SU-76 issues

Yeah, glad we agree. It's bullshit. I've never killed a kubel on full health with one hit from a ZiS, perhaps other SOV players can corroborate this?

Again, if you're going for historical realism, there were less than 500 KT's ever built. Yet I seem to see them every game on this. For historical realism reasons, they should probably just be removed.

More KTs were built in the war than Ostwinds/Brummbar/Sturmtigers.

So for you, artistic license is - exploding shell from tank landing less than 2 feet from a squad, none of them die - fine. Tank Destroyer actually penetrating a tank and doing SOME (not HUGE) damage - beyond the pale. Is that about right?

Well... A squad irl typically has 12-15 men, not 4-6, so if 3-4 guys die, Id say its representative of 75% of ppl dying. (Although if you had the option on every tank of firing HE like the Sher, the AI would be much better, atm, it looks like other tanks are firing AP at infantry ^^ )

TD pennetrating a tank - well yeah, but you have to look at which one. SU-76 was becoming obsolete at around 1943-1944 when it had to fight Panthers, Tigers and KTs. The SU-85 on the other hand, can fight Panthers, Tigers and KTs, no problem with this.

SU-76 is a bit unique in the sense that it is the only vehicle in the game in which, considering when the game was set, it was starting to become obsolete, unlike the M10, M36, sherman. (Okay, there's another tank that was obsolete in the game - the command Pz 4, it can't penn tanks for shit which is fine because its an IST anyway).

I still see ZERO issue with su76's damaging KT's and Tigers. Stugs damage my IS2.

Considering HTs are nerfed to 1 tank at a time, I feel the heavy tanks seriously need a buff. A lot of the game's mechanics to Relic's error remained the same prior to them making fundamental changes to gameplay.

As a point of interest, when the SU-76 was completely useless and never built during games for all those years before it finally got buffed.....were you calling for it to be buffed? Or were you quite happy with it being useless like 99% of Axis players?

I felt something needed to be done with the SU-76, in the past I always used to be a T1/T3 or a T2/T3 player because I liked the T-34/76.

I had tried to play it in the past, it was okay against light vehicles and P4s but I never brought it up against heavy tanks because of historical expectations.

Also, please keep a track of your next 20 games and tell me how many KV8's you see, thanks.

Will do, I might bring a KV-8 into a game sometime, although tbh, considering how good T3 is in dealing with infantry, you're not likely to see KV-8s anymore.

~snip~

So essentially your argument for SU-76's to be nerfed is that it isn't historically accurate.

This is a game. Lots isn't historically accurate. Come on now.

An Su76 being able to pen a KT is nothing compared to lots of things in this game. Game. Not simulator.


SU76's in no way need a nerf, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Relic nerf it into obscurity yet again.

So essentially your argument for SU-76's to be nerfed is that it isn't historically accurate.

This is a game. Lots isn't historically accurate. Come on now.

An Su76 being able to pen a KT is nothing compared to lots of things in this game. Game. Not simulator.


SU76's in no way need a nerf, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Relic nerf it into obscurity yet again.

They probably wouldn't, considering it has a fundamental role now as opposed to having to compete with the SU-85. The problem wasn't so much the Su-76 being bad as it was the SU-85 being too good and you building T4 primarily for AT rather than a mix of AI and AT.

Well, I have other reasons as to why SU-76 should be nerfed, history is only one of them.

If Relic did the following:
a) Buffed Barrage for accuracy
b) Nerfed Penn on SU-76 to be good against meds, maybe panther but definitely not Tigers or KTs

It:

A) wouldn't break the unit
B) Give it the proper dual roles it has and should have
C) lo and behold lets the vehicle follow history.

I would like the SU-76 to be a relevant unit, just feel it needs a few adjustments and it would fit the pacing of the game well.

Ya, just tried out a few games as OKW to see on the receiving end as to how op the SU-76 was. Was extremely surprised, especially after having just read a 10 page bitch fest about how op the SU-76 was, as to how not OP it was. Seriously the jagdpanzer ruins them. And hey, if that didn't work, a puma, racketen or even my core infantry that had panzershreks all worked just fine.

What I did remember is that the general player quality of the average axis player is lower then that of the allies, they require less micro and thought into how there going to play. All this "su-76 is op" garbage is just people not adjusting there static strategies to a new environment.

Ya, just tried out a few games as OKW to see on the receiving end as to how op the SU-76 was. Was extremely surprised, especially after having just read a 10 page bitch fest about how op the SU-76 was, as to how not OP it was. Seriously the jagdpanzer ruins them. And hey, if that didn't work, a puma, racketen or even my core infantry that had panzershreks all worked just fine.

What I did remember is that the general player quality of the average axis player is lower then that of the allies, they require less micro and thought into how there going to play. All this "su-76 is op" garbage is just people not adjusting there static strategies to a new environment.

Looking at your playercard, you haven't played your first 10 games so its hard to work out the quality of your opponents.

What I can tell you is it is definitely viable to keep your SU-76s back. The thing that makes the SU-76 click is the range. Its fragile so ppl would never try pushing, they tend to soften up with infantry and let snipers/shocks/cons do the rest of the work. When it comes to the M5 as well, Shrecks won't even get close to the SU-76.

If your opponent was trying to push with SU-76 spearhead, he isn't a very good player.

Ya, just tried out a few games as OKW to see on the receiving end as to how op the SU-76 was. Was extremely surprised, especially after having just read a 10 page bitch fest about how op the SU-76 was, as to how not OP it was. Seriously the jagdpanzer ruins them. And hey, if that didn't work, a puma, racketen or even my core infantry that had panzershreks all worked just fine.

What I did remember is that the general player quality of the average axis player is lower then that of the allies, they require less micro and thought into how there going to play. All this "su-76 is op" garbage is just people not adjusting there static strategies to a new environment.

the point is not how SU76 is op, it is too effective for its cost. and single SU76 is not op but 3-4 of them is. yes JP counters it, but AT infantry is by luck.

Firstly the kubel should get annihilated, anything less is bad design.

Secondly, yes it may not be a WW2 simulator but it may as well be DoW4 if it didn't follow historical realism to an extent.

For me the furthest artistic licence should go is SU-76s killing Panthers. It really shouldnt be killing Tigers and KTs. I mean, there's a reason why the Soviets upgunned their T-34-85s and built IS-2s, SU-85s (which was actually a stopgap to ->) and SU-100s - because those tanks actually have a fighting chance against Tigers and KTs.

Now if the Sovs were lacking proper AT options then yes, maaaaaaybe give the SU-76 its current stats. It's not.

At the same time, I don't want to see Vasilly Zaitzayov (I'm on a phone and don't know how to spell) man the AT role of the SU-76 and a vodka infused gunner man the AI role. Barrage should be buffed with Penn being nerfed. Doing both

A) wouldn't break the unit
B) Give it the proper dual roles it has and should have
C) lo and behold lets the vehicle follow history.

If the SU-76 became this, I would still build it, its still strong early to mid game.

To put it into context, it is the only vehicle that has a maximum operating window from 5th-7th minute to the end of the game as it stands.

Again, which "proper AT options" are you talking about?

Again, which "proper AT options" are you talking about?

ATG, mines, SU-85, T-34-85 is good against tanks too

Doctrinal - IS-2, ISU, mark target, Sherman M4C

Semi AT- Guards Button, Conscript AT made.

These are the multitude of AT options available to the Soviets excluding their SU-76, which IMO should retain its AT power against anything no heavier than a P4.

If there is anything that tends to worry me more as a Sov commander, its not AT, its infantry engagements.

SU-76 is a bit unique in the sense that it is the only vehicle in the game in which, considering when the game was set, it was starting to become obsolete, unlike the M10, M36, sherman. (Okay, there's another tank that was obsolete in the game - the command Pz 4, it can't penn tanks for shit which is fine because its an IST anyway).

Actually, if you want to get technical, the T-70, T-34/76, SU-85, KV-1, KV-2, 222, StuG III Ausf E, Panzer IV Ausf F1, M5 Stuart, M10 Tank Destroyer, and M4A3(75mm) were obsolete. The SU-76 was actually not considered to be obsolete, it was effective in it's primary role as an assault gun, and in the anti-tank role against Panzer IV's. It could also take out a Panther if it hit the side or rear, and with special ammunition and close range could also knock out Tiger I tanks. It was the second most produced vehicle by the Soviet Union and was used until the end of the war where it was retired in favour of new developments.

To explain the list:
Show Spoiler

Oh I think 4 SU-76s should destroy tanks, just not KTs.

And I'm pretty sure the SU-76 is faster in a straight line than a KT is reversing.....

Vehicles reverse at the same speed they go forward.

Four SU-76s cost more than a KT costs, and they have a worse AI performance even with the barrage. If they didn't have a better AT performance than an equivalent amount of fuel spent on other tanks, they'd be useless, just as they've been for the past year and a half.

Actually, if you want to get technical, the T-70, T-34/76, SU-85, KV-1, KV-2, 222, StuG III Ausf E, Panzer IV Ausf F1, M5 Stuart, M10 Tank Destroyer, and M4A3(75mm) were obsolete. The SU-76 was actually not considered to be obsolete, it was effective in it's primary role as an assault gun, and in the anti-tank role against Panzer IV's. It could also take out a Panther if it hit the side or rear, and with special ammunition and close range could also knock out Tiger I tanks. It was the second most produced vehicle by the Soviet Union and was used until the end of the war where it was retired in favour of new developments.

To explain the list:
Show Spoiler

Thank you, that's a really good post, I've learned a lot from it, thanks for doing the research.

Although vehicles being obsolete are represented in their scaling (T-34/76, M5) it doesn't quite happen with the SU-76.

Oh and I heard that the SU-85 was actually a stopgap before the SU-100 was built. Despite this, it had a really good war record.

Vehicles reverse at the same speed they go forward.

Four SU-76s cost more than a KT costs, and they have a worse AI performance even with the barrage. If they didn't have a better AT performance than an equivalent amount of fuel spent on other tanks, they'd be useless, just as they've been for the past year and a half.

That's why I'm in favour of buffing AI and reducing AT. I'm not in favour of an SU-76 nerf without compensation.

I think it's silly for it to kill Tigers and KTs, I don't think it's silly for it to have good AI performance.

Oh and when I started thinking it had slower reverse speed... I've been playing waaaay too much WoT ha-ha.

I'd just want the SU-76 to be seen as a flexible early-mid game unit not a tank smashing unit. At its current position in the tech tree, that's what it is and should be, and there's a strong historical case for it too.

SU-76 is finally decent = outraged cry from Axis only players.
Everything as expected.

I don't see anyone making an outraged cry.

What is it with people seeing a calm discussion and calling it "bitching" and "outrage"? Relax, enjoy the knowledge this thread has thrown up.


So, to reply: Yes, it's decent and should be. It has great AT performance and should keep it. Glass cannons are good for balance.

I've only suggested nerfing the barrage. Not the TD.

Oh and I heard that the SU-85 was actually a stopgap before the SU-100 was built. Despite this, it had a really good war record.

The SU-85 was made because they couldn't fit the 85mm gun onto the T-34 or KV-1, so the ISU-122 chassis was used instead. When they did get the 85mm gun onto the T-34, there was no good reason to continue production of the SU-85. SU-85 production was halted and production of the SU-100 was commenced in 1944.

The SU-85 was made because they couldn't fit the 85mm gun onto the T-34 or KV-1, so the ISU-122 chassis was used instead. When they did get the 85mm gun onto the T-34 in , there was no good reason to continue production of the SU-85. SU-85 production was halted and production of the SU-100 was commenced in 1944.

Yep, its a rare case of a vehicle getting superceeded in WW2 not because of War Performance but because of something available that was similar but better.

The war record of the SU-85 was still good and based on that, I'd still represent it in the game with good endgame performance.

So I guess, in the list that you made, only the SU-85 kinda stands out. While the T-34/76 and the KV-1/2 became obsolete in practical senses fighting against armour, this didn't really happen for the SU-85.

The SU-76, on the other hand, started to fall off as soon as panthers and tigers appeared. Unlike the SU-85, it didn't really have much of a fighting chance frontally against the newer German tanks.

And yes, the special ammunition you referred to earlier? It was APCR

Make barrage more accurate but make it fire only one round, reduce cooldown. Skillshot.

Make barrage more accurate but make it fire only one round, reduce cooldown. Skillshot.

I'm pretty sure barrage = firing multiple shots into an area just by the name. ^^

...rename "fire HE shell"

Make barrage more accurate but make it fire only one round, reduce cooldown. Skillshot.

Uh, instant long range 'rifle grenade' is the reason they removed Precision Strike in the first place.

...rename "fire HE shell"

Essentially becomes a direct fire ability then. Aside from improving accuracy, I don't mind barrage being in the form it is in. An alert player should know when to move his units around.

The SU-76 was capable of barraging in WW2 so I don't see why it should be removed as an ability. ATM, the ability is only good En masse, which isn't really good for the game - effectively it means SU-76 spam can deal with any threat in the game as it stands.

Changes to pennetration seem a bit more sensible to me really. And its a more targeted nerf and a fairer nerf than range. The problem I have with a range nerf is that it affects its ability to fight P4s, Stugs, etc, you know armour SU-76 should be able to deal with.