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.
Posts: 282
Let's keep focusing on the tiger's supposed lacking performance instead of comparing assault guns to heavy tanks.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It was said that the Tiger was buggy and could Oneshot squad.
Posts: 32
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
SOV has the ISU which is better than any generalist heavy tank atm.
Pershing actually still gets played.
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
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.
Posts: 249
Here is what exaclty was false.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
ISU doesn't have the AT performance of a tiger, and should really only be used for AI.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 600
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
Posts: 808
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.
Posts: 600
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
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.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 282
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).
Posts: 249
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 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.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
You can have the Highest DPM of the world, if it doesn't pierce through the result is the same.
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.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
(ISU AT capability) It's ok...
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
(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.
Posts: 1217
110 | |||||
168 | |||||
10 | |||||
7 | |||||
4 | |||||
1 |