[Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback

I don't think anyone has said it should be better but in its current stat "reliable AA" is an issue.

But now it performs normal, thats the point. Befor it was like two Centaur, but now it is like a better Vet2 Ostwind.

Edit: And it still insta-kills planes with some luck xD

Would be nice to have anti-recon-plane measures standardized yes.

We are not discussing luck, I too think all AA units meeting the same standard would be a decent start. Allies do not inherit any AA in the process of teching their structures either.

But now it performs normal, thats the point. Befor it was like two Centaur, but now it is like a better Vet2 Ostwind.

Edit: And it still insta-kills planes with some luck xD

Every AA insta kills because there is no such thing as HP for planes. Either it's a miss or a kill.

People complain about the M5 AA having to be reliable, because it's the only non doctrinal option they have. No MG upgrades on tanks nor other soft units to counter it.

and why it should be better than other AA?

Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for Ost:
5.
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for OKW:
4.
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for USF:
3(not sure if M20 does, 2 if it can't).
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for UKF:
2.
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for Sov:
1.

222 is extremely reliable AA unit too for whatever reason.

Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for Ost:
5.
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for OKW:
4.
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for USF:
3(not sure if M20 does, 2 if it can't).
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for UKF:
2.
Amount of units capable of shooting down planes for Sov:
1.

222 is extremely reliable AA unit too for whatever reason.

As I said, it is better as Ostwind, worse than Centaur (which is still OP as AA). Have to test it more, but it feels/performs now like an Ostwind + 2-3 tanks with turret HMG. So it now fine.

Maybe it looks worse to you, because it was so extreme OP that 2 Quads were able to shoot down british bombing run before they were able to drop their bombs.

Every AA insta kills because there is no such thing as HP for planes. Either it's a miss or a kill.

People complain about the M5 AA having to be reliable, because it's the only non doctrinal option they have. No MG upgrades on tanks nor other soft units to counter it.

Well to be competly clear here, non AA units provide a possbility of shooting down the planes. Indeed tanks with MGs are able to shoot at them, but at the end of the day its more of the bonus, which might aswell be removed.

As the matter of fact its still ends up being that if you specifically need AA counter you still have to get an proper AA unit, and ost\usf\sov have 1 deducated AA units, UKF have 2, OKW has 1 and HQ.

At the end of a day, planes dont have a HP, so other non-aa units just increasing amout of dice rolls.

Will pintle MGs counter recons before they do their job or abilities. They wont
Will ostwind\AA HTs\Centar do it. They will.
This all that matters.

Well to be competly clear here, non AA units provide a possbility of shooting down the planes. Indeed tanks with MGs are able to shoot at them, but at the end of the day its more of the bonus, which might aswell be removed.

As the matter of fact its still ends up being that if you specifically need AA counter you still have to get an proper AA unit, and ost\usf\sov have 1 deducated AA units, UKF have 2, OKW has 1 and HQ.

At the end of a day, planes dont have a HP, so other non-aa units just increasing amout of dice rolls.

If you ask, not sure many people would agree of removing all soft counters to planes. Which to be honest might make for easier balancing.

The thing with those soft counters is that they increase the overall chance to kill a plane. If say all dedicated AA units had around 50% chance to kill a plane every 5s, it would be balanced as long as no other means to counter those planes exist.

As with volume of units increase due to game mode, those numbers start to rack up.

I'll rather have all AA units be balanced around the old profile of the Quad M5 because the margin you have to kill a plane is rather small in order to be effective, but i know people have a different opinion on it.

As with volume of units increase due to game mode, those numbers start to rack up.

Well this is indeed true, but again so do factions. Meaning that the overall disadvantage in team games would be here only if its a team full of soviets. But even considering that, with new changes 2 soviet players would have to get AAs to pretty much get old AA results, insted of one.

Its still good investment, considering it pays for itself very quickly anyway.

I'll rather have all AA units be balanced around the old profile of the Quad M5 because the margin you have to kill a plane is rather small in order to be effective, but i know people have a different opinion on it.

While my opinion would be that planes should be balanced in a first place in terms of speed\arrivial, rather then having old Quad, which just makes your end game abilities useless with almost zero efford.

Air based abilities are just to fast in a first place.

While my opinion would be that planes should be balanced in a first place in terms of speed\arrivial, rather then having old Quad, which just makes your end game abilities useless with almost zero efford.

Air based abilities are just to fast in a first place.

There's zero effort on saving munitions and pressing a button. It should be your job to clear for any anti air defenses before calling planes, in the same way we don't complain about someone spamming mines and someone deciding not to bring a minesweeper with it or throwing an artillery barrage in the zone.

This is my opinion taking into account the 0 chance we have in a rework in how planes operates in this game.

I'm gonna drop this copy-pasted from the general balance feedback thread. Lots of quoted posts there so I apologize for the confusion.

To me, the ISU is a crutch in Soviet late game. If things are even, I am often relying on that thing to wipe squads. In much the same way it is or was a tactic to use Sturmtigers for the same role. Having to go forwards into battle, take a shot or two from a Jagd or Elefant, then having to retreat and repair, will make it more vulnerable to pushes more of the time, make it do less damage over time as it's forced to withdraw, and these two aspects combined will make it less useful when it is sorely needed.

Still, with this nerf to ISU152, one no longer needs to change rear armour because the main use of ISU152, which is to snipe units is in range of JP4 and heavy tank destroyers. Even a panther can take it on with a bit of closing in (50 range vs 60 HE mode).

Elefant and Jagdtiger are the best anti tank units in the team games, 2v2+ they completely shut down any sort of tank play, especially if supported well, but they are not OP. With the exception of the nuke ability on Jagd, elefant is weak to infantry and can be flanked if out of position.

When you're saying things like this, I agree, but I wonder why you think it's fine that ISU has lower range. Ele and Jagd can already shoot at it from the front and, I'm sure, reliably penetrate it at maximum range, let alone fifty range.

Not really. The 60 range nerf is not as bad as it seems.

it is bad because ISU is going to have to repair or be more vulnerable to pushes as it takes damage from its now shortened maximum range.

ISU-152's ability to snipe infantry from behind a wall of AT I would say is more impactful as you stop all ability to capture territory and also can deny VPs for infantry daring to step on that. The JT and Elefant are more devastating to vehicles, but they can't lock out a VP or territory from infantry on their own and bleed the opponent of infantry.

I raise you Jagdtiger's barrage ability, and, secondly, the Brummbär's (although less extreme but still with considerable range).

If anything, I'd like to keep the range as is but, to counter this, maybe increase scatter when attacking ground to make smoke more feasible?

I appreciate the response. Some additional thoughts for you and the team:

• Soviets rely on armor late game to counter vetted axis infantry. Having an Elephant or JT on the field sitting behind a defense shield negates their ability to operate, especially the ones that are good at AI, such as the T70 or T34. As such, I'd say that the Axis player could equally lockout territory by sitting and sniping with the Elephant or JT and using other armor or vetted infantry to hold points. Please consider applying a similar treatment to the Elephant or JT.
  
• What role, if any, does the KV2 have in the game?
  
  

Here's Napalm saying the same thing I said above, where Soviet vehicles are the wiping tools of the Soviets, not elite infantry squads with LMGs. When you have Ele and Jagd shutting down a sector of the map it's difficult or impossible to wipe axis squads with the anti-infantry oriented tanks that are so necessary. Same for USF, too, with the standard Sherman and 105mm howitzer Sherman.


I'm including this from Mr. Someguy because he has done the hard work for me already. I think the points he makes here and the numbers he provides illustrate just how difficult it can be in an evenly matched late game.

What I said in the Soviet thread fits here as well, since we are now talking about the Elefant and the ISU-152 and their respective positions in each Army.

Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 10:28 AMMr. Someguy

The Elefant and Jagdtiger are heavy casemate tank destroyers with 110 Rear Armor and 1040HP, the SU-85 cannot challenge them because it is woefully outranged and outgunned, so they must flank it with T-34-76 but this is not successful either because the immense HP and occasional bouncing mean that you could leave it idle and alone and it'll take a pair of T-34-76's twenty seconds to kill it.

Unlike facing the ISU-152, the Soviets don't have a Panther they can send forth to poke holes in the front or front sides without risking swift annihilation. An Elefant does 300 damage, so a shot to an SU-85 that dare challenge it will put it down to 340HP in a single counter-hit. An ISU does 240 damage, so if a Panther steps up to challenge it, a successful counter-hit will only put it down to 720.

It is very difficult for stock Soviet to deal with an Elefant that is completely unsupported, add in the fact that it absolutely will be supported and you've got something that is incredibly difficult or even outright impossible to remove. On the other hand, Ostheer and OKW both have a tank that can not only take a few hits to the face, but dish some out.

Let's pretend Axis can only field Panzer IV's and have to deal with an ISU-152. You still have a much easier time than the T-34-76 v Elefant: Panzer IV's higher penetration allows them to punch through the ISU's weaker rear armor 100% of the time from max range, while a T-34-76 is required to close in to medium-close range for a 100% chance to penetrate an Elefant from the back. Now factor in that the Panzer IV has blitz, and it is extremely easy to rush around the side of an ISU even if it starts reversing. But Ostheer/OKW doesn't even have to do this, because they have the Panther.

Soviets do not get that choice, and they still have it considerable harder. Had the Soviet's medium tank been the T-34-85 I would understand, but it's not. Lowering the ISU-152's rear armor to Elefant's does not level the playing field, it unbalances it. Here is statistical proof:

Panzer IV vs ISU-152 (Live)
125/115/110 Pen vs 155 Armor = 80%/74%/70% chance to penetrate.

T-34-76 vs Elefant/Jagdtiger
120/100/80 Pen vs 110 Armor = 109%/90%/72% chance to penetrate.

Panzer IV vs ISU-152 (Preview)
125/115/110 Pen vs 110 Armor = 113%/104%/100% chance to penetrate.

Now consider Axis also have access to Panzerschrecks which they could support their Panther or Panzer IV rush with, and you're dealing damage to the ISU at a rate far exceeding what a T-34-76 rush could do to an Elefant or Jagdtiger.

Overall, I think if only the ISU is going to be changed and it's going to receive both a rear armour nerf and a range nerf with it's HE ammunition, then it should also receive mobility/speed buffs, significant reduction to switch shell types, and/or a reload increase to AP rounds. This is all to counter the vulnerabilities that are being introduced to it.

There's zero effort on saving munitions and pressing a button. It should be your job to clear for any anti air defenses before calling planes, in the same way we don't complain about someone spamming mines and someone deciding not to bring a minesweeper with it or throwing an artillery barrage in the zone.

This is my opinion taking into account the 0 chance we have in a rework in how planes operates in this game.

Well abilities like CAS\IL-2 strafing runs and so on requare vision to work properly, its not just press and watch you actually have to provide vision for it, so at least there is some efford from player requared.

I'm not taking into accaunt "fire and forget" abilities like british air-supremacy\IL-2\Frag bombing. Actually funny enouth, zone air abilitites more or less quite easily conterable ones you invest into AA, while others are completly un-countarable, because they are just too fast.

I get all that hate towards air based abilities, if the are being judged from a perspective of uncounterable abilities.

Overall, I think if only the ISU is going to be changed and it's going to receive both a rear armour nerf and a range nerf with it's HE ammunition, then it should also receive mobility/speed buffs, significant reduction to switch shell types, and/or a reload increase to AP rounds. This is all to counter the vulnerabilities that are being introduced to it.

The ISU does not need to be compensated for finally receiving some long deserved nerfs.

Said nerfs will barely affect players who are already properly supporting their ISU. You'll still be able to comfortably camp a VP and bleed enemy inf, and the rear armor only comes into play if you're caught with your pants down, which is more than fair.

The ISU does not need to be compensated for finally receiving some long deserved nerfs.

Unless Axis heavy TDs like Ele and Jagdtiger are going to get their ranges reduced, ISU shouldn't be touched OR should be compensated to be more mobile. Is the ISU's HE broken? Yeah, I'd say so. But it's such a crutch that making it more vulnerable will put late game soviets in an incredibly precarious position without some compensation from the axis side.

Unless Axis heavy TDs like Ele and Jagdtiger are going to get their ranges reduced, ISU shouldn't be touched OR should be compensated to be more mobile. Is the ISU's HE broken? Yeah, I'd say so. But it's such a crutch that making it more vulnerable will put late game soviets in an incredibly precarious position without some compensation from the axis side.

Have you played any games on the patch mod? I feel that you're overestimating the impact of the proposed changes.

Fact of the matter is, the ISU, as you said, is a crutch unit. That is not a good thing. It is far too easy to put to devastating use and inversely far too difficult to counter. The ISU should be more vulnerable, it should not have things shuffled around so that it remains as such a no-brainer counter anything unit with little to no downsides.

Axis heavy TDs already have big vulnerabilities. Hell, both ISU commanders come with IL2 bombs that make short work of them.

The ISU does not need to be compensated for finally receiving some long deserved nerfs.

Said nerfs will barely affect players who are already properly supporting their ISU. You'll still be able to comfortably camp a VP and bleed enemy inf, and the rear armor only comes into play if you're caught with your pants down, which is more than fair.

Ram is being nerfed out of the game just like the demo. This is a massive buff for any axis heavy/super heavy. Isu is getting 2 nerves excluding the massive indirect buff of the axis heavies.
Isu is getting triple nerfed basicly just like the t70.

The isu needs to swith ammo because of its range and dual role. Cant remember the time to switch but its a long time. And does less damage per shot then ele and has less armour
If these nerfs are implemented the isu defenitly needs mobility buff in return if it gets 60 range on its ai needs to move in range of enemie superheavies to do its ai role.

The ISU does not need to be compensated for finally receiving some long deserved nerfs.

Said nerfs will barely affect players who are already properly supporting their ISU. You'll still be able to comfortably camp a VP and bleed enemy inf, and the rear armor only comes into play if you're caught with your pants down, which is more than fair.

Axis already had more options of dealing with an ISU than Soviets have of dealing with an Elefant, and they're more effective to boot. I see no reason why the ISU's armor was targeted for a nerf while the Elefant got a buff by proxy of the severe nerf to T-34-76 ram. As I said before, that leaves 1 stock option of dealing with an Elefant, and even as far as doctrine options go an IS-2 or ISU isn't going to beat an Elefant face-to-face. Why am I arguing about using Armor to shut down a Heavy Tank Destroyer? Because Infantry and AT Guns are simply not options for it, nor are off-maps if the player is paying attention. Unless you use Ram, which just got nerfed into the ground.

Elefant/Jagdtiger absolutely deserve nerfs alongside the ISU152.

Axis already had more options of dealing with an ISU than Soviets have of dealing with an Elefant, and they're more effective to boot.

This is objectively false, the generalist nature of the ISU means it can engage any target. Meanwhile the ele/jt jave to back off when being pushed by anything other than armor. Not to mention allied TDs can reliably pen both frontally, I challenge you to do the same to the ISU with a JP4 or stug.

In regards to the Penals: I'd like to see satchels being available from the start of a small upgrade of muni.

Locking satchels behind PTRS feels really bad to use. Especially since PTRS feels like a DPS downgrade.