Upgunning the soviets - the IS-2

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).

I don't think either 240 dmg will solve the problem. Now, to me, the Tiger is superior because the game design goes in a direction that make its superior in usage, the unit is less clumsy, more reactive and at the same time enough tough to give you time to micro your army around. Then the way Commanders are designed around tiger vs IS2, what each tank is supposed to fight and then what each tank has as supportive tools around it make the Tiger a vastly superior investment.

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?

My bad, its AI.

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.

You know, except that it had actually garbage AI because it had terrible scatter and couldn't hit either tanks or infantry when it did fire...

The issue wasn't the 240 damage and slow fire rate (in which case people would never use the ISU-152), but the accuracy/ scatter.

I don't think either 240 dmg will solve the problem. Now, to me, the Tiger is superior because the game design goes in a direction that make its superior in usage, the unit is less clumsy, more reactive and at the same time enough tough to give you time to micro your army around. Then the way Commanders are designed around tiger vs IS2, what each tank is supposed to fight and then what each tank has as supportive tools around it make the Tiger a vastly superior investment.

Tiger does not have a JP4 to cover it, while IS-2 could have an SU85, if it needs it of course.
Regarding commanders: 1 commander has incendiary, shox, stealth AT and kv8, another has radio intercept, t34-85, insane AI loiter and self repair.
Both commanders are far from bad.

About use cases: I suppose you ignored Storjager's comments and the replay I posted, where panther could do jack vs IS-2.

And about uselessness of spreadsheet: you have to understand where to watch and to what pay attention. Just saying it has little value, because some illusive commanders and unknown use cases does not clarify why IS2 is worse then Tiger. That sounds to me like Ulumu's comment about how Comment has better AI then KT.

You know, except that it had actually garbage AI because it had terrible scatter and couldn't hit either tanks or infantry when it did fire...

The issue wasn't the 240 damage and slow fire rate (in which case people would never use the ISU-152), but the accuracy/ scatter.

ISU-152 is used for it extended range people would still use it if it did 160 damage and fired every 7 seconds.

IS-2 does not need 240 damage with slower reload, nor does need a massive buff of 240 damage with it current reload.

Tiger does not have a JP4 to cover it, while IS-2 could have an SU85, if it needs it of course.
Regarding commanders: 1 commander has incendiary, shox, stealth AT and kv8, another has radio intercept, t34-85, insane AI loiter and self repair.
Both commanders are far from bad.

About use cases: I suppose you ignored Storjager's comments and the replay I posted, where panther could do jack vs IS-2.

And about uselessness of spreadsheet: you have to understand where to watch and to what pay attention. Just saying it has little value, because some illusive commanders and unknown use cases does not clarify why IS2 is worse then Tiger. That sounds to me like Ulumu's comment about how Comment has better AI then KT.

Why wouldn’t the tiger have a JP4 to cover it? Or are you only talking about OST.

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.

and it still misses as the old is-2 did

this is the only response i can give:

Tiger does not have a JP4 to cover it, while IS-2 could have an SU85, if it needs it of course.
Regarding commanders: 1 commander has incendiary, shox, stealth AT and kv8, another has radio intercept, t34-85, insane AI loiter and self repair.
Both commanders are far from bad.

About use cases: I suppose you ignored Storjager's comments and the replay I posted, where panther could do jack vs IS-2.

And about uselessness of spreadsheet: you have to understand where to watch and to what pay attention. Just saying it has little value, because some illusive commanders and unknown use cases does not clarify why IS2 is worse then Tiger. That sounds to me like Ulumu's comment about how Comment has better AI then KT.

IMO the kv-8 is a noob trap in team mode, you need to stay around infantry with shreks, long range snares and distant ATG stun to do damage. And no, contrary to popular belief, the KV-8 wont counter and will basically insta die to 4-5 panzergrenadiers with panzershreks equipped. as this can happen in larger gamemodes (but this counts for all allied armor) OF COURSE it can happen that you snowball with the kv-8 as the enemy didn't expect it for whatever reason and has no reply to it, so you cause insane damage, albeit very rarely. I see kv-8 users, in different situations, eventually getting routed due to being outnumbered in tanks (as the kv-8 doesnt exactly do anything vs them)


Shock rifle frontline has saturated anti-infanty, camo, heavy tanks, yet it feels lackluster, focused too much on AI
armored assault is a good doctrine but you invest it all into armor - you have no conscript upgrades or elite infantry to fight with. The loiter is real nice though, even if axis have an anti-everything loiter

ISU-152 is used for it extended range people would still use it if it did 160 damage and fired every 7 seconds.

IS-2 does not need 240 damage with slower reload, nor does need a massive buff of 240 damage with it current reload.

this is an absolutely awful take - if the isu had 160 damage it would be terrible, horrible.




Now on the other hand, if it always, 100% penetrated and HE was back with +10 range...

and it still misses as the old is-2 did

this is the only response i can give: ...

It simply does not miss like it used to, check MMX's post and thread and tool.

Why wouldn’t the tiger have a JP4 to cover it? Or are you only talking about OST.

yeah I was talking in the context of OST and, to be honest, kind of forgot about existence Command Tiger. Haven't seen the unit in a long time.

Tiger does not have a JP4 to cover it, while IS-2 could have an SU85, if it needs it of course.
Regarding commanders: 1 commander has incendiary, shox, stealth AT and kv8, another has radio intercept, t34-85, insane AI loiter and self repair.
Both commanders are far from bad.

About use cases: I suppose you ignored Storjager's comments and the replay I posted, where panther could do jack vs IS-2.

And about uselessness of spreadsheet: you have to understand where to watch and to what pay attention. Just saying it has little value, because some illusive commanders and unknown use cases does not clarify why IS2 is worse then Tiger. That sounds to me like Ulumu's comment about how Comment has better AI then KT.

Does it need JP4 in most cases? I don't think so, the Tiger penetrate everything except for IS2, ISU and Comet occasionally. And if not, you can build a less versatile but still powerful panther if you need armor or Pz4 can also be enough in most situations or at least until late game.

And I never said Spreadsheet are useless but do not reflect the game complexity. There is a situation, we do see more Tigers than IS2s, why? Does your spreadsheet bring an answer to that?

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.

It also had worse penetration and wasn't exactly accurate or useful against armor at all, it was roflstomped by Tiger every single time, that is why people did not like it. It basically was weaker, unreliable modern KV-2.

Does it need JP4 in most cases? I don't think so, the Tiger penetrate everything except for IS2, ISU and Comet occasionally. And if not, you can build a less versatile but still powerful panther if you need armor or Pz4 can also be enough in most situations or at least until late game.

And I never said Spreadsheet are useless but do not reflect the game complexity. There is a situation, we do see more Tigers than IS2s, why? Does your spreadsheet bring an answer to that?

name me realistic scenario within meta, where Tiger needs its penetration, except facing a comet or a churchill. I want to hear specifics. Because if you are facing an ISU, then it is same like with IS2, you are in a wrong game mode and you probably want to have fun with a big boy tank, because you are bored of meta.
And no, JP4 is not picked by its penetration values, but because it is a 60 range TD with stealth and great veterancy.

And I never said Spreadsheet are useless but do not reflect the game complexity. There is a situation, we do see more Tigers than IS2s, why? Does your spreadsheet bring an answer to that?

because it is a poster tank that is extremely loved and cherished by axis fanboys and wehraboos as an example of wunderwaffe. Exactly the same reason why people pick sentimental cars in racing, same shit here.

The Spreadsheet allows you to see the actual potential of units, without leaning on different completely opposite anecdotal experience, not mentioning that people often remember the worst shit that happened to him, often disregarding the "lucky moments". Like the whole Donnies thread about how pak and p4 are hugely inaccurate and how OST needs more accuracy. Or 100s thread about how USF m1 AT even with Sabot rounds is the worst AT gun imaginable, or random Ullumu's claims how red units are always OP in the most dramatic fashion imaginable.

Please give specifics why Tiger is superior and why IS2 is bad. Because there are already real examples in this thread of how IS2 could be used to a great effect.

name me realistic scenario within meta, where Tiger needs its penetration, except facing a comet or a churchill. I want to hear specifics. Because if you are facing an ISU, then it is same like with IS2, you are in a wrong game mode and you probably want to have fun with a big boy tank, because you are bored of meta.
And no, JP4 is not picked by its penetration values, but because it is a 60 range TD with stealth and great veterancy.



because it is a poster tank that is extremely loved and cherished by axis fanboys and wehraboos as an example of wunderwaffe. Exactly the same reason why people pick sentimental cars in racing, same shit here.

The Spreadsheet allows you to see the actual potential of units, without leaning on different completely opposite anecdotal experience, not mentioning that people often remember the worst shit that happened to him, often disregarding the "lucky moments". Like the whole Donnies thread about how pak and p4 are hugely inaccurate and how OST needs more accuracy. Or 100s thread about how USF m1 AT even with Sabot rounds is the worst AT gun imaginable, or random Ullumu's claims how red units are always OP in the most dramatic fashion imaginable.

Please give specifics why Tiger is superior and why IS2 is bad. Because there are already real examples in this thread of how IS2 could be used to a great effect.

Unit's stat means nothing without context, you look like a well known troll here saying sherman is better AT than Pz4 because it has higher penetration raw value.
If tiger were solely a sentimental unit, we would see a lot of post about it being underwhelming. In fact when the Tiger and alike were underwhelming we saw a lot of post about it.

Now I never said the IS2 was worst than the Iiger, In fact I have no opinion on it because I barely use it myself and only play Soviet in non competitive matches. What I highlighted is that Average DPS overtime isn't a valid argument if you don't define what the correct opportunity time in which units can deliver their outcomes. And this opportunity time can't be seen in a spreadsheet.

Now I never said the IS2 was worst than the Iiger, In fact I have no opinion on it because I barely use it myself and only play Soviet in non competitive matches. What I highlighted is that Average DPS overtime isn't a valid argument if you don't define what the correct opportunity time in which units can deliver their outcomes. And this opportunity time can't be seen in a spreadsheet.

Well, then how would you define and quantify this ominous opportunity time and how does it differ for, say, the IS-2 and the Tiger?

Well, then how would you define and quantify this ominous opportunity time and how does it differ for, say, the IS-2 and the Tiger?

Experience, faction design, gameplay.

Let's take some examples, the JP4 is the best TD in game statistically wise but nobody really use it until after building a panther or a KT. The Stug is also super good, it counters any medium tank and it still very good vs premium medium but yet nobody use it extensively, why? The Ez8 is very good everyone says it so why don't we see it in teamgame?

You can't answer those examples with spreadsheet stats, their stats are all very good but nobody use them as we think it should.

Why do people stress so much about the IS2? It's a decent enough heavy tank. Could use some love in form of either survivability or damage to 200 with a fuel increase but what more could you want? When it does hit, it hits hard. I mean, I don't remember when was the last time I used attack with a Pershing (which I play in 80-90% of games). Only attack ground. Try using attack ground with an IS2, target the rough center of a squad and watch them die.

I personally would buff the damage of IS2 to 200 to reflect it's 122mm cannon and increase the fuel price a bit.
In teamgames, IS2 won't necessarily be the winning card but it's a great defender, especially since katyushas are stock.

If you want to push with an I22, get double katys, have conscripts only (don't go penals due to the bleed) and always push after you saturate the frontline with rockets. Due to the nature of 3v3+ maps, it' easy to target werfers, katys, stukas...

2x katy + IS2 + SU85 is 60 pop cap
Double engies: 10 pop = 70 pop cap
3 conscripts + the quad for suppression or maxim and you have a decent enough late game (99pop), especially since you can plant mines and you are not really spending munitions on some weapon upgrades, while the 7 man cons can take a lot of heat in pushes (+ molly with hurrah for MGs). I don't see a hole in that 3v3 late game roster.

You definitely have a defensive line that is hard to break and you have katys for offense and defense. You have the quad for suppression and AA and you have mines. SU85 is great at defending points, being a casemate and having good ROF.

Again, I'd buff the IS2 damage to 200 and increase the fuel price a bit but that's it, overall it's a great tank in all game modes, you just have to adjust the build around it.

Unit's stat means nothing without context, you look like a well known troll here saying sherman is better AT than Pz4 because it has higher penetration raw value.

quote me.

Again you say a lot, but no context. Give context and examples.

Experience, faction design, gameplay.

Let's take some examples, the JP4 is the best TD in game statistically wise but nobody really use it until after building a panther or a KT. The Stug is also super good, it counters any medium tank and it still very good vs premium medium but yet nobody use it extensively, why? The Ez8 is very good everyone says it so why don't we see it in teamgame?

You can't answer those examples with spreadsheet stats, their stats are all very good but nobody use them as we think it should.

I partially agree, however as you said previously, spreadsheets help.

At the very least they help you focus on the actual problems. Some units are not used because they don't fit very well into the build. In these cases, buffing their combat power will be the wrong way to go.
In some cases, you just need a different spreadsheet. Why is SU76 the almost never built for Soviets? Because their AI in the early game is bad (infantry calcs), T70 is the better way to go and can also at least block other LVs (vehicle calcs). Doesn't give the full picture obviously, but they can help tremendously to identify the actual problems.

There's no use discussing anecdotal evidence of 1-2 games when you can clearly show that this is either observer bias or a rare case. And you can proof that by running theoretical calcs.

I partially agree, however as you said previously, spreadsheets help.

At the very least they help you focus on the actual problems. Some units are not used because they don't fit very well into the build. In these cases, buffing their combat power will be the wrong way to go.
In some cases, you just need a different spreadsheet. Why is SU76 the almost never built for Soviets? Because their AI in the early game is bad (infantry calcs), T70 is the better way to go and can also at least block other LVs (vehicle calcs). Doesn't give the full picture obviously, but they can help tremendously to identify the actual problems.

There's no use discussing anecdotal evidence of 1-2 games when you can clearly show that this is either observer bias or a rare case. And you can proof that by running theoretical calcs.

Yes but spreadsheets can't observe why while having good stat the IS2 is barely used. So maybe its because other unit's stats, maybe because of the meta, or build order, or cost etc...
I take again the Sherman example, it has on paper good AT stat, but once you compare it with armor it faces they suddenly don't look like so powerful.

Let's think about the parallel between Tiger and IS2. On paper they have the same AI DPS according to MMX, but both tanks don't have the same speed, could it be possible that the Tiger being able to close the distance faster and disengage faster is used more aggressively and thus regularly at medium range while the IS2 being slower is more likely to shot at max range making the difference people are seeing. Or that a good part of IS2 AI dps comes from the dushka which is modified by the constant late game yellow cover all around the map.

My point was only there, Stats are indeed a good 1st point to take in account but you can't stop by it and say everything is fine or broken because stats are ok or not.