State of the ISU-152

ZiS should shoot one HE shell max.

this, for 35 munis 3 long range barrage shots are too cheap.

but this topic is about ISU and nobody showed it once it being useful in any game.

this, for 35 munis 3 long range barrage shots are too cheap.

but this topic is about ISU and nobody showed it once it being useful in any game.

Then it should land dead center of where you click. If not 35 muni is to expensive.

That is a complete nonsense. Another myth that keeps being repeated. Soviets have very powerful tanks and infantry. Especially through the abundance of doctrines. But stock stuff is also great. All patches made Soviets much more elite than those elite units but the low price of reinforcing and units remained. Dual purpose remained. ZiS should shoot one HE shell max.

It used to have terrible penetration. Barrage and larger crew were justified. Now it is just another typical AT with a barrage that is just sick.

Nope. It should be at an Elephant price tag. If it had any AT capability it should be more expensive. It could remain as it is if its cost got increased imo.

Soviets heavie armour is limited in acces. The only nonsense is you keep saying its a myth. The faction is balacend without doctrines, doctrines give extra options. In sov case heavy armour and elite inf with upgrades and nades.

While sov stock tanks are indeed good, i still need 2 t34,s to beat a single p4. Thats thats 600 mp and 180 fuel to beat 300 isch mp and 125 fuel. Not to mention the pop they take.

The zis having terrible pen and lower rof was bad design. Now is just lower rof. The fact that okw just comes out with vet 2 skirts (esp since they got the p4 stock) made it neccesary to buff the pen of the zis. It would be dead weight after the luchs otherwise, and okw is to mobile for the barrage to be its sole use vs okw.

Soviets heavie armour is limited in acces. The only nonsense is you keep saying its a myth. The faction is balacend without doctrines, doctrines give extra options. In sov case heavy armour and elite inf with upgrades and nades.

While sov stock tanks are indeed good, i still need 2 t34,s to beat a single p4. Thats thats 600 mp and 180 fuel to beat 300 isch mp and 125 fuel. Not to mention the pop they take.

The zis having terrible pen and lower rof was bad design. Now is just lower rof. The fact that okw just comes out with vet 2 skirts (esp since they got the p4 stock) made it neccesary to buff the pen of the zis. It would be dead weight after the luchs otherwise, and okw is to mobile for the barrage to be its sole use vs okw.

The real balance issue is that you may never be able to really balance out the dual purpose units vs one purpose units. If dual purpose units are significantly worse at both jobs than dedicated units, people will call them crap (ZiS case early game stage). And it does not matter if they get extra crew and abilities. Those specialist units will be better. Once those dual purpose units become better (ZiS and ISU now, guards), they will be OP.

One method could be to increase price on them. ZiS being just too cheap atm. It should probably be around 370 manpower for what you get. Same with ISU - it should be significantly more expensive for what you get in its current state. But then, suddenly, they become elite units, which is against game design in the first place.

The real balance issue is that you may never be able to really balance out the dual purpose units vs one purpose units. If dual purpose units are significantly worse at both jobs than dedicated units, people will call them crap (ZiS case early game stage). And it does not matter if they get extra crew and abilities. Those specialist units will be better. Once those dual purpose units become better (ZiS and ISU now, guards), they will be OP.

One method could be to increase price on them. ZiS being just too cheap atm. It should probably be around 370 manpower for what you get. Same with ISU - it should be significantly more expensive for what you get in its current state. But then, suddenly, they become elite units, which is against game design in the first place.

Conscript cost is already inflated through the roof. No need for more of that. Zis is fine. Its at is slightly worse then the pak 40 while axis do have higher armour stock. Its barrage or ai is behind muni cost again fine. Its crew size is justified because of how lethal axis inf and tanks are compared to soviets. 4 vs 6 crew balance this out.

I think the ISU-152 could do with a rear armor nerf from 155 to 110 (same as Elefant/Jagdtiger) so that it's more vulnerable to flanking Panzer IVs. And then remove the IL-2 bombing run from the commander together with removing the Stuka Dive Bomb from Jaeger Armor.

I think the ISU-152 could do with a rear armor nerf from 155 to ~110 (same as Elefant/Jagdtiger) so that it's more vulnerable to flanking Panzer IVs. And then remove the IL-2 bombing run from the commander together with removing the Stuka Dive Bomb from Jaeger Armor.

I can stand behind it.
Howitzers are somewhat a counter to these units and offmap nukes completely erased that counter/area denial potential.

I think the ISU-152 could do with a rear armor nerf from 155 to 110 (same as Elefant/Jagdtiger) so that it's more vulnerable to flanking Panzer IVs. And then remove the IL-2 bombing run from the commander together with removing the Stuka Dive Bomb from Jaeger Armor.

All good ideas and quick to implement. A good direction imho What could replace those abilities that is the question. I'd still reduce the range on AT shells to 50.

My point is, contrary to what some people seem to claim here, it does not take whole might of ze Fatherland to tackle ISU, all it takes is a player who knows it and knows how and when to engage.



I suppose clarification is in order, so the whole situation was flanking it first in a place it couldn't retreat from easily(rammed itself on that northen trenches on crossing) and at least 1 shot at panther was HE. Yes, there were 2 ZiS guns protecting it, but they were frag bombed into atoms instantly.

Hopefully that clears things a bit.

Bumrushing anything is always bad idea, but 80% of people discussing balance here seem to be playing the game by setting rally point on opponents HQ and then building random units, going by situations they themselves are describing.

I don't mind too much how your one specific engagement turned out. If you won, good for you. However if you need a Panther, two PaKs, frag bombs and additional infantry support to kill an apparently also mismicroed ISU with badly placed ATGs, I am not sure that this description actually helps your point.
I could state the same thing: Two days ago in a 2v2, the Axis players tried to overrun my ISU with a Tiger, two Panthers and some infantry plus a PaK behind that. Tiger hit a mine and died, one Panther died during the shoot out and the other Panther got snared and would have died as well if they did not rage quit beforehand. I had cons, an SU85 and a ZiS. My mate got an SU85 over, but only after the fight was already won. I lost my SU85 in the process, my ISU survived on half health. So you could say that I defended my ISU properly. Does this example prove anything? No, no it does not.


The vast majority of people in this thread described that the ISU is very good in AI while the AT is bad/mediocre for its price, but still decent enough to be a threat to vehicles of all classes. Many concluded that there need to be either changes to the ISU or to the commander. You argue against changes because - apparently - in your opinion the ISU is fine in both performance and synergy.

You started comparing it to Brummbärs for whatever reason (although in another thread you criticized others for comparing the ISU with Tigers) and claimed that the ISU is unreliable on long ranges which I could prove that it is not after which you stopped responding.

You then claimed multiple times that the AT capability of the ISU were bad, stated that even the SU76 has way more damage potential and reinforced it by saying anything above PTRS is better than the ISU. I'd still like to have proof for that.


The problem is that the ISU has an "okay" base AT can be bumped up to >320 damage with mark target. It bleeds your infantry with fairly accurate HE shells from long range while Axis can't use artillery due to the dive bomb. And heavies can also be cheesed with the ram+bomb.
Either the commander should to be changed (what I am arguing for), or the ISU needs to be changed to create a real weakness, like the Elefant has a weakness against infantry pushes.

I think the ISU-152 could do with a rear armor nerf from 155 to 110 (same as Elefant/Jagdtiger) so that it's more vulnerable to flanking Panzer IVs. And then remove the IL-2 bombing run from the commander together with removing the Stuka Dive Bomb from Jaeger Armor.

I agree and think it is a good start, then one can adjust. One could also consider removing "mark vehicle".

I am glad to see that what I have suggested years ago is considered to be implemented.

(https://www.coh2.org/topic/81270/commander-rework-approach/page/2)
(https://www.coh2.org/topic/68044/rear-armor-of-some-vehicles-needs-to-be-reduced)

Juts lost one ukf game for U. See my level. And btw the bolster got changed, which is good imo. Now you need to research the platoon first - learning this might have cost me the game and one level. Will You apologise?

So my proper response is hidden for trolling, but this guy here derailing the topic to flex his rank 198 despite saying he was lv17 and demanding I “apologize” is totally cool.

'Proper' seems to be a word that we have different definitions of.

Anyway, all this playercard/rank bullshit leads nowhere, so back to topic.

So my proper response is hidden for trolling, but this guy here derailing the topic to flex his rank 198 despite saying he was lv17 and demanding I “apologize” is totally cool.

No - I was asked by Sumi to show my rank. I did it, he didn't. And You checked me up not him. Who is derailing the thread here?

A very important observation. It is not the rank that matters. Balance should, ideally, be good across all levels. The important thing is to play ALL FACTIONS before voicing strong opinions related to balance! I showed my rank/steam to do just that. Not to claim I'm good or bad.

If one doesn't play all factions it is ok - they don't have to. Yet, it would be quite useful/helpful to many discussions to just not call a fanboy sb who plays all factions while playing one faction themselves. Many forum members knowledge is really narrow because of observing certain units/abilities only from the receiving end. It is very visible when reading posts.

My rank was 17 UKF before it vanished due to not playing UKF for more than a month. After the first lost match it moved to 16, and that is what You see. And You should know how it works. You see my playercard and see the last lost game.

Coming back to ISU: Commander abilities revamp plus rear armour nerf make sense - it might push isu in the right direction. I would still think that nerfing AT range to 50 is a better option as it will not require such broad commander changes. It will still be better than axis heavy TDs.

Coming back to ISU: Commander abilities revamp plus rear armour nerf make sense - it might push isu in the right direction. I would still think that nerfing AT range to 50 is a better option as it will not require such broad commander changes. It will still be better than axis heavy TDs.

Hmmm...will be ISU friends adjusted as well? I am about Elef and JT. Because, if you make 50 range AT for ISU, it will be clear message for every player - ISU is AI unit. And no one in sane would be call-in it against Elef or JT.
Or Maybe, just maybe, make from ISU-152 copy of JT, with ability to shoot seria of HE rounds like JT do. Problem solved - pure AT unit with AI abilitiy.