Current state of the IS-2

Yes. KV-2 is much much better at AI than IS-2 but is also less agile. Furthermore, it's penetration values are quite low so on the off chance it penetrates... sure. You do 240 dmg. But unless the enemy is throwing a P4 at your KV2, KV2 ain't that great at AT.
KV2 at AT is some sort of support. It won't do the job on it's own, but it will scare off if there is a zis nearby. IS-2 on the other hand is more agile and can "solo" enemies easier. Don't neglect the IS-2's [much] higher penetration values, especially in team games where Panther/Tiger/KT spam is a thing. Having SU85, KV2 and what not on the field leaves you wide open to Panther dives. That is, if the enemy is not 90% of COH2 players and actually uses the margins and flanks to flank and go behind you.

I have used KV-2 in team games and it does the job at scaring enemies. When a diving panther gets 240 dmg on the side you can see how fast the germans click "U". Also It does half of it's damage when not penetrating, so you always get a hit. And actually KV-2 does great while 1v1 fighting a panther, even form the front. When i preformed tests, to my suprise, KV-2 would sometimes win with much more health left than the IS would.

Yes. KV-2 is much much better at AI than IS-2 but is also less agile. Furthermore, it's penetration values are quite low so on the off chance it penetrates... sure. You do 240 dmg. But unless the enemy is throwing a P4 at your KV2, KV2 ain't that great at AT.
KV2 at AT is some sort of support. It won't do the job on it's own, but it will scare off if there is a zis nearby. IS-2 on the other hand is more agile and can "solo" enemies easier. Don't neglect the IS-2's [much] higher penetration values, especially in team games where Panther/Tiger/KT spam is a thing. Having SU85, KV2 and what not on the field leaves you wide open to Panther dives. That is, if the enemy is not 90% of COH2 players and actually uses the margins and flanks to flank and go behind you.

while it would be logical to assume the is-2 performs better against heavily armored targets than the kv-2 due to higher penetration values, it is actually the opposite in reality.

both tanks are pretty much on par against mediums where pen is almost guaranteed and the lower base damage of the is-2 is offset by greater rof. however, against a kt for example the kv-2 pulls ahead quite comfortably. the reason is the 50% (120 dmg) deflection damage the kv deals with every non-penetrating hit, which will guarantee a much higher and consistent base dps versus high armor targets. granted, this doesn't factor in things like mobility, accuracy and scatter but it's safe to say that, against anything above panther-level of armor the kv-2 will be the better choice.

Players though use to prefer a reliable unit over an RNG one (hence why Panthers I are preferred by most instead of StuGs, despite those having similar to better DPS per population/cost - health etc aside).

I disagree, the reason the panther was used was sheer survivability. You could lose a StuG III twice before you'd lose a Panther in the same situation (70% more health and 90% more armor plus turbo switch). People used the Panther because it could either be sat on the frontlines or used to bullrush the enemy with little fear of it being easily destroyed. Consistency certainly isn't the main concern because the Panther's inability to hit targets consistently was long considered it's main detractor alongside cost, until the recent patch buffed it.

Players though use to prefer a reliable unit over an RNG one (hence why Panthers I are preferred by most instead of StuGs, despite those having similar to better DPS per population/cost - health etc aside).

I disagree, the reason the panther was used was sheer survivability. You could lose a StuG III twice before you'd lose a Panther in the same situation (70% more health and 90% more armor plus turbo switch). People used the Panther because it could either be sat on the frontlines or used to bullrush the enemy with little fear of it being easily destroyed. Consistency certainly isn't the main concern because the Panther's inability to hit targets consistently was long considered it's main detractor alongside cost, until the recent patch buffed it.

About the IS-2, the wipe potential could be reduced by limiting the number of models it can damage per-shot. For some reason the developers rarely use this feature even though they used it on, of all things, the bloody 45mm gun on the T-70. I just think the IS-2 would fair better if it were to at least gain 200 damage, but 240 would be preferable. Lowering the rate of fire is not preferable because when it was slow, it often had the problem of shooting at the wrong target and having to wait, and misses with the gun were more painful.

Then again, given the choice between the old IS-2 with the slow firing 240 damage gun, and the new IS-2 which was redesigned to not delete Grenadier squads every 8 seconds, I'd take the old one every time. It was useful, the only use of the current IS-2 is that it's not crap like the T-34 and can stand up to most German tanks, even though it's German contemporaries can kill it.

[...]
About the IS-2, the wipe potential could be reduced by limiting the number of models it can damage per-shot. For some reason the developers rarely use this feature even though they used it on, of all things, the bloody 45mm gun on the T-70. I just think the IS-2 would fair better if it were to at least gain 200 damage, but 240 would be preferable. Lowering the rate of fire is not preferable because when it was slow, it often had the problem of shooting at the wrong target and having to wait, and misses with the gun were more painful.

effective or not, i hope this AoE model hit limitation approach doesn't find more widespread application in the game. it feels kind of arbitrary to see 3 models bunched up behind a bush getting blasted to smithereens by a 120mm shot to their faces, while another one sitting right on top of them shrugs it of as if nothing happened at all.
there are more elegant solutions to limit the one-shot full-health squadwipe potential (which is the only problematic issue imho; if you park a clumped, half health squad in range of an is-2 or similar, you deserve to lose it if the rng gods are against you), as the recent adjustment to the AoE profiles of heavies demonstrated. overall dps went down just slightly, while the occurrence of one-shot kills of full-health models (and squads) is much lower than before.
this could easily be done for a 200 or 240 dmg is-2 shell as well, as it has already been done for the kt's 240 dmg shell. but if it's the AT department that people feel is somehow underwhelming, i'd rather just tinker with the pen values or introduce a bit of deflection damage (maybe less than 50%) instead

I disagree, the reason the panther was used was sheer survivability. You could lose a StuG III twice before you'd lose a Panther in the same situation (70% more health and 90% more armor plus turbo switch). People used the Panther because it could either be sat on the frontlines or used to bullrush the enemy with little fear of it being easily destroyed. Consistency certainly isn't the main concern because the Panther's inability to hit targets consistently was long considered it's main detractor alongside cost, until the recent patch buffed it.

I didn't say the Panther's penetration was the only thing it has going for it. It was a more general point that players tend to prefer a reliable unit over an RNG one (which we can see when looking at the patches over the last years across all types of units and in general the changes have been perceived positively).

A single StuG has actually slightly better (calculated, so theoretically expected) damage output than a Panther, even against an IS2, and you can buy two of them for a similar price. And if we consider that there will be a TD and ATGs pushing as support, even the Panthers armor and health advantage is not as big anymore. Now don't get me wrong: I am not saying the Panther does not have any advantages, what I am saying is that with a bit of micro, you can organize a defense against an IS2 just as effectively with StuGs. However, every now and then, the first shots will just bounce or miss, and if one of your StuGs will have to retreat at that point your defense is quite weak. The Panther is WAY more reliable in that regard.
I have defended with StuGs against heavies already. It works. Sometimes you can miraculously delete a heavy tank within the blink of an eye almost. But sometimes your whole defense breaks due to RNG and you can do nothing about it.

I didn't say the Panther's penetration was the only thing it has going for it. It was a more general point that players tend to prefer a reliable unit over an RNG one (which we can see when looking at the patches over the last years across all types of units and in general the changes have been perceived positively).

A single StuG has actually slightly better (calculated, so theoretically expected) damage output than a Panther, even against an IS2, and you can buy two of them for a similar price. And if we consider that there will be a TD and ATGs pushing as support, even the Panthers armor and health advantage is not as big anymore. Now don't get me wrong: I am not saying the Panther does not have any advantages, what I am saying is that with a bit of micro, you can organize a defense against an IS2 just as effectively with StuGs. However, every now and then, the first shots will just bounce or miss, and if one of your StuGs will have to retreat at that point your defense is quite weak. The Panther is WAY more reliable in that regard.
I have defended with StuGs against heavies already. It works. Sometimes you can miraculously delete a heavy tank within the blink of an eye almost. But sometimes your whole defense breaks due to RNG and you can do nothing about it.

I'm pretty sure that vast majority of IS-2 users would love to see a change in alpha damage. Very often you can push with your heavy only for a moment, so you get only one shot in, and the increased alpha it would greatly increase IS-2's potential in those engagements. We can currently see that KV-2 is preforming really well, and so is ISU. I don't see anyone complaining about ISUs randomness, and those tanks even get the same penetration.
IS-2's description even says that it has a powerful gun. I don't think that it's performance against soft target resembles powerful gun.

I disagree, the reason the panther was used was sheer survivability. You could lose a StuG III twice before you'd lose a Panther in the same situation (70% more health and 90% more armor plus turbo switch). People used the Panther because it could either be sat on the frontlines or used to bullrush the enemy with little fear of it being easily destroyed. Consistency certainly isn't the main concern because the Panther's inability to hit targets consistently was long considered it's main detractor alongside cost, until the recent patch buffed it.

rof was rather poor too.

[...]
I don't see anyone complaining about ISUs randomness, and those tanks even get the same penetration.
IS-2's description even says that it has a powerful gun. I don't think that it's performance against soft target resembles powerful gun.

the is-2 has 50% more pen than the kv-2 and even on armor piercing ammo the isu barely has a 10 pen advantage (and that only at close range, which is not exactly where you'd want to be with a casemate tank).

also, while i can relate to the sentiment that the AT performance of the 122 mm feels kind of inferior to what you'd expect from such a large caliber, its effect vs soft target is acually quite well represented in the game.
the d25t has double the AoE area of the tiger's 88mm and is significantly more effective against infantry on a per-shot basis. only the lower rof is what keeps it in check compared to its axis counterparts. sure, the 152 mm projectiles of the isu and kv-2 make an even bigger boom, but that's also pretty much in line with expectation.

all in all, i'd wager the is-2's main gun is in a good spot and kind of the middle ground between the 88 and heavier calibers.

the is-2 has 50% more pen than the kv-2 and even on armor piercing ammo the isu barely has a 10 pen advantage (and that only at close range, which is not exactly where you'd want to be with a casemate tank).

I meant that it has the same pen that ISU, not KV. Previously someone was mentioning that people would rather have more rof than damage per shot, the ISU, hell even the KV with it's 150 pen proves that it's not the case.

also, while i can relate to the sentiment that the AT performance of the 122 mm feels kind of inferior to what you'd expect from such a large caliber, its effect vs soft target is acually quite well represented in the game.

By soft targets I meant 222, 251, flak truk etc, sorry for the inconveniece. I am fine with it's current damage vs infantry, but I think that AT damage should be increased to 200 and then AI should be adjusted to be similar to what we currently have. You can even cap the damage to 3 models per squad, so even if it manages to kill 3 models, you will always have time to retreat. The tank should be more all-rounder that we have now.

By soft targets I meant 222, 251, flak truk etc, sorry for the inconveniece. I am fine with it's current damage vs infantry, but I think that AT damage should be increased to 200 and then AI should be adjusted to be similar to what we currently have. You can even cap the damage to 3 models per squad, so even if it manages to kill 3 models, you will always have time to retreat. The tank should be more all-rounder that we have now.

those soft targets you mention have 320 hp, so they'll still need 2 shots to kill even with 200 dmg per shot (or 240, like the kv-2). same for mediums with 640 hp, which will also still need 4 shots to kill after your redesign. and with a concurrent rof increase to balance out the net dps gain against other targets, you're suddenly looking at an even less powerful is-2 against the targets you mentioned than before.
hardly worth it in my book...

those soft targets you mention have 320 hp, so they'll still need 2 shots to kill even with 200 dmg per shot (or 240, like the kv-2). same for mediums with 640 hp, which will also still need 4 shots to kill after your redesign. and with a concurrent rof increase to balance out the net dps gain against other targets, you're suddenly looking at an even less powerful is-2 against the targets you mentioned than before.
hardly worth it in my book...

In a vacuum 200 damage would mean a whole lot, but the soviet have a some "sub standard" AT that it would make a difference for. A wham bam with a su76 and an IS-2 would be half a p4s health for example, or in conjunction with PTRS' you cound find some ttk shaved. Half the stock AT the soviet have would see a difference.

Plus, even though it's only 40 more damage, you notice when a firefly hits you. It would do a bit to make the tank FEEL more powerful, even if ttk itself is wholey unchanged.

Right now the is 2 is a good tanks, a reliable tank, but not an interesting tank. And since it's only in 2 commanders the lack of interesting sort of waters down the draw of those commanders. At least for me.
Again, it's not necessary. But it would be nice

In a vacuum 200 damage would mean a whole lot, but the soviet have a some "sub standard" AT that it would make a difference for. A wham bam with a su76 and an IS-2 would be half a p4s health for example, or in conjunction with PTRS' you cound find some ttk shaved. Half the stock AT the soviet have would see a difference.

Plus, even though it's only 40 more damage, you notice when a firefly hits you. It would do a bit to make the tank FEEL more powerful, even if ttk itself is wholey unchanged.

Right now the is 2 is a good tanks, a reliable tank, but not an interesting tank. And since it's only in 2 commanders the lack of interesting sort of waters down the draw of those commanders. At least for me.
Again, it's not necessary. But it would be nice

Exactly what i'm talking about. Not only it would perform better in conjunction with some other AT sources (like PTRSs you've mentioned), but it would also increase it's performance against puma and luchs. The tank would stand out more and would have greater fear factor

Exactly what i'm talking about. Not only it would perform better in conjunction with some other AT sources (like PTRSs you've mentioned), but it would also increase it's performance against puma and luchs. The tank would stand out more and would have greater fear factor

Sorry to dive in here, but is that certain scenario really that common? I feel like this is not really a notworthy point in this whole debate.

Sorry to dive in here, but is that certain scenario really that common? I feel like this is not really a notworthy point in this whole debate.

Yes I've had situations when that increased damage would help a lot while fighting light vehicles. And even if it's not so common, the change would still greatly increase IS's potential while used in conjunction with PTRSs and SU 76s.

In a vacuum 200 damage would mean a whole lot, but the soviet have a some "sub standard" AT that it would make a difference for. A wham bam with a su76 and an IS-2 would be half a p4s health for example, or in conjunction with PTRS' you cound find some ttk shaved. Half the stock AT the soviet have would see a difference.

Plus, even though it's only 40 more damage, you notice when a firefly hits you. It would do a bit to make the tank FEEL more powerful, even if ttk itself is wholey unchanged.

Yes I've had situations when that increased damage would help a lot while fighting light vehicles. And even if it's not so common, the change would still greatly increase IS's potential while used in conjunction with PTRSs and SU 76s.

i see where you're coming from and i agree for the most part that the +40 damage would absolutely make a difference in some scenarios. but the thing is, that +40 damage wouldn't (and shouldn't) come for free: if damage per shot goes up, so should reload to avoid making the is-2 too powerful against other heavies or its intended counters (i.e. the panther). and with lower rate of fire you're not only reducing the performance against those 640-hp mediums and 320-hp light vehicles, but also amplifying the effect of misses - in essence you're going back to the random cannon the is-2 used to be a couple of years ago.

i think there are better, easier and most importantly less risky paths to increase the viability of the is-2 than tinkering with its performance (especially in the AT department, which no one complained about during the heavy tank meta era and which hasn't changed at all ever since).

Right now the is 2 is a good tanks, a reliable tank, but not an interesting tank. And since it's only in 2 commanders the lack of interesting sort of waters down the draw of those commanders. At least for me.
Again, it's not necessary. But it would be nice

i think the is-2 is quite a unique unit in the soviet roster, even though it admittedly gets overshaded by the kv-2 in most aspects.
my personal opinion is that it's just too expensive at the moment (same goes for the tiger and pershing) for what it does, especially compared to the kv-2. though this may not make the is-2 more interesting as a unit, maybe increasing the price and/or timing difference between the two would make it a bit more of an appealing choice?

There needs to be another option, I do not think is2 is fine, but I would rather see accuracy or armour increase. I think when it hits its fine, it just often misses whilst stationary.

I wish it was more reliable

The biggest issue with Heavy Tanks at the moment is that they are not worth the Population with how they perform. Rather than straight up buff the performance, I would rather see IS-2/Tiger/Pershing dropped down in Pop cost.

The biggest issue with Heavy Tanks at the moment is that they are not worth the Population with how they perform. Rather than straight up buff the performance, I would rather see IS-2/Tiger/Pershing dropped down in Pop cost.

I feel like Tiger ace is fine at least

IS-2 is weak until 2 stars. Need play very carefully and gain exp.