SU-76 issues

If you nerf the SU76 you will remove a number of options for the Soviet player since they will need to tech to T4 to deal with late German armor. As it stands a Soviet player can decide not to tech up and use other strategies. If you make them sink another tanks worth of fuel in tech cost than a number of possible options are lost.

Stop trying to counter SU76 with tanks, long and short of it.

The barrage is a nice bonus to the unit but it is only able to decrew paks with lucky shots. With more light vehicle play plan on getting a HT and recrewing paks quickly if you lose one. Paks are extremely dangerous for SU76's. A single bit of poor pathing and they are gone.

As OKW this is even easier. Get JP (or JT), puma, or a couple of rakentens. Mix in some shreked volks to really get nasty.

Soviet T3 is quite good, if anything needs to be done it is just a slight fuel increase to delay their appearance until slightly later.

Why would a minor nerf to the SU-76 reduce Soviet options? Because right now the SU-76 just dominates everything else Soviets can build because it's incredibly efficient for it's price and it can fulfill multiple rolls.

Soviets SHOULD NOT have the option to refuse to tech up at all; the whole reason behind call in meta being killed was that it allowed people to refuse to invest or risk anything but still get rewarded. OKW can't refuse to tech, USF can only with 1 doctrine, and Ost can't refuse to tech either (again only 1 doctrine really enables no teching) so why should Soviets magically have the privilege of being able to refuse to tech?

The SU-76 just needs a minor change such as a reduction in pen so it can't slap around heavies easily and or a reduction to 50 range to give the SU-85 some sort of reason to be built. I don't see why people are so attached to it outside of bitterness about the days it was once useless.

your too stubborn i will say it again,GO PLAY 40 MATCHES WITH SOVIETS also MAKE SURE THOSE 40 MATCHES ARE WITH REAL PLAYERS and when you do that tell us how op th SU-76.

Mate, do you see the little guy underneath my avvie? Click on it and you'll see something called Player stats. Wow, I thought this was the Smart forum for once. Moot point but since you're so melodramatic and don't know what that button is, I probably have better 1v1 stats than you do. That said I'm a decent player but I wouldn't call myself good.

For people who think nerfing the SU-76 as we've said here will bring the apocalypse, ftr, none of the posters pro-nerf here are asking for SU-76 to be useless like it was in many patches before. For its price and when it gets into the game, it does way too much. We're just asking for it to be toned down a bit as a TD as now the role the SU-76 plays is very different to the role played pre-patch.

Also good post Alexzandvar. I've found that most the ppl on this forum with "Strategist" tags who've posted on this forum are in favour of toning down the SU-76 in terms of either range or Penn and considering they know the game more than others and plays a gamemode called 1v1, I feel I'd trust their opinion more.

Sorry, for double post, I'm going to post on Kaitof's last post. Its usually tough for me because I usually reply by phone but now I'm on a computer so yeah.

I agree, nerf PaKs and shrecks.

By that logic we should completely butcher all the infantry units, because most of them perform ridiculously good late game.

Er.... no they're not.

Take a PzGren with shrek army vs an IS-2, T-34-85s (hell, even throw in the T-34-76), SU-76 and tell me how that goes for you.

The only reason they "perform good" is because infantry does what vehicles can't do (if you ignore soviet abilities) - cap points and capping points, especially VPs by endgame wins games. Of course, you need units to be survivable but if you kill a lot of infantry so they can't cap, you will win.

IMO There's a big difference between infantry and tank balance. Infantry balance has to worry about MP bleed (MP cost of any infantry squad is always greater than MP bleed from any tank in the game), tank balance has to worry about pennetration, ROF, survivability mostly. So to compare infantry and vehicles is a bit silly.

Balance in the game is all about cost efficiency, risk and reward comes with different BOs, specific unit/doctrine usage and the way you actually use the units. Baserushing T-70 is about risk vs reward, making a wall of TD, even cheap ones, really isn't.

True, you make a good point about cost efficiency and I agree with you. But at the end of the day, the strats ultimately determine cost efficiency anyway. If there is good reward for low risk, everyone's going to favour that strategy. I think one of those ways is a quantitative description (yours) mine is a qualitative description of the same thing.

PE T3 was designed for early game harass with 222s and hard AT with light tank destroyer that could be pierced by small arms, it arrived early and units scaled into late game no problem.
Marder III is nothing more then axis version of SU-76, only difference is Marder was pure TD while SU-76 still have that divisional field gun capable of both AT and barrage.

Hell, whole PE army is a proof that lights have all the right to scale into late game and engage heavier armor as long as that is their role.

Firstly, ask any veteran CoH1 player about faction design of the brits and the PE and they'll tell you its far worse than US and Wehr, which are the iconic CoH1 factions, but thats a moot point.

My main point is - Barrage actually is the kind of kicker between comparing the Marder and the SU-76. The Marder doesn't have the ability to kill infantry as easily as the SU-76, esp at long ranges, which, both games considered, makes the SU-76 a far better vehicle than the Marder. Now I understand that while the Marder was truly a dedicated TD IRL, the SU-76 IRL could actually fire supporting artillery fire. That and it can't fight German heavy armour so well.

Not even relevant as luchs have no AT capabilities.
Now, if we take enough Stuarts and put them against Tiger, you might be surprised a bit.
3 or more Pumas circling IS-2 will give it a hard time as well.

I don't see anything wrong with fragile, turretless tank destroyer being able to take on and destroy heavy armor when massed. To me its WAI.

Lets say, hypothetically, we had a turretless fragile tank Destroyer that was armed with the weaker soviet AT Gun currently in the game (so a 37-50mm gun). Is it still fine if it penns Panthers, Tigers and Elefants when the real thing struggled frontally against P4s?

IMO, the SU-76 can either be a dedicated TD like the COH1 Marder (I don't really like that considering that wasn't its role IRL) or it can be a strong Early-midgame unit. But atm, it has its cake and eats it too.

Mate, do you see the little guy underneath my avvie? Click on it and you'll see something called Player stats. Wow, I thought this was the Smart forum for once. Moot point but since you're so melodramatic and don't know what that button is, I probably have better 1v1 stats than you do. That said I'm a decent player but I wouldn't call myself good.

For people who think nerfing the SU-76 as we've said here will bring the apocalypse, ftr, none of the posters pro-nerf here are asking for SU-76 to be useless like it was in many patches before. For its price and when it gets into the game, it does way too much. We're just asking for it to be toned down a bit as a TD as now the role the SU-76 plays is very different to the role played pre-patch.

Also good post Alexzandvar. I've found that most the ppl on this forum with "Strategist" tags who've posted on this forum are in favour of toning down the SU-76 in terms of either range or Penn and considering they know the game more than others and plays a gamemode called 1v1, I feel I'd trust their opinion more.

i will repeat what i said before and request you to play 40! GAMES OF 2vs2 and up as soviets and spam those su-76s and tell me how OP it is cause from your experience(or the example you gave us to describe the power of the su-76)its unfair for the panther to get penetrated by alot of tank destroys,with that logic the su-76 is op THEN half of the AT the Germans have should not even penetrate IS-2s or ISU-152s,but since you clearly dont play Allies you think its "OP" for doing what is supposed to do,and if you lower the penetration of the su-76 see how awful 4 AMERICAN AT GUNS FAIL TO PENETRATE THE PANTHER! EVEN WITH HIGH VELOCITY ROUNDS(if you nerf the penetration the su-76 will become the new american AT GUN),but thats ok to you since "balance" is all about allies having crap units.

Sorry, for double post, I'm going to post on Kaitof's last post. Its usually tough for me because I usually reply by phone but now I'm on a computer so yeah.





Er.... no they're not.

Take a PzGren with shrek army vs an IS-2, T-34-85s (hell, even throw in the T-34-76), SU-76 and tell me how that goes for you.

The only reason they "perform good" is because infantry does what vehicles can't do (if you ignore soviet abilities) - cap points and capping points, especially VPs by endgame wins games. Of course, you need units to be survivable but if you kill a lot of infantry so they can't cap, you will win.

IMO There's a big difference between infantry and tank balance. Infantry balance has to worry about MP bleed (MP cost of any infantry squad is always greater than MP bleed from any tank in the game), tank balance has to worry about pennetration, ROF, survivability mostly. So to compare infantry and vehicles is a bit silly.



True, you make a good point about cost efficiency and I agree with you. But at the end of the day, the strats ultimately determine cost efficiency anyway. If there is good reward for low risk, everyone's going to favour that strategy. I think one of those ways is a quantitative description (yours) mine is a qualitative description of the same thing.



Firstly, ask any veteran CoH1 player about faction design of the brits and the PE and they'll tell you its far worse than US and Wehr, which are the iconic CoH1 factions, but thats a moot point.

My main point is - Barrage actually is the kind of kicker between comparing the Marder and the SU-76. The Marder doesn't have the ability to kill infantry as easily as the SU-76, esp at long ranges, which, both games considered, makes the SU-76 a far better vehicle than the Marder. Now I understand that while the Marder was truly a dedicated TD IRL, the SU-76 IRL could actually fire supporting artillery fire. That and it can't fight German heavy armour so well.



Lets say, hypothetically, we had a turretless fragile tank Destroyer that was armed with the weaker soviet AT Gun currently in the game (so a 37-50mm gun). Is it still fine if it penns Panthers, Tigers and Elefants when the real thing struggled frontally against P4s?

IMO, the SU-76 can either be a dedicated TD like the COH1 Marder (I don't really like that considering that wasn't its role IRL) or it can be a strong Early-midgame unit. But atm, it has its cake and eats it too.

the maurder 3 was a very good tank destroyer that used range and good firepower to destroy allied armor BUT they had awful armor and hitpoints and also didnt had a turret,the su-76 on the other hand doesnt have the penetration power of the maurder 3,nor its range,nor its rate of fire,but has an AWFUL barrage ability
(I USED IT ALOT clearly you havent even clicked it)and in order to make the barrage effective you need 3-4 of those su-76s firing at once at the same area ALL 3-4 OF THEM in order to do anything.

also if you think Pgrens with shreacks lose to is-2s and t34-85s then i suggest you play EVEN MORE GAMES with soviets at 2vs2 and up and tell me how good the IS-2 is against shreacks(tip it gets destroyed)and if you think the t34-85s helps then you will be supriced by the performance of the shreack.

and one last thing,allies DONT HAVE EFFECTIVE AT handhelds for their infantry units so their forced to use TANK DESTROYERS! to destroy TANKS!

Lot of talk about how earlier useless SU-76 is OP now. No one talk how useless 1 vet Soviet TD generally. Again. First veterancy of SU-76/85/152 is absolutely useless. This is normal?
Returning to the topic. The price of SU-76 can slightly increase but that is all.
P.S. Barrage SU-76 is awful. There is only one point - free.

i will repeat what i said before and request you to play 40! GAMES OF 2vs2 and up as soviets and spam those su-76s and tell me how OP it is cause from your experience(or the example you gave us to describe the power of the su-76)its unfair for the panther to get penetrated by alot of tank destroys,with that logic the su-76 is op THEN half of the AT the Germans have should not even penetrate IS-2s or ISU-152s,but since you clearly dont play Allies you think its "OP" for doing what is supposed to do,and if you lower the penetration of the su-76 see how awful 4 AMERICAN AT GUNS FAIL TO PENETRATE THE PANTHER! EVEN WITH HIGH VELOCITY ROUNDS(if you nerf the penetration the su-76 will become the new american AT GUN),but thats ok to you since "balance" is all about allies having crap units.

I'll make it easy for you since pressing a button is sooooo hard for you right?

Most Played Faction/Mode:
Soviets 1v1 Ranked Games played: 110

No wonder you can't grasp basic balance concepts.

Unless if you want to look at 2v2 stats and try to be a judgemental moron because 37 < 40....
_____________________________________________________

Because 2v2 is sooooo competitive right? (Rolls eyes)

I wonder what kind of tournament OCF is? Lo and behold, its a 1v1 tourney.

(In all honesty, 2v2 is not too bad a gamemode, I have fun in it, but if a unit is okay in 2v2, but screws a lot of things over in 1v1 due to size of maps, then there's an obvious problem that needs to be fixed)

Mate, I pity how clueless you are, you don't even have any knowledge of

a) Balance
b) Player Cards
c) Basic math
d) Basic comprehension
e) Any sense of communication

I have more sane commentary with my dog than I have with you.

Please put 5 cents in this thread to try again.

And do keep on abusing SU-76s in 1v1s while it lasts.

Lot of talk about how earlier useless SU-76 is OP now. No one talk how useless 1 vet Soviet TD generally. Again. First veterancy of SU-76/85/152 is absolutely useless. This is normal?
Returning to the topic. The price of SU-76 can slightly increase but that is all.
P.S. Barrage SU-76 is awful. There is only one point - free.

Abilities could do with a rework, I'll admit.

Barrage from SU-76 isn't as reliable as a ZIS-3, but its still a way that TDs can reliably kill infantry, which is still unique. There is not a single TD in the game that has the potential AI that the SU-76 has. And I don't want to remove it.

I'll make it easy for you since pressing a button is sooooo hard for you right?


No wonder you can't grasp basic balance concepts.

Unless if you want to look at 2v2 stats and try to be a judgemental moron because 37 < 40....
_____________________________________________________

Because 2v2 is sooooo competitive right? (Rolls eyes)

I wonder what kind of tournament OCF is? Lo and behold, its a 1v1 tourney.

(In all honesty, 2v2 is not too bad a gamemode, I have fun in it, but if a unit is okay in 2v2, but screws a lot of things over in 1v1 due to size of maps, then there's an obvious problem that needs to be fixed)

Mate, I pity how clueless you are, you don't even have any knowledge of

a) Balance
b) Player Cards
c) Basic math
d) Basic comprehension
e) Any sense of communication

I have more sane commentary with my dog than I have with you.

Please put 5 cents in this thread to try again.

And do keep on abusing SU-76s in 1v1s while it lasts.



Abilities could do with a rework, I'll admit.

Barrage from SU-76 isn't as reliable as a ZIS-3, but its still a way that TDs can reliably kill infantry, which is still unique. There is not a single TD in the game that has the potential AI that the SU-76 has. And I don't want to remove it.

i didn’t want to be offensive but you asked for it

1VS1 is broken as much as 2vs2,to call the one better then the other shows how little you know of the game, you prove it every time you speak about the performance of the SU-76 a unit you clearly haven’t used.

So lets start, What is the su-76??that is its role to the soviet army?

“The SU-76M combined three main battlefield roles: light assault gun, mobile anti-tank weapon and mobile gun for indirect fire.”

Ok so its an assault gun according to Wikipedia, well what is its role in coh 2? Shall we ask relic??lets ask them

“SU-76
The performance of the Su-76 was not meeting our expectations. We felt its biggest problem was its lack of define role. We decided to improve the stats of the SU-76 so it can serve as a light tank destroyer. The SU-76 will still retain its versatility through the use of its barrage ability.
Health increased from 320 to 400
Penetration increased from 90/ 100/ 110 to 180/ 190 / 200
Cost increased from 240/70 to 280 / 75”

So it is a light TANK DESTROYER assault gun that is versatile, fulfills its infantry support role and light tank destroyer role, its cost reflects its quality.
Now was it impossible for the su-76 to penetrate panthers??? Lets see

“The SU-76M was effective against any medium or light German tank. It could also knock out the Panther tank with a flank shot”

Its seems it was very effective against medium tanks and the panther, what about the tiger??

“but the ZiS-3 gun was not effective against Tiger tanks. Soviet manuals for SU-76M crews usually instructed the gunner to aim for the tracks or gun barrels when facing Tigers”

Oh yea it wasn’t that effective but still in the game I have to admit the tiger doesn’t have the armor it should(su-76 penetrate very often)but still the tiger needs its own buffs since its limitation but that’s another topic, now I know the panthers front armor was good but still the game doesn’t have SIDE ARMOR so if it cant penetrate the front the unit is useless and if you want that to change tell relic do add side armor and then complain about the performance, but right now side armor doesn’t exist and going for the rear armor is suicide.

So what is the Panther what role does it fulfill??

“The Panther was a German medium tank deployed during World War II from mid-1943 to the end of the European war in 1945. It was intended as a counter to the Soviet T-34, and as a replacement for the Panzer III and Panzer IV. While never replacing the latter, it served alongside it and the heavier Tiger I until the end of the war. While the Panther is considered one of the best tanks of World War II due to its excellent firepower and protection, it was less impressive in terms of mobility, reliability, and cost.”

So it’s a tank(NO TANK DRTROYER)no tank hunter, its just a medium tank.

Now TANKS have multiple roles BUT they have a CLEAR enemy, their called TANK DESTROYERS, the su-76 is a tank destroyer, of course 1 or 2 SU-76 can not beat a panther on the game,3 and 4 destroy it(so we have quantity VS quality)now lets see the costs of both units shall we??

Su-76 : Mp 280 Fuel 75
Panther : MP490 Fuel 175

Does the cheap su-76 beat that expensive late war medium tank on 1 vs 1 scenario? NO!

K what about 2 su-76s?? NO!(cost 560 MP Fuel 150)

What about 3 Su-76s?? its 65-35(65%yes,35%NO!)cost(840 MP Fuel 225)

Well surely 4 of them will do something??yes I agree on you on that one 4 of them make the panther scream RETREAT or REVERSE WHEN ITS ALONE lets see the cost here(1120MP Fuel 300!)

WOW look that cost!

K then what we learned here?
First the su-76 is a light tank destroyer (assault gun)that is meant to support infantry)
Second when massed it can counter a lone panther
Third that the price you pay to counter it is VERY big and you might as well build an is-2 and a AT gun to beat it

Now as you can see I am quite familiar with balance and simple math
You on the other hand don’t know 3 simple things
BALANCE,TANK DESTROYERS,MANNERS
The next time you respond to me make sure you play 40 games with soviets and use those SU-76s against panthers and then tell me how op they are (when massed) at destroying medium tanks, also make sure you to learn what BALANCE and EQUALITY mean in real life and video games.


P.S:L2P

Oh yea it wasn’t that effective but still in the game I have to admit the tiger doesn’t have the armor it should(su-76 penetrate very often)but still the tiger needs its own buffs since its limitation...

I agree, the tiger is ridiculous and require buff. Same for IS.
P.S. It's funny, the Red Army did not worry about the Panthers, but the Tigers ... hell, it was Tigers. СoH2 just reverse this (except that Acе) like many others things.

Why would a minor nerf to the SU-76 reduce Soviet options? Because right now the SU-76 just dominates everything else Soviets can build because it's incredibly efficient for it's price and it can fulfill multiple rolls.

Soviets SHOULD NOT have the option to refuse to tech up at all; the whole reason behind call in meta being killed was that it allowed people to refuse to invest or risk anything but still get rewarded. OKW can't refuse to tech, USF can only with 1 doctrine, and Ost can't refuse to tech either (again only 1 doctrine really enables no teching) so why should Soviets magically have the privilege of being able to refuse to tech?

The SU-76 just needs a minor change such as a reduction in pen so it can't slap around heavies easily and or a reduction to 50 range to give the SU-85 some sort of reason to be built. I don't see why people are so attached to it outside of bitterness about the days it was once useless.

You seem confused. You keep saying Soviets don't have to tech and yet getting to SU76 requires at least two tech buildings to be completed. You also don't seem to understand that Soviet T4 is now an option not a requirement, but requiring it would reduce commanders that have units that appear in the mid game to disappear since you could not do T4 and use those commanders.

Again, I hate to say this but your first question in your post is directly answered by the first three sentences of the post of mine you are quoting.

Ost can choose which tech to take, but generally it goes T1 T2 T3 (can go T4 in long games). However, some commanders allow for this strat to be modified.

Reducing the range of the SU76 would make it completely useless once T3 hits since a single stug would kill it everytime if it used TWP. Besides it would have to trade damage with Stug on every shot. The reason you get and SU85 right now is because of the vet, focus forward, and deeper health pool. If anything needs to be done the SU85 needs buffs to its accuracy.

The SU76 allows Soviets to play with all of their commanders, that is why we like it where it is. I don't care that it was bad once, I like that more commanders are usable now that it offers reliable AT.

In every game I have seen people complain about SU76 they send tanks straight, in predictable areas, to try to break through and are then surprised that the "terrible" SU76 is able to deal with this threat. Every time I see players using other units intelligently (or even flanking with tanks) the SU76's are useful, but die regularly causing a serious fuel loss and preventing the Soviet player from ever getting to T4 (a serious cost) while also causing them to spend lots of MP to stay on the field. From my own experience I consider them valuable units when I play Soviet, a reasonable threat when I play German requiring some work to bring them down but far from unstoppable. My view is therefore that they are good but not OP.

Nobody has made the claim (nobody serious anyway) that they are OP/unstoppable, they are simply to efficient for their cost and they outshine anything else Soviets can make.

Soviets not having to go T4 at all is silly when USF (minus 1 commander) and OKW can't refuse to fully tech. And Ostheer can't get to their T4 (which has no equivalent) in competitive games due to the overwhelming cost compared to other factions tech.

Nobody is asking for it to be useless, but 50 range would certainly not make it so and neither would slightly less pen. Would the StuG be able to fight and win? Yes! Of course it would and should considering it costs a fair amount more.

Maybe they are not a problem in 3v3 and 4v4 but in the competitive game modes they have basically put a bullet in Soviet T4's head. And dealing with SU-76's require far more effort then using them does especially for how much/little they cost.

Nobody has made the claim (nobody serious anyway) that they are OP/unstoppable, they are simply to efficient for their cost and they outshine anything else Soviets can make.

Soviets not having to go T4 at all is silly when USF (minus 1 commander) and OKW can't refuse to fully tech. And Ostheer can't get to their T4 (which has no equivalent) in competitive games due to the overwhelming cost compared to other factions tech.

Nobody is asking for it to be useless, but 50 range would certainly not make it so and neither would slightly less pen. Would the StuG be able to fight and win? Yes! Of course it would and should considering it costs a fair amount more.

Maybe they are not a problem in 3v3 and 4v4 but in the competitive game modes they have basically put a bullet in Soviet T4's head. And dealing with SU-76's require far more effort then using them does especially for how much/little they cost.

Not a soviet fan by any means but soviets not having to go T4 until they feel like It is literally no different from relying on T2 medtruck and fusiliers or other callin inf + JP4 As OKW and not convertimg trucks again until you want a KT.

Nobody has made the claim (nobody serious anyway) that they are OP/unstoppable, they are simply to efficient for their cost and they outshine anything else Soviets can make.

Exactly the same can be said about StuGs.
And you're wrong.
Yes, they are effective against low micro blobbers like you, but players who actually have a clue have no problem countering them, just watch Hans games where he uses them, opponents equal to him have no problems against them, therefore its L2P issue, OKW eats soviet T3 for breakfast with JP4 and you can do nothing against it.

Soviets not having to go T4 at all is silly when USF (minus 1 commander) and OKW can't refuse to fully tech. And Ostheer can't get to their T4 (which has no equivalent) in competitive games due to the overwhelming cost compared to other factions tech.

Its also not possible, unless you're closing the game within minutes of getting T3.

Nobody is asking for it to be useless, but 50 range would certainly not make it so and neither would slightly less pen. Would the StuG be able to fight and win? Yes! Of course it would and should considering it costs a fair amount more.

Making it counterable by everything is asking for it to be useless.
50 range would do exactly that, unless you want to decrease cost as well to lower then pre patch level.

Turreted TDs have that kind of cost as well as amazing vet abilities and actual survivability/mobility.

Maybe they are not a problem in 3v3 and 4v4 but in the competitive game modes they have basically put a bullet in Soviet T4's head. And dealing with SU-76's require far more effort then using them does especially for how much/little they cost.

They aren't a problem in 1v1 or 2v2 as well unless you're scrub.
JP4 shuts down dead whole sov T3 single handedly.

Pak/P4 combo also makes a short work of SU-76 spams.
Protip:
Paks are not emplacements, you can actually move them when you hear the long ass cooldown inaccurate barrage.

In short:
You being unable to counter this unit with clear and exploitable weaknesses that is countered by simply adapting BO and not being blind pidgeon does not equal to everyone not being able to do so.

Watch streams/replays of players who rely on something more then sturmofficer blobberino into panther into JT and don't rely on that tactic to counter everything and anything.

Why are you accusing me of blobbing? I have like a gorillion replays uploaded that show I don't blob and I'm not a shit player.

EDIT: Like the issue isn't that they can't be dealt with but that they are just to good for how much they cost compared to most other things. This is the difference between something being OP and something being to efficient. A small change is needed, that's all.

Note that a sound argument shouldn't rely on the other person being a bad player who blobs to try and justify your points. Kati?

Note that a sound argument shouldn't rely on the other person being a bad player who blobs to try and justify your points. Kati?

I'm also basic it on our beloved top player streams, the times where they use it and how kind of success are they having with it as well as my personal experience on both sides.

M5 is an issue.
SU-76 is pure L2P and adaptation of BO/awareness.

I simply can not see how equally skilled GOOD player would struggle against SU-76 spam, either OKW or ost, OKW having it especially easy thanks to JP4 and med truck heavy build that counters static weapons with ISG and IR HT and whole T3 with JP4, get pfussies or MG34 to compliment your AI shortages.

The issue isn't that people are having a hard time with it, the issue is that it's killed Soviet T4 in 1v1 and 2v2. Why do you keep insisting that this is a L2P issue when nobody here is a noob or needs to L2P.

As I have said, stay too long in T3 and you'll be rolled over, you need to rely on call-ins if you want to stick to T4, otherwise you'll have to go T4.

You can't stay in T3 without call-ins unless you can close the game within minutes.

There is zero reason to go for Soviet T4 outside of T34/85's or Katyusha's, which is why most people just do Soviet T3 into heavy call in's these days. It's not healthy for the game for such call in meta to continue to exist and why Relic didn't bind all call in's to teching is beyond me.

The SU-76 has the Range, Pen, and ROF of an SU-85 while only having slightly less damage and less survivability (which really doesn't matter on a 60 range unit with high speed) at a fraction of the cost.

There is zero reason to go for Soviet T4 outside of T34/85's or Katyusha's, which is why most people just do Soviet T3 into heavy call in's these days. It's not healthy for the game for such call in meta to continue to exist and why Relic didn't bind all call in's to teching is beyond me.

The SU-76 has the Range, Pen, and ROF of an SU-85 while only having slightly less damage and less survivability (which really doesn't matter on a 60 range unit with high speed) at a fraction of the cost.

so you want the soviets to go T4??do you know why soviets dont go T4???
First its the T3 building REQUIERMENT
Second its the awful units you get when you build it(just builded my latest tier stock building to get a T34-76 when panthers roam the field )
the su-85 has the same penetration as a ZIS-3 gun,its inaccurate at long range and costs alot to field
the the only worthwile unit you get are katyushas but then why bother with them

if the issue is T4 then buff those units and make them better and then you will see more people going T4,nerfing the su-76 will kill T1 and also make the su-76 useless BUT if you buff T4 people will see a reason going T4 in the first place.

just to understand how bad the units are in T4
T34-76(300 mp fuel 80)is barely better then a puma(320mp 70fuel)
the su-85(340mp fuel 120) has the same penetration as a ZIS-3 so why bring it in the first place??why spent so much MP and fuel to bring an su-85 when you can bring 3-4 lesser su-76 that give you more options and have the same performance as a su-85 at penetration.

if you play soviets you will see that half of the units you get are awful and they are just a waste of resources.