Next patch ETA

offtopic:

btw. one of the developer said weeks ago, that the elefant was and will be the best tank
(against armour I guess) in coh2

Doesn't change my point.
If ISU is op, so is elephant.

ISU makes your infantry disappear, ele makes your tanks disappear.
Perhaps it would be health for the discussion for a dev to hop in and actually explain them both.

ISU makes infantry, medium tanks and if there is not elefant, also makes the game dissapear...

I dont know why they touched the ISU, no one complained about it in last patch, it was already fine. Just needed Hold fire...

Doesn't change my point.
If ISU is op, so is elephant.

ISU makes your infantry disappear, ele makes your tanks disappear.
Perhaps it would be health for the discussion for a dev to hop in and actually explain them both.

Because ISU makes infantry, tanks(heavy or medium), bunkers, buildings, and your base disappear. you can flank ele with penals and throw charges all over the thing.

You are confusing ele with PaK43.

Also if you leave your ele unattended for penals to somehow sneak up on it despote spotting scopes allowing you to see half of the map, then you probably have 5 digit rank in team games only.

You are confusing ele with PaK43.

Also if you leave your ele unattended for penals to somehow sneak up on it despote spotting scopes allowing you to see half of the map, then you probably have 5 digit rank in team games only.

I said it CAN be done. When you have ISU 1 shotting all of the ele's support away in 15 seconds its easy to do whatever you want with it.

Point is ele is a fuck of alot more balanced than ISU. You so desperate to have the ele nerfed when it really isn't that bad compared to ISU. So sad cannot see the difference between something kills only tanks and something that kill everything. Must be a biased thing.

Elephant can only do 2 things : Stop tanks and ISu

ISU can do: Rape infantry, rape tanks ( if keep distance and shit ), rape base, shoot down aircraft ( Thanks to the MG ).

Lol I don't know, I notice that most players who goes ISU like to do this: First go Snipers, wait 2CP then get Guards, wait enough then tier 3, T34/76mm out then ISU come out.

And not to mention Sniper spam.....

No one deny that isu is op, but denying that ele is op is purest form of hypocrisy.

That is like saying old panther was fine and balanced because old TA was op.

Elefant is like a Sniper to tanks.
ISU is like a Sniper to f****** everything.

Elefant is like a Sniper to tanks.

So was old panther.

ISU is like a Sniper to f****** everything.

So was old TA.

Both had zealous defenders.
Both were nerfed.

Do you see a pattern here?
If not, let me shed some light on you:

If something is OP, it needs a nerf, it doesn't matter what its target is, if it overperforms it still is OP and comparing it to even more OP stuff as a balance excuse is no argument at all.

I know you will say anything and everything to defend ele, but let me ask this one question:

Have you EVER faced ele in 2v2 against competitive opponents?

So was old panther.

So was old TA.

Both had zealous defenders.
Both were nerfed.

Do you see a pattern here?
If not, let me shed some light on you:

If something is OP, it needs a nerf, it doesn't matter what its target is, if it overperforms it still is OP and comparing it to even more OP stuff as a balance excuse is no argument at all.

I know you will say anything and everything to defend ele, but let me ask this one question:

Have you EVER faced ele in 2v2 against competitive opponents?

Yeah, 2 Elephants on Road to Khrakov in 2vs2 and I managed to killed 3 of them then lost. It was the FAHU guy that got me.

But I don't get why is it OP ? Elephant is just a tank destroyer so it should be like that. ISU is a different thing.

I don't see the issue with the Elefant at all.

It shows up incredibly late in the game. Most of the time I'm eligible to get one, the game has already been decided one way or the other. I do enjoy the bitter tears of folks who creep up the field with two focus-fired SU85's for 40 minutes then lose their marbles when the tables are turned.

I do think the balance has swung a smidge too far in favor of the ISU. If it goes to 10-11 CP's its probably fine.

I really don't see the problem between elephants and ISU. They both are powerful late game units that can be taken down if flanked. Not to mention it's a huge investment to field either.

@Katitof

The Elefant has to retreat as soon a zis Gun is charging, conscripts or rifle guards.
I managed to take out several elefant just by pinning them with rifle guards and call in an IL-2 strike.

You don't see that an Elefant just is the counter for one unit type, while the ISU is the counter for everything.

While the Elefant can easily take out tanks he is unable to guard stars.
The ISU on the other hand can be simply parked like a bus and shoot everything that is comming to capture the star, or trying to take it out.

If you don't see the issue that a game shouldn't have a unit that is the counter to everything you are completely biased.
It takes moreover the fun as you have now always to take the according to you "OP" Elefant commander just to be ensured to have a chance for victory.
It amplifies boredom and takes out variety of the game, that is a great issue, the Elefant does not so therefore they are not comparable.

So was old panther.

So was old TA.

Both had zealous defenders.
Both were nerfed.

Both were wrecked by nerfs after the community almost unanimously agreed they were OP. The ISU-152 is definitely next in line for execution, but that doesn't mean players shouldn't make noise about it.

If something is OP, it needs a nerf, it doesn't matter what its target is, if it overperforms it still is OP and comparing it to even more OP stuff as a balance excuse is no argument at all.

Oh really? Sounds like the KV-8 situation to me in a nutshell. A unit that has always over performed for it's cost...and according to your own argument it doesn't matter that the KV-8 is an AI unit; it is over-performing and as such it needs a nerf. Great, nerf the KV-8 and then we can talk Elefant. No? Double-standard right? Got it. Any more weak, faulty arguments you'd like me to dismantle?

I see Kat has started adopting the "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" approach to ISU balancing.

I see Kat has started adopting the "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" approach to ISU balancing.

Not really.
I don't even like ISU, so the only time I see it is if its being built against me.
I don't like basing my whole strat around a single unit that comes extremely late.

What I can't stand however is complete and utter hypocrisy of german only players and their approach of "asymmetric balance is good as long as its german unit that is stronger" bullshit.

Everyone complains about ele being too strong ever since it was a stock T4 none doctrinal unit.
Same complaints are about ISU.

The only difference is, ele was used pretty much always while ISU was used only in "lol I've beat you so hard that I can field ISU" games and now that it fights armor better(not even 50% better, because armor and/or mobility of vehicles went up as well) its suddenly op.

Neither of 100 range units should be in game, but at the time relic didn't give two shits about balance, only what was "fun" to them completely and utterly ignoring negative feedback about these two units.

At least I'm not mad enough to defend "LOL you can't build any armor now and if you have T4 you can quit game" unit. Infantry weakness would be an excuse if soviets had effective AT inf. They don't and you need to be a fucking retard to ever loose ele, meanwhile grens with MG42 and likely an ostwind support will push everything off the map effortlessly, because soviet player can't use half of his arsenal only because of one indestructible unit.

So stop being a double standard hypocrites.
As I've said numerous times now, either both are OP or none of them is.

ISU run better on the map, elefant is a big turtle that is only good vs tank's... ISU explodes all... But is counter by Tiger anyway... Panther and Brummbar get a small chance...

But soviet have the good T34 34 34 34 34 85 tank from ultra double call ins... I wanna 2x too lol

Not really.
I don't even like ISU, so the only time I see it is if its being built against me.
I don't like basing my whole strat around a single unit that comes extremely late.

What I can't stand however is complete and utter hypocrisy of german only players and their approach of "asymmetric balance is good as long as its german unit that is stronger" bullshit.

Everyone complains about ele being too strong ever since it was a stock T4 none doctrinal unit.
Same complaints are about ISU.

The only difference is, ele was used pretty much always while ISU was used only in "lol I've beat you so hard that I can field ISU" games and now that it fights armor better(not even 50% better, because armor and/or mobility of vehicles went up as well) its suddenly op.

Neither of 100 range units should be in game, but at the time relic didn't give two shits about balance, only what was "fun" to them completely and utterly ignoring negative feedback about these two units.

At least I'm not mad enough to defend "LOL you can't build any armor now and if you have T4 you can quit game" unit. Infantry weakness would be an excuse if soviets had effective AT inf. They don't and you need to be a fucking retard to ever loose ele, meanwhile grens with MG42 and likely an ostwind support will push everything off the map effortlessly, because soviet player can't use half of his arsenal only because of one indestructible unit.

So stop being a double standard hypocrites.
As I've said numerous times now, either both are OP or none of them is.

You're calling it hypocricy but it's not. They are not the same unit. An elephant does not negate all armor instantly despite your penchant for exaggeration. An elephant is not counterless and is not invincible. It is very useful, too useful to not get one in a team game, but this is predominantly because of the rest of the game's balance. The Elephant needs to be made less necessary, but that is a product of other units not performing as well as the Elephant. If you actually just nerfed the Ele and ISU right now I think the balance might actually get worse than it currently is.

We have made the point numerous times already in various threads, but the ISU's ability to destroy infantry and weapon teams is more powerful and useful than the Elefant's ability to destory tanks. The ISU's cost increaes over the elephant would be justified even if it was a horrible AT vehicle barely capable of destroying a scout car. Infantry and weapons teams are extremely important parts of any combined arms strategy. The soviets certainly don't have high powered AT infantry beyond the early game, but this is missing the forest for the trees. Soviet infantry which can laugh in the face of an elephant IS capable of destroying German infantry and German weapons teams. They are capable of capping points and winning games. It's capable of destroying the support that keeps the Elefant safe. And Soviet weapons teams, which the Elephant is also hopeless at damaging, can do real damage to the Elefant. Germany armor that is not backed up by infantry will be destroyed easily by a competent player. This is why the ISU's ability to one-shot infantry and weapons teams is more game-brekaing than what the Elefant can do. It is NOT hypocricy to point this out.

As a matter of principle I WOULD like to see both units not only nerfed but utterly abolished.

None of you, sans Kat, seem to grasp the point.

It doesn't matter if a unit costs, say, 9999 Fuel. It's still broken as all hell if this imaginary unit could 1-shot your base with impunity from across the map, and then even if you got to attacking it, it was incredibly easy to keep alive.

Both the Elefant and ISU are bad, bad concepts. Kiting was a big thing in vCoH; proper M10 and Firefly micro could drop a nice shit into anyone's bowl of cornflakes. But 100 range units? Why not give us auto-fire howitzers? It's a bad idea, and the FlaK 88/36 was feared because of its ability. But the FlaK 88 was also immobile, almost defenseless against infantry, could be destroyed with little effort (except the part where it regularly bounces non-upgunned Sherman shots) and it could be de-crewed and turned against its original owner.

None of those statements can be leveled at the Elefant or ISU, and on top of that, both of these derp units can spot for themselves.

If we dropped the range to 60-75 and worked from there I think both units would be fine. For those of you wondering, the ISU-152's standard APHE shell could penetrate something on the order of 150ish mm 105mm of armor at any range (due to the 'HE' in APHE). However, because it's an effing howitzer on treads, it wasn't incredibly accurate and was often used in batteries of 5 vehicles to pour shells into an area to ensure that the target, whatever it was, was good and dead. On top of this, each vehicle could only carry 14 rounds of ammunition and separate powder bags (propellant), and because of the separate shell and charge, even the most experienced crews could coax a 30 second reload out of the gun.

My fix idea would therefore be to keep the gun's power as is, increase the scatter values (I don't have the numbers with me right now, but I'll try and find them) and reload time. It has a meh chance of hitting you, but if it does, it hits like a Mac truck.

As for the Elefant, it just needs a range and armor (or health) reduction. If it's range and health, you just need to hope to god your opponent doesn't get a lucky pen roll (so using it as LEL unkillable troll deathstar would get it dead in short order). It can deflect most rounds, but if it gets penetrated, it hurts. That would encourage pouring much AT into it as possible, because sooner or later you're going to penetrate it and that's going to sting.

EDIT: Here's the pen tables I'm working with, used as part of a realism mod I'm working on in vCoH, with proceeding example of what everything means:


1st value (millimeters of penetration at 100m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)
2nd value (millimeters of penetration at 500m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)
3rd value (millimeters of penetration at 1000m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)
4th value (millimeters of penetration at 1500m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)

P4 L43 75mm
(PzGr 39 (APCBC)
99 = 1 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 99 ÷ 99 = 1 (100% of total penetrating power)
91 = 0.919 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 91 ÷ 99 = 0.919 (91.9% of total penetrating power)
82 = 0.828 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 82 ÷ 99 = 0.828 (82.8% of total penetrating power)
71 = 0.717 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 71 ÷ 99 = 0.717 (71.7% of total penetrating power)

152mm M-1937 ML-20 L/28.8
(BR-540 (APHE)
105 = 1
105 = 1
105 = 1
105 = 1

For reference, the APHE shell of the T-34 obr 1942 (T-34/76), from the same document:

76.2mm F-34 L/41.5
(BR-365 (APHE)
90 = 1
69 = 0.767
61 = 0.678
56 = 0.617

None of you, sans Kat, seem to grasp the point.

It doesn't matter if a unit costs, say, 9999 Fuel. It's still broken as all hell if this imaginary unit could 1-shot your base with impunity from across the map, and then even if you got to attacking it, it was incredibly easy to keep alive.

Both the Elefant and ISU are bad, bad concepts. Kiting was a big thing in vCoH; proper M10 and Firefly micro could drop a nice shit into anyone's bowl of cornflakes. But 100 range units? Why not give us auto-fire howitzers? It's a bad idea, and the FlaK 88/36 was feared because of its ability. But the FlaK 88 was also immobile, almost defenseless against infantry, could be destroyed with little effort (except the part where it regularly bounces non-upgunned Sherman shots) and it could be de-crewed and turned against its original owner.

None of those statements can be leveled at the Elefant or ISU, and on top of that, both of these derp units can spot for themselves.

If we dropped the range to 60-75 and worked from there I think both units would be fine. For those of you wondering, the ISU-152's standard APHE shell could penetrate something on the order of 150ish mm 105mm of armor at any range (due to the 'HE' in APHE). However, because it's an effing howitzer on treads, it wasn't incredibly accurate and was often used in batteries of 5 vehicles to pour shells into an area to ensure that the target, whatever it was, was good and dead. On top of this, each vehicle could only carry 14 rounds of ammunition and separate powder bags (propellant), and because of the separate shell and charge, even the most experienced crews could coax a 30 second reload out of the gun.

My fix idea would therefore be to keep the gun's power as is, increase the scatter values (I don't have the numbers with me right now, but I'll try and find them) and reload time. It has a meh chance of hitting you, but if it does, it hits like a Mac truck.

As for the Elefant, it just needs a range and armor (or health) reduction. If it's range and health, you just need to hope to god your opponent doesn't get a lucky pen roll (so using it as LEL unkillable troll deathstar would get it dead in short order). It can deflect most rounds, but if it gets penetrated, it hurts. That would encourage pouring much AT into it as possible, because sooner or later you're going to penetrate it and that's going to sting.

EDIT: Here's the pen tables I'm working with, used as part of a realism mod I'm working on in vCoH, with proceeding example of what everything means:


1st value (millimeters of penetration at 100m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)
2nd value (millimeters of penetration at 500m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)
3rd value (millimeters of penetration at 1000m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)
4th value (millimeters of penetration at 1500m) = (percentage of total penetrating power; example below)

P4 L43 75mm
(PzGr 39 (APCBC)
99 = 1 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 99 ÷ 99 = 1 (100% of total penetrating power)
91 = 0.919 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 91 ÷ 99 = 0.919 (91.9% of total penetrating power)
82 = 0.828 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 82 ÷ 99 = 0.828 (82.8% of total penetrating power)
71 = 0.717 (99mm is the maximum rated penetrating power, so: 71 ÷ 99 = 0.717 (71.7% of total penetrating power)

152mm M-1937 ML-20 L/28.8
(BR-540 (APHE)
105 = 1
105 = 1
105 = 1
105 = 1

For reference, the APHE shell of the T-34 obr 1942 (T-34/76), from the same document:

76.2mm F-34 L/41.5
(BR-365 (APHE)
90 = 1
69 = 0.767
61 = 0.678
56 = 0.617

+1: both units are very cheesey
+2: range decrease for both, and a medium AI capabiliy nerf for ISU sounds great