Upgunning the soviets - the IS-2

Do you mean the ISU pintle? I didn't think the IS-2 got a pintle, but it's been awhile since i've used it.

ISU and IS-2 uses same dhsk mounted MG. Insane DPS

In sort the "flaw" is that one can counter the unit:

1)by Supported Panther
This is not really "flaw" a Panther role is exactly that to counter heavily armored vehicles. The real problem would be if a supported Panther couldn't not counter the IS-2 since axis would have no stock option and they would have to use the same doctrines again and again

2)by JT/Elefant
These more expensive dedicated TDs are doctrinal and their role is exactly to counter heavily armored vehicles. The real problem would be if these heavy TD couldn't not counter the IS-2 since there would be no reason to even purchase these units if they couldn't deal with an IS-2

3)by KT
A more expensive in cost a tech heavy tank.

So no, there is no flaw in IS-2.


About bringing nothing new to the table, that is not really IS-2 fault. People complain about KV-2 so it was redesigned to be closer to IS-2 and now there are complains that are to similar.

If a unit need to change that would be KV-2 which is an assault gun and not IS-2 which is a heavy tank.

retarded post

1 - what is the purpose of a heavy tank if a non-doctrinal tank can essentially face tank and beat you? doesn't even kite, you just smash your armor into it and both tanks drop to 1 shot kill range, very skillful indeed. allies obviously cant have heavy tank meta

2- jts/eles hard counter allied mediums, allied tank destroyers, and allied heavy tanks, not ONLY the heavy tanks. unrelated, but the balance team decided to also nerf basically all counters to these tumors at least once

3- it doesn't beat the king tiger and it shouldn't anyway, im just saying that you insta lose the game if you have an is-2 and they have a non-doctrinal heavy tank that very likely sees a "every fucking game"% pickrate in team mode and around "half the games" pickrate in 1v1s

also the kv-2 and is-2 are not the same?? they currently aren't and the kv-2 is already an assault gun with a playstyle unique compared to other heavies

retarded post

Pls try to cut down non constructive comments.

1 - what is the purpose of a heavy tank if a non-doctrinal tank can essentially face tank and beat you? doesn't even kite, you just smash your armor into it and both tanks drop to 1 shot kill range, very skillful indeed. allies obviously cant have heavy tank meta

The same purpose of Tiger that allied TD can penetrate from range 60.

Lets say that IS-2 is buffed and can beat Panthers easily how would ostheer counter IS-2 with stock units?

2- jts/eles hard counter allied mediums, allied tank destroyers, and allied heavy tanks, not ONLY the heavy tanks. unrelated, but the balance team decided to also nerf basically all counters to these tumors at least once

M-36/SU-85/FF hard counter allied mediums, allied tank destroyers (accept JPIV), and allied heavy tanks, not ONLY the heavy tanks.

3- it doesn't beat the king tiger and it shouldn't anyway, im just saying that you insta lose the game if you have an is-2 and they have a non-doctrinal heavy tank that very likely sees a "every fucking game"% pickrate in team mode and around "half the games" pickrate in 1v1s

If you opponent build a KT maybe you should try building a TD...

also the kv-2 and is-2 are not the same?? they currently aren't and the kv-2 is already an assault gun with a playstyle unique compared to other heavies

Funny that you did not disagree with person who originally made the claim:

....
The canon has an AI focus, which I also don't fully get why. Both ISU152 and KV-2 also focus on AI which their special flavor. Either long range shots (ISU) or a large AoE and even lobbed indirect shots (KV2). The IS-2's cannon is still good AI wise, but also offers nothing special. It does decent damage, but is not as capable of wiping squads. As I said previously, you can get a Katy instead if you want to wipe enemy squads.

The unit is okay, but it just doesn't offer much new to the faction.

KV-2 was redesign and become closer to IS-2 and that was the only point I made.

If you opponent build a KT maybe you should try building a TD...

And herein lies the problem, metaphorically speaking. IS-2 is definitely a good tank, but I think it just runs into the old 4v4 problem of AT saturation. You can use IS-2 as a breakthrough tank... in 1v1. (2s and 3s also maybe but idk). But not 4v4, because there is almost certainly death awaiting you. Same goes for KT and Tiger of course.

ISU is basically the dedicated soviet 4v4 heavy tank. IS-2 just gets outshined. That's fine.

is2 certainly does not need a buff

regarding the panther, it makes complete sense that it can battle the is-2, its a 185f tank destroyer

That would be ridiculously overpowered. That would give it over 3000 DPM, way more than the Tiger and even more than the Tiger II, on a heavily armored and relatively mobile chassis.

The IS-2 is fine. It just suffers from superheavy TDs in teamgames hardcountering it on open maps.

The IS-2 is significantly worse than the Tiger.

The IS-2 is significantly worse than the Tiger.

care to explain why in details?

care to explain why in details?

the reasons might be that a tiger can tear up squads with it's laser cannon, causing stronger bleed
and then the armor the tiger faces is either lacking in durability, or is tanky but with a weak gun (or a comet)

because at vet 0, 1, 2, 3. Tiger give you a better value than IS-2. It also easier to handling because it gun is too good.
Second, ability from Commander. No Doubt Tiger always have better thing around it than IS-2.
Third, 160 damage per shot is P****, I would take 240 damage per shot at vet 0 with 40% lower rate of fire from current IS-2. This is a massive 122mm gun after all.

If the majority of the forum really thinks that the IS-2 is anywhere near as good as the Tiger, then I guess I know where all the nabs congregate.

Imo the damage output isent in line with its cost. Both tigers out dps it quite comfortabely. For some small advatidges over either.

Its scatter needs a buff or its damage per shot.

the reasons might be that a tiger can tear up squads with it's laser cannon, causing stronger bleed
[...]

And this is just wrong, no matter how often you repeat it. The Tiger's 88mm is obviously stronger against vehicles but against infantry, both guns are more or less equally effective and will inflict the same amount of bleed over time on average (not taking faction specifics like squad size and reinforcement cost per model into account, which would actually skew things in favor of the the IS-2).

because at vet 0, 1, 2, 3. Tiger give you a better value than IS-2. It also easier to handling because it gun is too good.
Second, ability from Commander. No Doubt Tiger always have better thing around it than IS-2.
Third, 160 damage per shot is P****, I would take 240 damage per shot at vet 0 with 40% lower rate of fire from current IS-2. This is a massive 122mm gun after all.

Well, this would not only bump up the average DPS by quite a bit, but, more importantly, be a massive buff against 960 HP targets such the Panther. In this case the 160 damage gun would take 2 more shots to kill than the 240 damage version, while against other targets (such as mediums or heavies like the Tiger) the proposed change would barely have any effect.
I doubt it would be worth it to upset the current balance just for the sake of having 240 damage on the main gun. If the lack of AT is really that much of a concern I'd rather improve penetration or add a bit of deflection damage, since this would affect the performance against almost all targets equally.

If the majority of the forum really thinks that the IS-2 is anywhere near as good as the Tiger, then I guess I know where all the nabs congregate.

nice explanation. Real deep

the reasons might be that a tiger can tear up squads with it's laser cannon, causing stronger bleed
and then the armor the tiger faces is either lacking in durability, or is tanky but with a weak gun (or a comet)

Tiger's cannon has the worst AOE of all the heavies, while IS-2 AOE is really not that bad.
Blitz is far from a bad ability, but frag round is really nasty.
DShka is the best mounted MG. If you can't get in range to use it, IS-2 becomes subpar. Also is-2 has so much armor, that paks and rax have hard time penetrating it, while all you have to do vs a tiger - have 1 AT and a tank destroyer to smack the guy from 60 range.
The only thing that tiger has "substantially better" over IS-2 is vet0-1 range.

Both units are, what I call them, "micro discounts". These are strong units, that will spare your micro, but obviously do not outweigh going full combined arms. In this regard both Tiger and IS-2 imo do not bring anything great to the table. Even Pershing is in a much better spot imo, because of how fast it is. KV-2 and KT are obviously on the top of the food chain.

And this is just wrong, no matter how often you repeat it. The Tiger's 88mm is obviously stronger against vehicles but against infantry, both guns are more or less equally effective and will inflict the same amount of bleed over time on average (not taking faction specifics like squad size and reinforcement cost per model into account, which would actually skew things in favor of the the IS-2).



Well, this would not only bump up the average DPS by quite a bit, but, more importantly, be a massive buff against 960 HP targets such the Panther. In this case the 160 damage gun would take 2 more shots to kill than the 240 damage version, while against other targets (such as mediums or heavies like the Tiger) the proposed change would barely have any effect.
I doubt it would be worth it to upset the current balance just for the sake of having 240 damage on the main gun. If the lack of AT is really that much of a concern I'd rather improve penetration or add a bit of deflection damage, since this would affect the performance against almost all targets equally.

That's the problem when you compare units on spreadsheet, you can't simply take average dps as a serious point of comparison wihtout taking in account the average time of engagement for units.

Coh2 isn't an game of average but a game of opportunities and the best units in this game are those capable of delivering their full load of outcome at every given opportunities.

It is better to handle a unit able to deliver 30 per shot but with 100% chance to deliver than a unit delivering 90 per shot but with only 33% chance to hit.
Because you never know if you'll have those 3 opportunities to hit and making sure you did something.

I bet Angreifen used spreadsheet instead of mouse and keyboard

That's the problem when you compare units on spreadsheet, you can't simply take average dps as a serious point of comparison wihtout taking in account the average time of engagement for units.

Coh2 isn't an game of average but a game of opportunities and the best units in this game are those capable of delivering their full load of outcome at every given opportunities.

It is better to handle a unit able to deliver 30 per shot but with 100% chance to deliver than a unit delivering 90 per shot but with only 33% chance to hit.
Because you never know if you'll have those 3 opportunities to hit and making sure you did something.

You're certainly right in that average DPS isn't necessarily the best or most holistic way to compare the performance of different units. Adding the variance or, even better, probability distributions would be more suitable to capture the 'reliabiliy' you mentioned. However, numerical averages are still an absolutely viable and easy to grasp metric to compare all sorts of things, ranging from pen chances to win rates. That why they're used (rightfully so) by everyone - you included - nearly all the time when comparing different aspects of the game. AI performance is no exception here. It also doesn't matter at all if this info comes from a spreadsheet or actual in-game data. In this case, however, it is just vastly easier and more precise to collect enough data by external means unless you want to spend literal days to repeat the same matchup over and over.

I haven't gone into more detail as to why I believe both the Tiger and IS-2 are roughly equal in AI, but if you're interested and inclined to do so you can read up on the specifics over here. I'm also happy to give you a rundown on how the average DPS already incorporates to the actual chance to hit something and how this relates to the overall AI performance.

Or, if you can come up with a better metric for quick and easy comparison, I'm all ears... as long as it is at least somewhat quantifyable and doesn't rely on 'gut feeling' or 'because I told ya so'.

You're certainly right in that average DPS isn't necessarily the best or most holistic way to compare the performance of different units. Adding the variance or, even better, probability distributions would be more suitable to capture the 'reliabiliy' you mentioned. However, numerical averages are still an absolutely viable and easy to grasp metric to compare all sorts of things, ranging from pen chances to win rates. That why they're used (rightfully so) by everyone - you included - nearly all the time when comparing different aspects of the game. AI performance is no exception here. It also doesn't matter at all if this info comes from a spreadsheet or actual in-game data. In this case, however, it is just vastly easier and more precise to collect enough data by external means unless you want to spend literal days to repeat the same matchup over and over.

I haven't gone into more detail as to why I believe both the Tiger and IS-2 are roughly equal in AI, but if you're interested and inclined to do so you can read up on the specifics over here. I'm also happy to give you a rundown on how the average DPS already incorporates to the actual chance to hit something and how this relates to the overall AI performance.

Or, if you can come up with a better metric for quick and easy comparison, I'm all ears... as long as it is at least somewhat quantifyable and doesn't rely on 'gut feeling' or 'because I told ya so'.

I tend to not compare units in a vacuum. Their IA dps is probably the same in average but they don't belong to the same faction and not facing the things. I'll not say that gut feeling is better metric than average but there are hidden reasons you don't see the IS2 as often as the Tiger nowaday even if their average IA dps are the same.
So, even considering there are less Commanders with the IS2 than there are with Tigers, this doesn't work as a single explanation, there are a lot commanders with few specific units that are seen a lot more than IS2.

I tend to not compare units in a vacuum. Their IA dps is probably the same in average but they don't belong to the same faction and not facing the things. I'll not say that gut feeling is better metric than average but there are hidden reasons you don't see the IS2 as often as the Tiger nowaday even if their average IA dps are the same.
So, even considering there are less Commanders with the IS2 than there are with Tigers, this doesn't work as a single explanation, there are a lot commanders with few specific units that are seen a lot more than IS2.

fair enough and reasonable. i was, however, responding to the part that the tiger was allegedly way superior to the is-2 in terms of anti-infantry performance, not to the overall position of the is-2 in the soviet roster. there are obviously many reasons the is-2 sees little use, but i don't think a 240 dmg cannon will solve these (at least not without creating a bunch of new issues along the way).

fair enough and reasonable. i was, however, responding to the part that the tiger was allegedly way superior to the is-2 in terms of anti-infantry performance, not to the overall position of the is-2 in the soviet roster. there are obviously many reasons the is-2 sees little use, but i don't think a 240 dmg cannon will solve these (at least not without creating a bunch of new issues along the way).

IS-2 used to have 240 damage with better AI and reload of 9 sec until 2014 and people did not like it.

So they changed that with better AT gun/160 damage and 6.4 secs reload.

I tend to not compare units in a vacuum. Their IA dps is probably the same in average but they don't belong to the same faction and not facing the things. I'll not say that gut feeling is better metric than average but there are hidden reasons you don't see the IS2 as often as the Tiger nowaday even if their average IA dps are the same.
So, even considering there are less Commanders with the IS2 than there are with Tigers, this doesn't work as a single explanation, there are a lot commanders with few specific units that are seen a lot more than IS2.

Alright I don't mean to derail the thread here but since I already said something on topic I hope you'll oblige me.

Anyways, I know British people and others outside the US say IA instead of AI for bots (Intelligent Adversary VS. Artificial Intelligence) but what do you mean using IA instead of AI when referring to performance against infantry? Anti-Infantry versus what exactly? Infantry Attack?