it isn't ruining 4v4. Former Ele/JT were that exact case and still received nerfs.

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?

ISU AP definitely does deflection damage

You need to check the commander revamp changelogs when you do these searches. For some reason some of the changes that went live from those previews are NOT in the main changelog but they are definitely in the game. You will find the deflection damage change in the December Commander Revamp

Can I ask why you don't play the game anymore? Cause you would know it does deflection pretty easily if you used it once since the change

ISU AP definitely does deflection damage

You need to check the commander revamp changelogs when you do these searches. For some reason some of the changes that went live from those previews are NOT in the main changelog but they are definitely in the game. You will find the deflection damage change in the December Commander Revamp

Can I ask why you don't play the game anymore? Cause you would know it does deflection pretty easily if you used it once since the change

Yep, you have to basically check 2 other threads outside of the normal changelog to see for other changes, mostly focused on doctrinal units.

OR you can also check on the coh2db site.

TBH, if you don't play teamgames, you won't see ISU152 at all. And ideally you would never want to use it on AT 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.

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.

I don't actually recall any complaints about the bunker buster being used against AT guns. I think beyond those that would complain even if it was a mirror match up it was generally agreed to be fair game that an AI unit designed to fight infantry and static play excelled against static infantry. The brum nerf came from nowhere.

You did claim that "AT performance of the ISU-152 poor vs anything above a PzIV" (and since have edited your post).

If you are going to accuse someone of sneakily editing a post, at least make sure you that your very next post 20 minutes later didn't quote the original post, which shows that my original posts hasn't been edited. So tho this I say:

PLS be more carefully about your claims and accusations.

I provided that stat that proved that claim false. The AT performance of the ISU-152 is good specially since it will do 120 damage on any target it hits.

You provided a stat in isolation, as you always do, and then claim that that stat alone proves that the ISU is not a poor AT vehicle. Because you know, speed, cost, no turret, the fact that is has to swap ammo mid-fight, that it will face Tigers/Elephants/Jagdtigers/Panthers don't at all factor into the equation. It's all about single stats, by themselves, and pretending that you are proving claims are false.

I did not stretched stats, I provided the TTK of 4 units to demonstrate that they close.

You posted the TTK against mediums (which, you know, a P4 is by the way) to demonstrate that the TDs are really all the same. Which is the most stretching of stats you have done so far. Because not only are you now no longer looking at speed/cost/turret/potential targets, you are now also conveniently leaving penetration out of the picture to claim that, and I quote "the differences in TDs is not that great".

PLS move on

You move on.

You provided a stat in isolation, as you always do, and then claim that that stat alone proves that the ISU is not a poor AT vehicle. Because you know, speed, cost, no turret, the fact that is has to swap ammo mid-fight, that it will face Tigers/Elephants/Jagdtigers/Panthers don't at all factor into the equation. It's all about single stats, by themselves, and pretending that you are proving claims are false.

You posted the TTK against mediums (which, you know, a P4 is by the way) to demonstrate that the TDs are really all the same. Which is the most stretching of stats you have done so far. Because not only are you now no longer looking at speed/cost/turret/potential targets, you are now also conveniently leaving penetration out of the picture to claim that, and I quote "the differences in TDs is not that great".

Doomlord has provided evidence that the Elefant and ISU perform somewhat similar against anything lighter than the real heavies. Your only response was that the King Tiger has been neglected.

I also do not fully agree with the four units that Vipper has chosen (the Panther is a quite different unit to the others and even the SU85 is a bit off), but you are wrong on the part that this is a "single stat". It's three stats combined: Penetration, ROF and damage.

Looking at the ISUs penetration, the only units against which it struggles are the heavies. JT, Ele, Tiger, KT. But still then it does deflection damage, which kind of offsets this a bit (Range 70 shot against Tiger penetrates with 2/3 chance for full damage and 1/3 for deflection damage. Alternatively, if we correct for the deflection damage it would perform as a 83% natural penetration at range 70. This is not super reliable, but quite decent). The Ele does not struggle against heavies, it just penetrates everything. But then again that's the trade off for not having HE rounds.

If you are going to accuse someone of sneakily editing a post, at least make sure you that your very next post 20 minutes later didn't quote the original post, which shows that my original posts hasn't been edited. So tho this I say:






You provided a stat in isolation, as you always do, and then claim that that stat alone proves that the ISU is not a poor AT vehicle. Because you know, speed, cost, no turret, the fact that is has to swap ammo mid-fight, that it will face Tigers/Elephants/Jagdtigers/Panthers don't at all factor into the equation. It's all about single stats, by themselves, and pretending that you are proving claims are false.



You posted the TTK against mediums (which, you know, a P4 is by the way) to demonstrate that the TDs are really all the same. Which is the most stretching of stats you have done so far. Because not only are you now no longer looking at speed/cost/turret/potential targets, you are now also conveniently leaving penetration out of the picture to claim that, and I quote "the differences in TDs is not that great".



You move on.

I have simply provided TTK as suggested by elchino7

At that point, u might as well be talking about TTK.

and actually said that TTK of these vehicles is quite close ( and when it comes to TTK most of the other stats are irrelevant).

I have provided the relevant stat and you started a conspiracy theory about how I stretch stat to create the wrong impressions. That is simply BS. PLS give it rest.

TBH, if you don't play teamgames, you won't see ISU152 at all. And ideally you would never want to use it on AT mode.

That's totally fair, it's just that I'm pretty sure Kat literally doesn't play anymore hence my question. And that December revamp was from 2017, it's not exactly a recent change

Yep, you have to basically check 2 other threads outside of the normal changelog to see for other changes, mostly focused on doctrinal units.

OR you can also check on the coh2db site.

TBH, if you don't play teamgames, you won't see ISU152 at all. And ideally you would never want to use it on AT mode.

It only works okay in HE mode, ideally with a ZIS, SU85, 1-2 Cons and one squad of Guards around it. The rotation and speed are too slow for it to be decent AT. Somehow, the people that are complaining about the ISU think it not having a turret isn't a big deal, while at the same time they claim the JP4 is garbage because it doesn't.

I've had pretty mixed results with it. Against 100 level players, it gets stalemated a lot by heavy TD's. Against 1000 level players, I sometimes get over 100 kills with it.

In AT mode, it's a worse SU85 that costs nearly twice as much.

It only works okay in HE mode, ideally with a ZIS, SU85, 1-2 Cons and one squad of Guards around it. The rotation and speed are too slow for it to be decent AT. Somehow, the people that are complaining about the ISU think it not having a turret isn't a big deal, while at the same time they claim the JP4 is garbage because it doesn't.

I've had pretty mixed results with it. Against 100 level players, it gets stalemated a lot by heavy TD's. Against 1000 level players, I sometimes get over 100 kills with it.

In AT mode, it's a worse SU85 that costs nearly twice as much.

Than just remove the At mode. the commanders are strong enough without *special soviet snowflake* abilities

Its not only that this unit fuks everthing in turbo mode noooo. it just come with counters to its counters.... like is its not easy enough to win with stock SU ... but with this overperforming piece...

so after the Tiger nerfs we will see this thing in every 2vs2 game ... yeah!

Than just remove the At mode. the commanders are strong enough without *special soviet snowflake* abilities

Its not only that this unit fuks everthing in turbo mode noooo. it just come with counters to its counters.... like is its not easy enough to win with stock SU ... but with this overperforming piece...

so after the Tiger nerfs we will see this thing in every 2vs2 game ... yeah!

The AP shell is there because as an AI only unit it won't be worth the price. We know this because it USED to be an AI only unit. Perhaps we should give volks shrieks again, and make the bofors delete infantry instantly, pios with insane DPS and all the other things in the "It doesn't work but someone is going to suggest it again anyways" bin.


On the topic of NOT already failed suggestions my input:

The isu is in need of a look, as when it was put in its current state the Panther had a whack more armour. I'd reduce the deflection damage a bit and lower the pen to 180 at far (which is plenty enough to pen the ost p4 at all ranges)
But ultimately a 260fu AI only unit would HAVE Tobe OP. it needs to have some serviceable AT in order to justify its price and it needs to have a high price or its would be a no brainer. It doesn't need an overhaul it just needs tweaked back in line after certain units were changed.

I have simply provided TTK as suggested by elchino7


and actually said that TTK of these vehicles is quite close ( and when it comes to TTK most of the other stats are irrelevant).

I have provided the relevant stat and you started a conspiracy theory about how I stretch stat to create the wrong impressions. That is simply BS. PLS give it rest.

You're making the same argument as before with allied TDs, claiming it's "close" and therefore "problematic". Eg your lumping Jackson in with FF and SU85.

ISU AT is fine, it needs some form of AT ability.

You're making the same argument as before with allied TDs, claiming it's "close" and therefore "problematic". Eg your lumping Jackson in with FF and SU85.

ISU AT is fine, it needs some form of AT ability.

simply see what unit I have included neither M36 nor FF where included.

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

Dunno for the elefant but JT can deal with infantry, quite well in fact. I had couple of infantry squads 2 shots by JT