State of the ISU-152

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 01:18 AMShadowLinkX37

The reason I didn't add them was because I'm not going to list every 60 range unit in the game. Not that the su76 needs to be listed because of its current state though.

That's the point of this thread though. Whether or not the ISU is too good is up for debate, but because it comes in a doctrine that allows it to contest for best doctrine in the game, a panther doesn't exactly counter the ISU.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 00:31 AMShadowLinkX37

The panther has difficulty countering 60 range jacksons and fireflys. How is the 70 range ISU countered moreso?

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 09:05 AMVipper

One should first fix the commanders and at least removing IL-2 bombing and mark target and see from there.

(And yes stuka dive bomb should also be removed from the Elefant as I have pointed out many times)

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 08:59 AMA table

Radical suggestion: Make its main gun fire HE only through an ability like the Churchill AVRE.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 07:03 AMachpawel

ISU is just a bad design. It should deal zero damage to medium/heavy armour. It should only have HE shells.

If panther's gun cannot deal with infantry it is perfectly acceptable for isu to deal only with infantry. Soviets have it both ways on too many units. At squads/guns can deal with both infantry and tanks (guards, penals, ZiS, Su76, etc). If they were realistically speaking inferior at both these jobs to dedicated units (those dealing only with one threat) it would be ok. But they are too close to being as good as dedicated units (realistically speaking). This is the core of the problem. Very often some other abilities (mark target, ram, off maps, snares) combined with those units lead to problems and frustrations on the receiving players end.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 12:50 PMthedarkarmadillo

Try to use your noggin here for a second. Do you REALLY want to fight an AI only unit that costs as much as the isu does?

If you remove its AT it would need a cost decrease.... Which means it would be easier to get and support. It would mean when you take one out, the next one is going to replace it eaiser.

OR

if you want to keep its cost up you need to increase its power somehow, and since it's only an AI unit that's another direction nobody wants.

Its weak AT performance keeps its cost up and its power manageable.

Balance is a teeter toter of many factors, if you simply remove one something else either has to give or something else needs improved.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 14:07 PMachpawel

I know what balancing stuff means. I used to create board game rules.

The problem with ISU is simple. It deals greatly with infantry from 70 range AND it can also deal extra damage to tanks from afar, which makes it better than Elephant as it combines both roles. With all standard AT tools it often adds up enough hp damage to be decisive in winning armour engagements. Range is the key here. It can sit behind the front lines. Charging it with tanks will always be risky because of mines, sanres, and because of the frontline screen of troops.

I don't think the price really reflects its performance (like many other Soviet units btw).

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 00:31 AMShadowLinkX37

The panther has difficulty countering 60 range jacksons and fireflys. How is the 70 range ISU countered moreso?

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 14:41 PMHannibal

One way to nerf the ISU could be to lower the frontal armor and give it some more HP instead (obviously not so much that it results in a buff in total).

This would mean that lower tier vehicles would work more reliably against it and give it longer downtime due to repairs. However it would also be able to stay longer in fights and be contradictory to the general design of casemates (strong front, weak rear), since the difference between front and rear armor would be smaller.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 14:51 PMthedarkarmadillo

To be frank, would it need a health buff to accomidate the armour nerf? I know that's completely contrary to what I have been saying but it already has enough health to be forgiving, dropping say 40 armour, if screened properly it should be fine. With ptrs penals, oorah cons, t34 rams, 30 mu mines and 60 range TDs, getting in there should be rewarded

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 14:21 PMthedarkarmadillo

The isu is more rounded but not better than an elefant per say. The elefant gives you guaranteed armour supremacy no matter what the enemy is using where the isu works like a worse su85 if on AP shells. It can do both but it's AT performance is not great you are overstating its AT. it's there to balance its cost to keep it high without having a 200+ Fuel only AI unit. I've played the game since the beta, I remeber what an AI only ISU is like and it's not something we need again.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jun 2020, 15:51 PMachpawel

You can kill elephant with infantry/AT builds. If you see one on the field you are very likely to spend more resources into AT/infantry department and just kill it. ISU, just like many Soviet units, just follows the pattern of being the jack of all trades. Soviets don't really care about analyzing what is on the battlefield. Whatever they build will be ok against most threats. There are people building ZiS guns just to act like mortars even when there are no vehicles on the field. They don't risk wasting resources by building wrong counters. ISU follows the same pattern. Axis armies don't have such luxury. If you build an elephant, the enemy will win the infantry war.