Who else loves the ISU these days? :D

I would agree to an extent.

Relic has said that the way they balance is asymmetrical. ISU is one unit with no turret in one faction restricted to doctrine. USF has no super heavy or even a heavy at all. It is pretty much fact that allies have to deal with super heavies much more frequently while lacking the infantry AT that the axis has. Not every side has equal this or equal that, you know?

But they got skins for heavy tanks...who knows what's up

You can reach 12 CP by 20 mins. Even if your fuel is harassed if you don't tech, you'll always have enough fuel to call it in.

This is an issue with all heavy tank call ins. The problem is worst and most apparent with the ISU. It has excellent AI (wiping AT guns, and squads easily) and the 240 AT dmg is quite good.

The ISU would be better if it required teching and the CP cost increased, ALONG with all other heavy tanks. It's a strong unit that comes out too easily. If anything, just removeit's ability to wipe AT guns in 1-2 shots.

I think you need to play americans a bit more if you think their AT gun can spot for itself, the ability increases range and nothing else

| | | | | | | | sight_radius_modifier: {
| | | | | | | | | $REF: "modifiers\sight_radius_modifier.lua";
| | | | | | | | | application_type: "apply_to_entity";
| | | | | | | | | exclusive: false;
| | | | | | | | | modifier_id: "";
| | | | | | | | | negative_tooltip: 11001826;
| | | | | | | | | positive_tooltip: 11001839;
| | | | | | | | | target_type_name: "";
| | | | | | | | | usage_type: "multiplication";
| | | | | | | | | value: 1.75f;
| | | | | | | | };
| | | | | | | | range_weapon_modifier: {
| | | | | | | | | $REF: "modifiers\range_weapon_modifier.lua";
| | | | | | | | | application_type: "apply_to_weapon";
| | | | | | | | | exclusive: false;
| | | | | | | | | modifier_id: "";
| | | | | | | | | negative_tooltip: 11001780;
| | | | | | | | | positive_tooltip: 11001781;
| | | | | | | | | target_type_name: "hardpoint_01";
| | | | | | | | | usage_type: "addition";
| | | | | | | | | value: 10f;

hm. guess youre actually the one who needs to play americans more.

I would agree to an extent.

Relic has said that the way they balance is asymmetrical. ISU is one unit with no turret in one faction restricted to doctrine. USF has no super heavy or even a heavy at all. It is pretty much fact that allies have to deal with super heavies much more frequently while lacking the infantry AT that the axis has. Not every side has equal this or equal that, you know?

That is besides the point. I am aware of the asymetric nature of this games balancing, and perfectly fine with it, the point was that the ISU provides too much capability for the cost, especially so because it can do what no other unit in the game can do to nearly the same extent, ie. negating inf vet in the late game.
As for a US heavy, I would not mind a doctrinal Pershing or Jumbo Sherman as long as its properly balanced, I am not of the opinion that it would be an insurmountable obstacle to implement them, or that they would necessarily put the other factions at too much of a disadvantage. Variatio delectat, anyways.

The fact that soviet T4 is crap and USF doesn't have any heavy tank makes me opposite to a nerf, even though I also think that ISU overperfoms.

Switching between HE and AP rounds would be a good idea, as it would reduce AI damage when ISU is facing enemy tanks enabling some infantry approach, and it would introduce some micro in a unit that currently only requires going forward or backward.

Can you guys just stop with this Soviet T4 is crap nonsense?

It got very solid AT option in terms of SU-85 and a solid AI option in terms of Katyusha. The only unit that's somehow strange is SU-76 but that's because of the unit design.

The only reason people don't go T4 is due to call ins being better and more economical option that allows you to save resources and still get very good tanks.
You're getting more for less.

Yes, armor is armor, but effectiveness of this armor is dependent purely on the penetration of AT it faces.

Unless you want to argue that 300 armor against 200 penetration is the same as 300 armor against 140 penetration or (PaK40 vs USF AT gun).

And anti tank guns are not even close to being the same. Penetrations are different, rates of fire are different(both in favor of axis).

Sure, not everything is a Panther, but the most common AT, AT guns and zookas/shrecks have wide enough gap in performance to say 300 allied armor is nowhere near being equal 300 axis armor.

Its not theorycrafting, its not myths or fairy tales, its hard facts based on in game stats of units in question, you can't really argue that, unless you want to argue stats.

Oh, and I'm not saying ISU armor is weak, its fine.
I'm saying its not equal to Tigers in effectiveness due to meaningful and noticeable AT difference.

When I spoke of AT guns I thought mostly of ZiS-3 vs Pak40 I admit, which are similar in penetration. But even the American gun has an ability that increases its penetration also to a similar level, and since the ability lasts 30 seconds or so I think it makes very well sense to compare it to them.

Rate of fire may be different, but you know, there are so many things that can affect tank combat a lot outside of that. The ZiS-3 crews might survive longer than Pak40 crews because they have more health, Guards Rifles can button tanks, which effectively gives you enough time for some extra shots while he is standing there doing nothing, and Mark Vehicle commander ability reduces the amount of shots you require.

Now you can rightfully say that the OKW Command Panther has a similar ability to Mark Vehicle, even if that is more rare. You could also say that not every Russian commander has access to those things, I could say now that the ISU commander has coincidentally access to both Guards Rifles and Mark Vehicle and then also to the Sturmovik Triple Bomb drop that if it hits will do massive damage to vehicles.

We were not just talking about that commander, I am aware, but all I want to say is there are so many different things that could affect the outcome of the fight that I find the general statement that Axis armor is significantly more valuable than Russian / Allied armor not very accurate or useful.

Can you guys just stop with this Soviet T4 is crap nonsense?

It got very solid AT option in terms of SU-85 and a solid AI option in terms of Katyusha. The only unit that's somehow strange is SU-76 but that's because of the unit design.

The only reason people don't go T4 is due to call ins being better and more economical option that allows you to save resources and still get very good tanks.
You're getting more for less.

+1

I hate the ISU.

It's combination of AI and AT ability just makes it retarded. It's a crutch for bad players.

Superweapons/units have no place in this game in my opinion, so if you don't like it for soviets, keep in mind the fact that the Germans have more of them.

Well, they are in the game, too late to pull them out out, so only option to balance them on the best way possible. Or nerf them to the ground... Although make T4 for ostheer a viable option...
Dont know what with the soviet T4, maybe remove t34-85 from commander and put it in T4? Dunno...

hm. guess youre actually the one who needs to play americans more.

Weird then, I've yet to notice any sight increase at all and I'm avid user of this ability.

Doesn't it work similar to ZiS Vet1?
It will track a tank, allowing you to fire at it up to certain range even when in fog of war.

Can you guys just stop with this Soviet T4 is crap nonsense?

It got very solid AT option in terms of SU-85 and a solid AI option in terms of Katyusha. The only unit that's somehow strange is SU-76 but that's because of the unit design.

The only reason people don't go T4 is due to call ins being better and more economical option that allows you to save resources and still get very good tanks.
You're getting more for less.

SU85 is extremely bulky, slow and lacks a decent frontal armor to match its slow speed. Btw, its pen values and price are not magnificent if compared with soviet call-ins. When most axis AT power comes from schrecks blobs, you realize that SU85 doesn't do the job at all.

Katyusha is still a RNG arty that sometimes can fail spectacularly even at close range. It's a huge and bulky unit and can be one-shotted and destroyed by everything except small weapon. It isn't useful for dealing with attacking infantry, and the most you can achieve with them is to punish camping players or break havok on a OKW heal truck.
Against no-braindead players, only the first 4 rockets will do damage, while other mobile arty units can concetrate all its fire power in a single barrage.

Su76, no comments.

In resume, going T4 means no AI power, as katyusha fires with unpredected results every 110 seconds (Hi, Mr.overnerf) and once flanked it will be destroyed without any chance to escape. With axis infantry raping all soviet infantry except shocks, you will need armored AI power, yes or yes.

And SU85 is a microintensive unit unable to kill heavys like Elefant or Jadgtiger, even in packs, due to its slow speed, lack of armor and non-rotatory turret. Moreover, you can't be aggresive with them as they're a terrible flanking unit.

T4 means playing defensively, which is terrible for soviets which rely in being aggressive against the axis better lategame units.

It's much safer to make T34s and make up for its lacking AT power with Mark Vehicle, ZiS and guards.

The problem with the ISU-152 is that it hard-counters its hard-counters.

Paks and Schrecks will often get oneshot-killed. That would then leave you with tanks as a counter.

But tanks only work when the ISU-152 is not supported at all. One mine, AT-nade, button or Zis, will turn the odds into the ISU-152s favor.

That leaves the German player with no hard counter (except the JT and Ele). The non doctrinal options are insufficient - mediocre at best.

That means if you didn´t go for those doctrines, you are done on an equal skill level.

Germans lack isu counters..main issue.One shotting vet units=bad design.At least earlier u had elfant..now only jagdtiger.
Pak 43 will get bombed thank u.Rest blown away.

As commented in other threads, 1 sec setup time for ISU to shoot and the need of switching between HE and AP rounds will be enough to make the unit balanced.

The problem with the ISU-152 is that it hard-counters its hard-counters.

Paks and Schrecks will often get oneshot-killed. That would then leave you with tanks as a counter.

But tanks only work when the ISU-152 is not supported at all. One mine, AT-nade, button or Zis, will turn the odds into the ISU-152s favor.

That leaves the German player with no hard counter (except the JT and Ele). The non doctrinal options are insufficient - mediocre at best.

That means if you didn´t go for those doctrines, you are done on an equal skill level.

Hardcounters for ISU are

-Elephant
-JagdTiger
-Flanking

If your unit is not one of the two, then its not a hard counter unless it gets on its ass.

That means if you didn´t go for those doctrines, you are done on an equal skill level.

sucks doesn't it?

Hardcounters for ISU are

-Elephant
-JagdTiger
-Flanking

If your unit is not one of the two, then its not a hard counter unless it gets on its ass.

He already said that. Those are listed in his post.

He already said that. Those are listed in his post.

He mentions one shotted paks and pgrens.

If they were one shotted, they were right before ISU.

If they were before isu, they were not flanking.

So no, he didn't said that. However he said how to NOT use these weapons.

Its nice when 2 LMG grens will walk over maxim upfront, but same trick won't work against every single unit in game.