How long we have to face ISU witch one shoot everyhting?

jesus Christ it fires a damn 152mm round!!! The KT and JGGT rape tanks too!!! It also has massive armor!!! much more than the ISU!!!

If you wanna talk about realism ISU had terible accuracy and was not that good against tanks. KT will have no problems with ISU. But gameplay > realism

Problem with ISU is it is ultimate counter to everything except planes. I think current call-ins system need some rework. Will you build Panther or call-in Tiger etc... ISU should by more assault gun then tank hunter. If your opponent blobs infantry get ISU. It should have more specific role as anti blob weapon and not all around performer.

I just read the ISU52 wiki entry for some reference.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152
Its a great introduction to the historical equivalent, with some very cool and specific references to tactics involved in it. Unusually much so, compared to many other wiki entries Ive read, as inspired to do so by CoH2.

I recommend it to anyone who doesnt already have even more extensive knowledge of how this armor was fielded. Its quite inspirational for how to field it in your own matches.

Ironically, from my reading of the wiki, it performs ingame just about exactly how I envisage it IRL.

But.
This IS a game.
And it cant sustain this kind of, sorry to say, outright OPness.

The infantry/support obliteration is just completely out of whack as compared to its other excellent stats.
It truly was an awesome piece of armor IRL, that excellently filled many roles, but for purposes of this game, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Edited to add:

However, if there is one way that this unit can perhaps be brought inline while taking a page from historical realism, it would be to dramatically reduce its rate of fire. That is atleast one outstanding option that comes across quite strongly in the wiki, and which perhaps would relegate the ISU52, though incredibly powerful, to a historically accurate, and "playable" level of interbalance.

Please don't bring historical accuracy into this, the game is a strategy game using ww2 for flavour and themes, not unit performance and stats.

Game play wise, this unit has no tradeoffs and excels at both roles (ironically the top gunner used to shoot down planes all day, not sure if it still does).

It is of course weaker than an elephant or jagdtiger in the anti armor role but it is not weak enough to offset it's tremendous anti infantry capability.

Think P4 vs t34,they are both dual role but trade off effectiveness in one role to be better at the other. The ISU's anti armor is far too good to justify its anti infantry.

I just read the ISU52 wiki entry for some reference.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152
Its a great introduction to the historical equivalent, with some very cool and specific references to tactics involved in it. Unusually much so, compared to many other wiki entries Ive read, as inspired to do so by CoH2.

Ironically, from my reading of the wiki, it performs ingame just about exactly how I envisage it IRL.

It truly was an awesome piece of armor IRL, that excellently filled many roles, but for purposes of this game, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Well, if you would want to keep it real it had a one minute reload time, making it weak in fast paced mobile combat.

The least that could be done would be to increase the reload for some more seconds ingame. It currenty fires once every ? 8 ? seconds.

Endeav: I added a paragraph while you posted.

Its not perfect, and I agree that historical accuracy is secondary, but I think this is one instance where perhaps the historical accuracy and gameplay can find a mutual solution.

IE: Dramatically reduce the rate of fire.

The wiki quite strongly highlights this issue, and I think its one that might help fit the ISU52 into the game, without having to nerf its awesome capacity, when it does infsct fire, and in reflection of all 3 roles that it played IRL, as it also does in the game.

Reduced rate of fire opens windows for infantry to survive longer, for armor to complete flanks (doesnt due shit for buildings though, but ).

Do you see what I mean? Have a read of the wiki. Especially the Heavy Tank Destroyer bit.

Cardboard Tank: You get me wrong, dude!

Im not arguing for historical accuracy! Just to take a clue feom historical accuracy, to find a possible solution that "reprrsents" the reality, ingame, while also being operable in a balanced way ingame.

So yes, no 1min reload!

But yes, perhaps some seconds added would maybe do the trick.

Cannonade: I believe it is an internet convention (sadly abused),that if you go back and edit a post, that you clearly indicate that within the post that you have edited it, and spell out the reasons why and how.

I can do that. I will in a second.

But what is also a common convention and occurance, is that someone posts while you are still editing because something cruciak occured to you right as you hit "send" the first time.

It is preferable, afterall, to edit an existing post, rather than double post.

In such cases, it is necessary to inform the respondent that an edit has been made, directly, or they wont know to re-read the post to see the edit. I did specify that the last paragraph was the addition.

Otherwise it lead to deliberate abuse by some, of constantly reformulating their previous posts to mean something they do not, at worst, in a beligerent sense, especially against antagonistic posters, in order to make them look bad and as if they are talking about nothing.

Ive been posting since early 90s on Delphi among others, and operated as moderator on many forums.
I am thoroughly familiar with netiquette, but thank you for your reminder to include the "Edited to add".

Im sure I can rely on you to remind all other persons who edit a post of that, everytime, hereafter To keep up the conventions!

Endeav: I added a paragraph while you posted.

Its not perfect, and I agree that historical accuracy is secondary, but I think this is one instance where perhaps the historical accuracy and gameplay can find a mutual solution.

IE: Dramatically reduce the rate of fire.

The wiki quite strongly highlights this issue, and I think its one that might help fit the ISU52 into the game, without having to nerf its awesome capacity, when it does infsct fire, and in reflection of all 3 roles that it played IRL, as it also does in the game.

Reduced rate of fire opens windows for infantry to survive longer, for armor to complete flanks (doesnt due shit for buildings though, but ).

Do you see what I mean? Have a read of the wiki. Especially the Heavy Tank Destroyer bit.

Cardboard Tank: You get me wrong, dude!

Im not arguing for historical accuracy! Just to take a clue feom historical accuracy, to find a possible solution that "reprrsents" the reality, ingame, while also being operable in a balanced way ingame.

So yes, no 1min reload!

But yes, perhaps some seconds added would maybe do the trick.

The ISU has the second longest refire rate (KV-2 has a longer one) in the game. Flavourwise this 'feels' very long in game, so I think they already captured that effect. Longer reload times than this results in something like the sturmtiger. Maybe it could be a little bit longer, but 2-3 seconds isn't going to change the net effect of the unit. Now they did use history to adopt the historical flavour of having it a dual-purpose unit, but gameplay wise, its too good at both jobs, and decreasing its rate of fire isn't necessarily the solution, IMO.

Something like reducing its deflection damage some more would be a start, since it still reliably does damage to heavy tanks even if it doesn't penetrate.

I don't think it's necessary to remove these long range units from the game nor do I think it's necessary to limit them to 1.

I'm convinced that Elefant/ISU/ andd Jagdtiger can be implemented in a way, that doesn't screw over the whole balance.

It´s either going to be overnerf or overbuff.
Even in the REMOTE case they would be balanced, forums will still cry it´s either OP or UP.

______________________

Even if you tweak it to have a slower RoF, it will be a unit complained about because it "wipes" squads, at a lower rate
You can only nerf it to the point people consider it is not a viable unit. At that point people will consider it is "balanced".

Maybe it could be a little bit longer, but 2-3 seconds isn't going to change the net effect of the unit.

Perhaps you are right.

But atm, I am of the opinion that it could actually make a very remarkable difference that might surprise most people, and still allow for it to maintain its essential power.

Those seconds are crucial in infantry and armor action around it.
Each one counts.

Only way for me is restrict to one buildable at 15 cp for all 3 and give them back old ranges.It would capture the awesome power of the units..but u could never spam them..only 1 buildable..lost and ur done.Also u could never revolve ur strategy around them..as they would come very late.IT would be a normal game..with them as a very late cherry on the cake.This would keep them awesome,yet in a way prevent them from affecting the meta due to cp and 1 available.

I can do that. I will in a second.

Thanks

..................

Ive been posting since early 90s on Delphi among others, and operated as moderator on many forums.
I am thoroughly familiar with netiquette, but thank you for your reminder to include the "Edited to add".

Im sure I can rely on you to remind all other persons who edit a post of that, everytime, hereafter To keep up the conventions!

Ofc. And I am sure you will help me, by heading up anything I miss.

Only connect..

Reading the wikipedia's article about ISU-152, I'm for a button to switch between AP and HE shells, plus a little delay in each change, like KV-8.
That will decrease its anti-everything power while keeps its usefulness intact, and to add up it will be more historical accurate.

Reading the wikipedia's article about ISU-152

Glad you did.

Its remarkably good.

Almost like it was written by a CoH2 fan

wow really didn't expect the axis circle jerk club to jump me all at once that quick and the moderators be ok with it. I'm sorry the lot of you want to hide your place in the ladder while making poor attempts to critize me. I'm not going to hide my playercard as suggested. It's counterproductive to me to really be biased towards either faction. Not only do I play both and all 4 sometime in the future, I need a challenge which is why I have fewer axis games. You can see my axis win ratio is sky high. It was pretty boring rolling over Soviets. Bulgakov might be right, I may not have faced an ISU, if that's the case it's because my opponents either beat me before the cp's or they could never afford it. TBH I think I have seen a few, but they didn't change a winning game into a losing game. They just made a losing game lose faster.

Thank you to Greeb for the sanity

I suppose I'm going to have to live with a discussion void this forum is going to seal off for me. gamereplays was dead and I moved to the official forums, that place was a cesspool and I guess I just hopped into the next cesspool. Evidenced by the lack of posts from the best players. I see them pop in for a single comment here and there, but none follow and engage these topics. I wouldn't be surprised to find they have a hidden forum on here. I hope Relic ignores this entire balance forum.

9 pages in...time to regroup, I think