su-85 needs attention.

Really? That seems like the exact purpose tank destroyers were built for.


As we all discuss this it's starting to become obvious to me the problem with turretless tanks in CoH2, because it's not just the SU-85. These weapons were designed with super hard front armor to sit in the face of armor and win. The buffs these units need are not mobility buffs, they are going to always going to have terrible mobility. They need stronger front armor (only front) and in the case of SU-85 it needs a higher penetration value. I get the most rng lol moments with the SU-85, when I have to fire 20 shots to blow a tiger or 10-15 to blow a panther (sorry I don't always count, but they are this bad or worse). It performs well against the PIV. I think the scatter is a little off too, it misses a lot at max range. It could use just a small reduction so it occasionally misses, that way people who actually pay attention can back up, but the careless are destroyed.

IRL, TDs, and ATGs got only a few shots off before they are positioned and had to GTFO.
Armor was not their defence. A prepared ambush position (hull down, for TDs), was.
But, also, thats all they needed. If you wherent certain ypu couldnt kill it the armor in 1- shots, you stayed quiet or repositoned. IRL vehicles didnt have HP pools. If there was a good hit from a weapon that could penetrate. You died.
TDs and ATGs where all about ambush, cover and getting that 1-2 crucial shots in to kill thr vehicle, before they located you and hell began.

So unfortunately, the comparison of IRL and a game, ends there already.

It just doesnt work that way in CoH2. ATGs and TDs dont one shot most medium armor, no matter how well you ambush or how good your accuracy, let alone heavier armored vehicles.

So a compromise, that acknowledges and follows the realities of the game, is necessay.
To that end, I support primarily making those shots they do get off, count.
And hence, for SU85 as is the topic of this thread, primarily a focus in range and sight (sight it has), and on ensuring those shots penetrate and count (as as the two others I would like to see raised above ATG levels, to justify the T4 cost).

But as to surviving in the face of returning AT fire, for TDs, they need to withdraw and use range. In the scale of map and the internal systems of the game, TDs just cannot be buffed in armor to resist return fire except by a small margin above now. This is, ironivally, represented in the linear, but also quite marginal penetration and accuracy efficacy of tanks in relation to RANGE (especially turreted ones, and even moreso, when on the move) in response. If the armor is increased, turreted tanks will struggle to have effect on approach and even more importantly, on a successful flank. Primarily, because they have to move to approach, meaning a accuracy reduction, and secondarily, because they are generally outranged in the first place (as well as penetratiin and dmg stats).

TLRD: TDs are like a rook or bishop in chess, and are very vlunerable once exposed, and must remain so. Positioning dor the kill, is everything, and yes, especially for TDs and ATGs, that means flanking support. This is represented in cost however, with turreted tanks generally costing more, though they have less effect, than almost equally armored TDs, which also generally have better maingun stats.

As Ive said, in CoH2, a TD basically amounts to a mobile ATG on a vehicle, rather than infantry weaknesses.
Elephant is an exception, but at its cost and Commander specificity, if carries its own penalties to match those.

Really? That seems like the exact purpose tank destroyers were built for.


As we all discuss this it's starting to become obvious to me the problem with turretless tanks in CoH2, because it's not just the SU-85. These weapons were designed with super hard front armor to sit in the face of armor and win. The buffs these units need are not mobility buffs, they are going to always going to have terrible mobility. They need stronger front armor (only front) and in the case of SU-85 it needs a higher penetration value. I get the most rng lol moments with the SU-85, when I have to fire 20 shots to blow a tiger or 10-15 to blow a panther (sorry I don't always count, but they are this bad or worse). It performs well against the PIV. I think the scatter is a little off too, it misses a lot at max range. It could use just a small reduction so it occasionally misses, that way people who actually pay attention can back up, but the careless are destroyed.

Well, no. Historically speaking here, most of the belligerents had different approaches to dedicated tank destroyers - and sometimes no approach at all, depending on the timeframe.
The Su 85 for example had comparatively weak frontal armor, 45mm at 60degrees. At the time of its introduction, the most common German vehicles (PIV, StuG III) could penetrate it from upwards of a 1000 meters. US TDs (Wolverine, Hellcat, etc.) were even worse off in that regard and were not reliably protected against even the more common German autocannons. At least in theory, the SU-85s strong suit was its low silhouette and therefore its easy concealability...which is exactly what makes a Pak dangerous to a tank. It was most certainly ill suited to any straight up fight, and neither were its US counterparts. With the Germans, the picture is more complicated and oscillates all the way from the very poorly armoured Marder to platforms like the Ferdinand.

Well, no. Historically speaking here, most of the belligerents had different approaches to dedicated tank destroyers - and sometimes no approach at all, depending on the timeframe.
The Su 85 for example had comparatively weak frontal armor, 45mm at 60degrees. At the time of its introduction, the most common German vehicles (PIV, StuG III) could penetrate it from upwards of a 1000 meters. US TDs (Wolverine, Hellcat, etc.) were even worse off in that regard and were not reliably protected against even the more common German autocannons. At least in theory, the SU-85s strong suit was its low silhouette and therefore its easy concealability...which is exactly what makes a Pak dangerous to a tank. It was most certainly ill suited to any straight up fight, and neither were its US counterparts. With the Germans, the picture is more complicated and oscillates all the way from the very poorly armoured Marder to platforms like the Ferdinand.

Well said.

And hence, in the interests and following from the games restrictions on historical realism, I think TDs (and ATGs for that matter, althoug to a lesser degree) need to excercise range and sight first, and, in support of that, the few shots they do get off before pursuit/flank, need to count, especially against turreted tanks.

Increase in armor would be bad, because, as I said, due to the relatively low scaling of penetratiin at ragne on turreted tanks, they would be propoatiinately less effective on a successful approach (which is their job, really). You shouldnt be sitting taking facepnches from turreted tanks anyways. Get your few shots in, and reverse. Especially in SU85, thanks to Scope.

Also, as they somewhat parallel ATGs in function and practice (with a mobility advantage and thanks to armor, an relative immunity to AI effects which ATGs reicprocally are vulnerable to) I would like to see all TDs perform better than ATGs, as befitting of their tier cost so that they can make those shots count. Hence, better penetration and better damage, than their ATG equivalents. SU85 needs to hit harder and with more penetratiin, as befitting its T4 status. (And frankly, Stug also needs a buff in this department, but that is not the topic here). Sov can indeed "skip" tiers, but that is answered by a bit higher cost, and more importantly, a rather significant split in what each tier offers. Inlight of that, I dont think SU85 needs a cost increase for the relatively small buff of penetration and damage I proposed, to just above ATGs.

Mobility was already dealt with, at great length, and for very good reason. I dont want to see necessary changes redacted on those, and basically step back 6months in the balance process. If TDs are to be fixed now, lets please try an alternative solution that doesnt break what has already once been fixed.

Back on topic, the Su-85 I think is fine in all respects except the pen. It needs to be able to pen heavy tanks more reliable, and it should always pen a p4. This is because of the speed and smoke the p4 has it doesn't need to armor to save it from that Su-85.

Actually the SU-85 can penetrate a Panzer IV with ease at any range. Against a Tiger Tank, it has a 60% chance minimum to penetrate on a hit. It has slightly higher mobility and less penetration loss than the Jagdpanzer IV. The Jagdpanzer IV has much higher armour, but is reliant on spotters and cannot see very far on its own, nor can it watch its back. The SU-85 can watch it's back while moving, and spot for itself while hunting.