Login

russian armor

State of the ISU-152

PAGES (12)down
28 Jun 2020, 16:45 PM
#201
avatar of Kronosaur0s

Posts: 1701



T-34/76 actually has less chance to pen a JT than a P4 can a ISU. So if the chance of RNG bounces is the issue then JT/KT/Ele should get rear armor reductions too.

Cromwell is an outlier because it has an extra 10pen over the Sherman in close range. I think it should be 10f higher now the MGs were buffed.


Yes I also agree that small arms fire should damage a Jagdtiger rear armor, 110 too high yet.
28 Jun 2020, 16:53 PM
#202
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833



Yes I also agree that small arms fire should damage a Jagdtiger rear armor, 110 too high yet.


Weren't you just in the old Jackson thread complaining Jackson armor at 120 was too high and p4/puma should never bounce it?

Why shouldn't your logic apply to T34 behind ele, KT or JT?
28 Jun 2020, 17:48 PM
#203
avatar of Kronosaur0s

Posts: 1701



Weren't you just in the old Jackson thread complaining Jackson armor at 120 was too high and p4/puma should never bounce it?

Why shouldn't your logic apply to T34 behind ele, KT or JT?


I did what? :thumbsup: What thread? lmaooo

Im just agreeing with you in what you said man
28 Jun 2020, 21:24 PM
#204
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

T-34/76 actually has less chance to pen a JT than a P4 can a ISU.


T-34/76 has a 100% chance to pen the Elefant or Jagdtiger rear armor from close range.

The P4s have an 81% chance to pen the ISU-152's rear armor from close range.
28 Jun 2020, 21:30 PM
#205
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



T-34/76 actually has less chance to pen a JT than a P4 can a ISU. So if the chance of RNG bounces is the issue then JT/KT/Ele should get rear armor reductions too.

Cromwell is an outlier because it has an extra 10pen over the Sherman in close range. I think it should be 10f higher now the MGs were buffed.


you've demonstrated your vast knowledge of axis once again
28 Jun 2020, 23:25 PM
#206
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

It takes 30s to safe proof claims of this type.

29 Jun 2020, 00:02 AM
#207
avatar of Baba

Posts: 600

It takes 30s to safe proof claims of this type.



it takes less than 5. you see what has been written, you look who wrote it - myth busted
29 Jun 2020, 07:52 AM
#208
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132


They are effective when a unit is very close to those infantry squads. They aren't effective far. That is often a snare region and again it puts the unit into a grater risk.


Yeah I mentioned flanking Team Weapons right? Never mentioned that it was supposed to mainly fight infantry.
29 Jun 2020, 07:54 AM
#209
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132



Your steam ID is currently set to private. If you go to your profile select "update profile" and change "steam visibility" to "public" it should allow your playercard to display.


Oh lmao I didn't know that, done it should be visible now.
29 Jun 2020, 08:26 AM
#210
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833



T-34/76 has a 100% chance to pen the Elefant or Jagdtiger rear armor from close range.

The P4s have an 81% chance to pen the ISU-152's rear armor from close range.


Then a reduction of Ele/KT/JT armor is not needed

But personally I've had bounces on rear armor so maybe there are some missing values here
29 Jun 2020, 08:28 AM
#211
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jun 2020, 21:30 PMKoRneY


you've demonstrated your vast knowledge of axis once again


At least I can admit when I'm wrong, but it doesn't help Cohstats has outdated values.

What I will demonstrate is the lack of replays proving ISU one shots in the thread. But obviously I'm number one on the personal attacks. So leave it to PM if you have a problem with me PLS
29 Jun 2020, 09:31 AM
#212
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2



At least I can admit when I'm wrong, but it doesn't help Cohstats has outdated values.

What I will demonstrate is the lack of replays proving ISU one shots in the thread. But obviously I'm number one on the personal attacks. So leave it to PM if you have a problem with me PLS


The CoHDB stats page also shows 110 rear armor for the Elefant and 120 near pen for the T34. Additionally there is an updated version by GabrielSerealia plus MMX provided a very large Excel sheet containing lots of vehicle and other data.

It cannot be neglected though that the T34 is still 30/50 fuel cheaper than the P4, so if it performs worse than more expensive tanks it should not be surprising unless there is a special balance reason that it should perform better against that special target.

29 Jun 2020, 10:53 AM
#213
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Then a reduction of Ele/KT/JT armor is not needed

But personally I've had bounces on rear armor so maybe there are some missing values here

He specified close range and a t34 has its own fall off rapidly so a bounce isn't unlikely unless you are giving the enemy heavy a cavity search
30 Jun 2020, 00:28 AM
#214
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



At least I can admit when I'm wrong, but it doesn't help Cohstats has outdated values.

What I will demonstrate is the lack of replays proving ISU one shots in the thread. But obviously I'm number one on the personal attacks. So leave it to PM if you have a problem with me PLS


I have a problem with you victimizing one set of factions over another by posting things that are untrue. I could care less about you as a person because it's hardly relevant.
30 Jun 2020, 03:01 AM
#215
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jun 2020, 00:28 AMKoRneY


I have a problem with you victimizing one set of factions over another by posting things that are untrue. I could care less about you as a person because it's hardly relevant.


I could say the same about you and axis

But I wont because personal attacks are off topic, so how about you discuss the ISU?
30 Jun 2020, 03:46 AM
#216
avatar of Letzte Bataillon

Posts: 195

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.


While the armor change makes sense, I don't see how the off maps are a problem.


It's the T34 ram that supercharges all kinds of AT off maps from the Soviet side. The legit ways this tactic can be otherwise executed is good mine/snare tactics against a tank assault, which is rightly rewarded but overshadowed by the sheer ease and offensive potential of ramming.

I hate blobs with a passion and less off maps means more blobs (and simcity). Not to mention they're a big part of the fun and spectacle of COH2 and there's the question of what would replace them. This is opening an unnecessary multitude of problems for no reason.
30 Jun 2020, 07:00 AM
#217
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I don't see how the off maps are a problem.


Because the Elefant and ISU-152 commanders are too versatile with too many powerful abilities stacked into one commander, on top of having a superheavy call in, which means there's almost no reason not to pick them. That is why Jaeger Armor and Mechanized Support are seen almost every match in 2v2-4v4. Replacing some of the top notch abilities with less powerful ones should put these commanders more in line with other commanders and open up room for more counters and different picks.

I also don't know what the IL-2 Bombing Run and SDB have to do with blobs as they are very ineffective against those anyway.
30 Jun 2020, 07:31 AM
#218
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



I could say the same about you and axis

But I wont because personal attacks are off topic, so how about you discuss the ISU?


I don't recall lying about stats to make one faction look worse, so if you're going to admit error maybe you should remember that people called you out because you're (still) making shit up.

I've already said that the isu itself shouldn't be nerfed. I'm not the first person to suggest that it's the doctrine that it's in that's causing issues. Tagging flanking units with mark target and offmap bombing run most definitely should be looked at. And if IL2 bombing run gets removed stuka dive bomb should be unpaired from Elefant. JT doctrine is quite bad.

30 Jun 2020, 08:56 AM
#219
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1



Because the Elefant and ISU-152 commanders are too versatile with too many powerful abilities stacked into one commander, on top of having a superheavy call in, which means there's almost no reason not to pick them. That is why Jaeger Armor and Mechanized Support are seen almost every match in 2v2-4v4. Replacing some of the top notch abilities with less powerful ones should put these commanders more in line with other commanders and open up room for more counters and different picks.

I also don't know what the IL-2 Bombing Run and SDB have to do with blobs as they are very ineffective against those anyway.


I agree but I think it's spotting scopes that need to be removed from Jäger Armour and not Stuka Dive Bomb. Spotting scopes should have never been put in a doctrine with the Elefant and it's really time this lazy combination gets removed.Breakthrough has flares on Füssiliers which is a MUCH better design because it still allows you to get vision for the JT but it actually requires player input, positioning and a slight muni cost.

Both ISU doctrines need to lose the IL2 bombs for the obvious reason that they make the only counter to ISUs a ticking time bomb that can be deleted by clicking two buttons.

Then after this is done Jacksons need to lose some penetration so they can't just frontally take down Elefants and JTs with HVAP rounds and vet. As I repeated several times, the Jackson doesn't need 390 penetration. It's completely crazy.

30 Jun 2020, 09:19 AM
#220
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I agree but I think it's spotting scopes that need to be removed from Jäger Armour and not Stuka Dive Bomb. Spotting scopes should have never been put in a doctrine with the Elefant and it's really time this lazy combination gets removed.Breakthrough has flares on Füssiliers which is a MUCH better design because it still allows you to get vision for the JT but it actually requires player input, positioning and a slight muni cost.

Both ISU doctrines need to lose the IL2 bombs for the obvious reason that they make the only counter to ISUs a ticking time bomb that can be deleted by clicking two buttons.

Then after this is done Jacksons need to lose some penetration so they can't just frontally take down Elefants and JTs with HVAP rounds and vet. As I repeated several times, the Jackson doesn't need 390 penetration. It's completely crazy.


Stuka need to go from Elephant and maybe have a price reduction.

Spotting scopes have been nerfed too much and if they removed from the Elephant they need a buff or a redesign because currently they are not inline with other similar type abilities.
PAGES (12)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

916 users are online: 916 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49077
Welcome our newest member, juliavargascom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM