Tiger nerf

Let's keep focusing on the tiger's supposed lacking performance instead of comparing assault guns to heavy tanks.

It was said that the Tiger was buggy and could Oneshot squad.

It was said that the Tiger was buggy and could Oneshot squad.

Other heavies were not buggy and they got the exact same nerf, yet no one complains about them being dead.

Again, people grew so used to overpowered tiger, they can't stand a balanced one, screaming to overpower it again, because they forgot how a balanced one is supposed to look like.

Its AT is superior.
Its AI is still better then IS-2 and worse then Pershing, its exactly where its supposed to be performance wise compared to other 2, its not going to get brummbar-like performance again and people can't accept that.

Other heavies were not buggy and they got the exact same nerf, yet no one complains about them being dead.

Again, people grew so used to overpowered tiger, they can't stand a balanced one, screaming to overpower it again, because they forgot how a balanced one is supposed to look like.

Its AT is superior.
Its AI is still better then IS-2 and worse then Pershing, its exactly where its supposed to be performance wise compared to other 2, its not going to get brummbar-like performance again and people can't accept that.

SOV has the ISU which is better than any generalist heavy tank atm.
Pershing actually still gets played.

SOV has the ISU which is better than any generalist heavy tank atm.
Pershing actually still gets played.

ISU is not generalist tank.
Pershing and IS-2 are being played, because allies are not in utter denial after heavy nerfs.

The sole fact people here try to compare ISU to Tiger speaks volumes about how deep refusal to accept reality is.

Then saying that "it is not an AT option" is false, since it has 70 range, 240 dmg/shot, same pen as Tiger far,same ready to aim time, ISU even has slightly better accuracy.

Tiger DPM: 1920
ISU AP DPM: 1440

The ISU is 25% less effective than the Tiger, I find it quite fair considering its range, so "incomparably" is quite false too.

Unless you give any basis for this calculation, it is pretty much worthless (no offense intended).
There is no relation to a selection of exemplary targets with would take penetration into account and judging from the Panther vs Tiger discussion below I am not sure if you have applied the correct formula to calculate the time between to shots as well.

Due to the long reload, I could also claim that the Firefly is shitty compared to the Stug because the StuG destroys any light vehicle and any medium way faster than the Firefly. And this is essentially what you did (actually not even that since you did not specify a target).

Here is what exaclty was false.

It's not false, it is how the current ISU should be used(imo) to its full effect. Using it for AT doesn't nearly give you the reward as using it for AI, hence why i argue that using it for AT purposes is quite a waste of using the unit. This is especially so considering soviets have a much more powerfull AT unit nondoctrinally.

I still don't see any connection between the ISU's performance and the Tiger 1 performance considering they are massively different units in the game.

It's not false, it is how the current ISU should be used(imo) to its full effect. Using it for AT doesn't nearly give you the reward as using it for AI, hence why i argue that using it for AT purposes is quite a waste of using the unit. This is especially so considering soviets have a much more powerfull AT unit nondoctrinally.

I still don't see any connection between the ISU's performance and the Tiger 1 performance considering they are massively different units in the game.

This is what you wrote and is very poorly worded:

ISU doesn't have the AT performance of a tiger, and should really only be used for AI.

It implies ISU-152 AT performance is bad which is not. On the other hand its AI performance is OP but that does not mean that it AT performance is bad.

With long range, high penetration, deflection damage and powerful AT shot ISU-152 has great AT even if its AI performance is even better.

The unit should be used for AI when there are soft targets and AT when there are hard targets.

It implies ISU-152 AT performance is bad which is not.

Compare to what and against what?
It takes more time for ISU to kill P4 then for SU-76.
Against late game armor above P4, its AT performance is bad, supplemental at best and incomparably lower then SU-85 which costs half.

On the other hand its AI performance is OP but that does not mean that it AT performance is bad.

If you say that about a unit with largest scatter and longest reload in game, I'd like to know your opinion about Brummbar. By that metric, we probably should completely redesign or remove brummbar from the game for how OP it is, wiping all squads in 1-2 shots with 100% accuracy.

With long range, high penetration, deflection damage and powerful AT shot ISU-152 has great AT even if its AI performance is even better.

Is this why despite ISU being used often in team games, literally no one uses it for AT ever regardless of opponents armor composition?
Also, no one in his right mind will use 90 muni to deal 240 dmg to a vehicle with a skill shot.

Play the game sometimes and use the units you try to argue, in your excel sheet every unit is OP, reality strikes a different image.

The unit should be used for AI when there are soft targets and AT when there are hard targets.

That's opinion, not a fact.
Its supplemental AT at best because of reasons above.

Isu right now is the god machine.
Praise the omnissiah

only thing is, that its armor seems rather unreliable. last game a puma and a stug shot at my full health isu frontally and both penetrated.

i prefer elefants vet 1 but you cant have everything

Compare to what and against what?
It takes more time for ISU to kill P4 then for SU-76.
Against late game armor above P4, its AT performance is bad, supplemental at best and incomparably lower then SU-85 which costs half.


If you say that about a unit with largest scatter and longest reload in game, I'd like to know your opinion about Brummbar. By that metric, we probably should completely redesign or remove brummbar from the game for how OP it is, wiping all squads in 1-2 shots with 100% accuracy.


Is this why despite ISU being used often in team games, literally no one uses it for AT ever regardless of opponents armor composition?
Also, no one in his right mind will use 90 muni to deal 240 dmg to a vehicle with a skill shot.

That's opinion, not a fact.
Its supplemental AT at best because of reasons above.

Ahhh the daily harassment was wondering when it was coming. Well this is a thread about the Tiger and I am not going derail it because you want to.

ISU-152 if extremely powerful unit and now matter how much spin you put on it will not change that.

If in your opinion it is UP feel free to start a thread complaining about it. I doubt you will find allot of people agreeing with you.

Play the game sometimes and use the units you try to argue, in your excel sheet every unit is OP, reality strikes a different image.

And the hilarious joke of the day we both know that I probably play more games yesterday than you did the last month.

Other heavies were not buggy and they got the exact same nerf, yet no one complains about them being dead.

Again, people grew so used to overpowered tiger, they can't stand a balanced one, screaming to overpower it again, because they forgot how a balanced one is supposed to look like.

Its AT is superior.
Its AI is still better then IS-2 and worse then Pershing, its exactly where its supposed to be performance wise compared to other 2, its not going to get brummbar-like performance again and people can't accept that.

they didnt get the exact same nerf. Tiger was nerfed much more then other heavies. btw how many games have u used the tiger? let me guess 0 and you come here saying its balanced what an absolute clown.

and regarding ppl comparing the tiger with isu2. Yes, the fire power of both tanks can be good in many situations (tiger more ROF, isu2 more range etc) however one thing you guys are ignoring is its survivability and counters. Tiger gets easily outraged and penned by TD's thus being much easier to counter compared to an isu2. axis TD's don't counter isu2 well enough heck they get outranged by it bar the elefant/jagd. And the only hope is to dive in with expensive panthers and the terrible moving acc and tigers to take it out.

if it comes to pure AT capabilities you want both Elefant and Jagdtiger over the isu

then again, thats not what you get the isu for

This is what you wrote and is very poorly worded:


It implies ISU-152 AT performance is bad which is not. On the other hand its AI performance is OP but that does not mean that it AT performance is bad.

With long range, high penetration, deflection damage and powerful AT shot ISU-152 has great AT even if its AI performance is even better.

The unit should be used for AI when there are soft targets and AT when there are hard targets.

I would not agree that the ISU152 AT performance is "great". Up to an OST P4 it pens 100%, OKW P4 and JP4 are still in the range I'd term reliable to very reliable (about 90% pen chance +5% equivalent for deflection) But for everything above that the ISU is "okay". Not bad, not great, but alright. The deflection corrected pen chances lie between 75-90% for heavies/Panther. However, there is the factor of low accuracy (combined with VERY high scatter, especially in the fog of war which makes shot against mediums and even the Panther miss often, scatter collisions less likely and ground targeting a real gamble). Plus the long reload that makes even the StuG perform better against mediums when it comes to DPS, and against heavies it is okay but far from great.
The more you need to shoot AP rounds, the less your ISU will pay off. SOV has better AT options than the ISU, and even if you compare it to Axis units that need to deal with often different unit designs the Axis tank performs better.


The more you have to use your ISU as AT, the less it will pay off.

I would not agree that the ISU152 AT performance is "great". Up to an OST P4 it pens 100%, OKW P4 and JP4 are still in the range I'd term reliable to very reliable (about 90% pen chance +5% equivalent for deflection) But for everything above that the ISU is "okay". Not bad, not great, but alright. The deflection corrected pen chances lie between 75-90% for heavies/Panther. However, there is the factor of low accuracy (combined with VERY high scatter, especially in the fog of war which makes shot against mediums and even the Panther miss often, scatter collisions less likely and ground targeting a real gamble). Plus the long reload that makes even the StuG perform better against mediums when it comes to DPS, and against heavies it is okay but far from great.
The more you need to shoot AP rounds, the less your ISU will pay off. SOV has better AT options than the ISU, and even if you compare it to Axis units that need to deal with often different unit designs the Axis tank performs better.


The more you have to use your ISU as AT, the less it will pay off.

(Talking about low ROF without taking into account damage is rather misleading a stug probably has better TTK than an Elephant vs a medium)
(accuracy is in line with Elephant and even get a vet bonus)
(ISU-152 has 120 guaranteed damage on hit vs any target regardless of armor)

If in your opinion it is not "great" I am fine with it, but saying that ISU-152 should be used Only for AI is simply BS.

Unless you give any basis for this calculation, it is pretty much worthless (no offense intended).
There is no relation to a selection of exemplary targets with would take penetration into account and judging from the Panther vs Tiger discussion below I am not sure if you have applied the correct formula to calculate the time between to shots as well.

Due to the long reload, I could also claim that the Firefly is shitty compared to the Stug because the StuG destroys any light vehicle and any medium way faster than the Firefly. And this is essentially what you did (actually not even that since you did not specify a target).

Depends on what the faction is suppose to face.
For calculs: (60/(Reload time))*(damage per shot) with some approximation you have the true DPM (without pen/bounce/deflect damage/miss ect... which could turn the calcul into nightmare).
An heavy tank is meant to be reliable in every way and be really good at tanking damage in exchange for mobility. It is a balance really hard to achieve because, if it is not good enough, other more "specialized" unit are better. And since the only target a Tiger is better than the other against is other heavy tank, which also got nerfed and vanished, the Tiger is not a worthy AT option, so it remain AI. If its AI capabilities are good enough, it could be a viable "bigger" P4 in its role, but turns out it isn't, so building one is risky due to the high amount of ressource to spare and other inconvenience which goes along which the "BIG ONE" archetype which were told before.

The ISU isn't properly OP, even if its AI performance seems unfair. It is exactly what power an heavy tank should have to remain an option which overpass the medium spam. With the nerf, those 3 heavies (IS-2/Tiger+variant/Pershing) kinda lost their identities (the IS-2 case is a bit special).

So yes, those nerf were intended for 1vs1 and their effects weren't sure by the time of the patch release. We waited several mounth and tournaments to be able to see exactly what happenend. The results are that the Tiger is no more used in any game mode, whether it be the 1vs1 or 2vs2 tournament, or from my own 3vs3/4vs4 experience.

We can no longer say that those nerf were beneficial and anybody against is just a idiot Wehrboos relying to much on its "OP toy" to win. Whether it be the overall impression or the stats during big events, everything point out that those nerf were disproportionate. Maybe it solves the Heavy meta in 1vs1, but it destroyed the diversity every other gamemode, limiting the Ostheer with the Elephant or the Infantry doctrine. And I find it legitimate asking for a buff which could allow us to have acces to a greater variety of commander,whether it be for the Ostheer, the USF or the SU. ( 5 Ostheer commanders have the Tiger or a Variant)

With long range, high penetration, deflection damage and powerful AT shot ISU-152 has great AT even if its AI performance is even better.

It's not great. It's ok. It is not why you would get the unit, you don't get an ISU to hardcounter heavily armored german tanks in the game. You get an cheaper and faster firing SU85(or 2, considering the ISU costs roughly twice as much) for that. I would only use AT shells if my SU85 was destroyed or out of combat.

Once again, other people put it better than me:

The more you need to shoot AP rounds, the less your ISU will pay off. SOV has better AT options than the ISU, and even if you compare it to Axis units that need to deal with often different unit designs the Axis tank performs better.


The more you have to use your ISU as AT, the less it will pay off.

If in your opinion it is not "great" I am fine with it, but saying that ISU-152 should be used Only for AI is simply BS.

Using it only for AI will grant you the greatest rewards the unit can offer: destroying vetted german infantry at large ranges. Infantry costs MP to replenish. Damaged tanks can be repaired for free, and a ISU will find it much more difficult to destroy anything above a p4 due to its slow reload(in comparison to a SU85). This is basic sh!t i can probably expect you to know, but i put it out here for those that don't.

In short, if you use the ISU152 for AT purposes you are not using it to its full potential. this does not mean that is has horrible tank- versus- tank performance, as it does have the damage and pen to make german heavy tanks back off. But that is where it ends: it is only good at scaring them off, not killing them, because of the reload. If you want to kill tanks as soviets, you get an SU85 which has similiar pen.

I'm really going to leave it at that before the mods put a big, fat, thick, shiny lock on this thread for derailing.

(p.s.: if the ISU152 performance is so OP according to you, make a different thread about it. I'm certain we can keep this thread about Tiger1 as much as possible if people here are willing to)

You can have the Highest DPM of the world, if it doesn't pierce through the result is the same.

Which is why I showed you the time to kill for both the Panther and the Tiger against a heavily armored target like the IS-2. Those calculations take the chance to penetrate into account, creating effective health (the standard health of the IS-2 multiplied by the average chance to bounce shots), thus giving a theoretical estimation of how long it would take either one to kill an IS-2 under similar circumstances. The only thing not included is accuracy because accuracy results are completely unpredictable due to scatter, but the Tiger has an advantage with its very small scatter. In summary, the Tiger is undoubtedly superior to the Panther in the AT department.

And if 20 pen is negligible, since the Stug 3 has 170 pen it is still a better choice over the Tiger for every Medium target.

It's on par at best, because the StuG has the same DPM as the Tiger (5.25s reload). But the Tiger can chase, can stay in the fight longer, has a turret and doesn't lose value when bigger targets show up.

(ISU AT capability) It's ok...

That is fine by me. As I said the original post is badly worded.

(Talking about low ROF without taking into account damage is rather misleading a stug probably has better TTK than an Elephant vs a medium)
(accuracy is in line with Elephant and even get a vet bonus)
(ISU-152 has 120 guaranteed damage on hit vs any target regardless of armor)

If in your opinion it is not "great" I am fine with it, but saying that ISU-152 should be used Only for AI is simply BS.

I shortened this point a bit by saying the StuGs DPS against mediums is better. We can have the calculation now: StuG and ISU penetrate every shot vs Allied non doc mediums (also against the T34/85 which is the most prevalent doctrinal medium). So a StuG has 160 dmg with ~6 second total reload (I think the reload is 5,5 + aim times, I am not aware right know if there is additional wind up/down). The ISU has about 10,5 seconds total reload with 240 dmg, giving the StuG a DPS of 26,67 and the ISU 22,85. So the StuG is about 17% better assuming that all shots hit.
I can check this evening how the accuracy curves compare, but the ISU has 0,0425 at range 35 while the StuG has approximately this value (0,04) at range 50, so the StuG performs better accuracy wise and also scatter wise judging from all the scatter stats. In total, the StuG performs better versus mediums, the only thing that is does not have is 20 range.

Now considering that SOV have the SU85 which performs better in every way than the ISU when it comes to AT apart from 10 range, you should not buy an ISU for AT. You should switch the rounds if you fear to get overrun by enemy armor in a large push in order to get one or two more shots in. But in all other cases you should go for an SU85 if you need AT and keep the ISU on AI duty for as long as possible. If you buy the ISU for AT, you get an okay vehicle, but in the end you did not spent your resources cost efficiently. So in conclusion: The ISU can perform as an AT unit, but if it comes down to how you should (to refer to your post) use it, it is definitely the HE round.


Since this was quite a long excursion from the topic, I'd rather go back to the Tiger. Feel free to PM if there is more to discuss.

The ISU issue comes down to only one problem: It hardcounters Paks.

The only effective way to deal with it is tanks.

And here is where the Allied 60 range td meta comes in.