Why is IS2 so godly, and tiger is so shitty?

Just lost 2 IS2's. First one went down to a panther / shreks and the second to a dug in 88 (or whatever it is) and a panther. The IS2 was well-supported but it's armour sucks.

It's *not* a breakthrough tank like the Tiger. As Ferrozoica says, it's currently configured as a 120-tonne sniper.

Outside the elephant its frontal armor is thebhihhest in game. Its just thenPak 43 has 100% Pen on everything and can kill any SU tank in three shots. And Panthers have high Pen and the same hps.

Imho the IS2 should have Tiger HPs instead of a panthers. Since ost has so many high pen units SU might as well ignore the armor stat and focus on hps.

Outside the elephant its frontal armor is thebhihhest in game. Its just thenPak 43 has 100% Pen on everything and can kill any SU tank in three shots. And Panthers have high Pen and the same hps.

Imho the IS2 should have Tiger HPs instead of a panthers. Since ost has so many high pen units SU might as well ignore the armor stat and focus on hps.

Are you suggesting a serious buff to the IS-2 while leaving the Tiger the same? Seriously please think about the balance issues that would cause.

Are you suggesting a serious buff to the IS-2 while leaving the Tiger the same? Seriously please think about the balance issues that would cause.

The IS2 costs more rhan the Tiger. Fact. If they dont wanr it to be as heavy than make it cost 200 Fuel. That works too.

The IS2 costs more rhan the Tiger. Fact. If they dont wanr it to be as heavy than make it cost 200 Fuel. That works too.

Your point is that the IS2 costs more and has lower HP. On the other hand it has more armor at 325, and other than the Pak43 the units with the highest penetration are the Panther and Pak 40 at 170. Your implication that the high armour of the IS2 is useless here:

Since ost has so many high pen units SU might as well ignore the armor stat and focus on hps.

is entirely incorrect, as these units have only a 52% chance of getting a damaging hit on the front.

You also happened to miss the facts that the IS2 has higher penetration than the Tiger, lower rate of fire, larger AoE, higher damage, lower rear armor, appear in differetlnt doctrines, and appear in different factions, thus will counter different units and will face entirely different counters itself.

My point? The two tanks serve two different roles for two different factions. Comparing the units head to head, stat-wise, is pointless. Best to see if the two units are worth their costs in their respective roles- for example, the IS2 serves admirably against the small squad sizes of the Germans and tier 3 tanks (maybe with the exception of kiting Stugs) while being inefficient against an opponent who took the opportunity to tech to Panthers while you waited for 9CPs. On the other hand the Tiger can cost-effectively take on heavy call-ins like the IS2 being cheaper and better in the anti-tank role while not being nearly as effective at clearing the map of Soviet infantry. Apples and oranges, really.

^ Fair enough, but late game nowadays is panther and tiger swarm. ZiS get one-shotted and SU-85s are made of cotton wool. And the call-in tanks get mauled.

^ Fair enough, but late game nowadays is panther and tiger swarm. ZiS get one-shotted and SU-85s are made of cotton wool. And the call-in tanks get mauled.

I'd say the problem isn't with the IS2 but with the Zis... some sort of AP round ability for both factions, after tier 3 or 4 for Soviets or tier 4 for Germans would be useful. Personally I haven't seen a Zis get one-shotted by anything other than artillery as well (discounting the Ace in all its idiotic glory)- it's a lot more resilient and retains vet a lot easier than the Pak, for sure. SU85s become really good with vet as well (I believe their reload goes down to something like 2 seconds).

Seems like the Soviets and the Germans would probably prefer it if the stats on the IS2 and Tiger were switched, interestingly- the Soviets complain about a lack of anti-tank and the Germans a lack of anti-infantry, and the Tiger and IS2 have the exact opposite roles.

I'm fine with it though, though a small cost decrease would be nice, it is after all, asymmetrical to the tiger and it has very clear counters such as a panthers and tigers

My key complaint (and I will make a thread about this later) about the game is the fact that the Soviet heavy armor is rather defensive. It's defensive due to their cost effectiveness.

German armor is more offensive.

I don't agree with this design choice. The developers could have made German and Soviet armor equally offensive and defensive overall.


Even when I am using the IS-2 or ISU-152, I still need to have a Zis team (2 x zis ) supported by 1 conscript or 1 HMG. This makes my advance slow and prodding, as I cover the valuable heavy tanks with the Zis guns. The Zis guns, likewise, get covered by the AI ability of my tanks.

When playing as German with heavies, I don't need paks. I often just get 2 panzershreck squads. This and G43 grenadiers gives the tank and infantry group a fast offensive edge as the anti-tank guns slows the advance down.

The Zis guns are worse in AT than the pak yet when playing as Soviets they are absolutely essential buys. When going t3 soviet, without Zis guns you are in trouble.