Revisit the ISU-152 changes?

Hi,

So as many of you probably feel, it was a huge relief when Relic finally nerfed the ISU-152 by giving its gun switchable ammunition like the Sherman. Previously you'd lose infantry and tanks alike in chasing it down, with no real input required by the player that owned it. This was especially the case when several were on the field.

The only thing that bugs me about the change is that it's deeply unsatisfying when the giant HE shells do absolutely nothing to enemy tanks. Obviously that was largely the point, but unlike the Sherman where the shell size is small enough that it makes sense for nothing to happen, the ISU-152 is such a powerful unit that you expect something to happen. I was personally thinking at least some minor damage, if not a very high rate of temporary crits like crew shock (and maybe a small number of special damage crits that require repair). The change of shell takes long enough that you'd still have a chance to escape most of the time.

Now that heavy call-ins have been restricted to one at a time, I feel like this unit has been further nerfed indirectly, and I'm curious as to how you would feel about buffing it somewhat again, either by the above suggestion, or simply restoring it to its historical role of one amazing HE/armour-piercing round, but perhaps with slower reload that actually reflects the weight of such a shell (something like a lighter but long-range version of the sturmtiger).

Thoughts?

Edit: I've since had a match with one, and honestly its squad-wiping capability is striking me as well worth the investment alone

I agree, I don't like how they reduced crew shock and damage on deflection. They should raise it back up to 33% and maybe even 20-25% stun chance for HE shells.

The reload time for switching shell is what is killing it; a good player will bait the tank with either AT infantry or tanks, wait for it to swtich shells and then proceed to hardcounter it.

IMO in it's current form it is highly situationnal; not bad but not really worth it either.

well it's said that thing can knock out panthers and tigers so i say give it a buff in order to compensate of being only able to call in 1 ISU-152 at a time

You should have hordes of su76s supporting your ISU, why you even need ap shells on it?

And why HE shells should do damage to tanks again? Because realism and historical accuracy? Fuck realism and historical accuracy, balance comes first.

This is game about combined arms, ISU wipe-everything in range is direct opposite to combined arms.

You should have hordes of su76s supporting your ISU, why you even need ap shells on it? Because realism and historical accuracy? Fuck realism and historical accuracy, balance comes ahead.

Easy up turbo. Whether the unit is balanced or not is the discussion here. Historical basis simply informs balance by giving the unit context. At any rate, yes, it absolutely should be supported. It's a long range unit, after all. The question is more whether it's a useful unit in its own right.

Your opinion seems to be that it should only be considered an anti-infantry unit, which is a valid perspective. That doesn't change the issue of whether the HE shells should have some effect on tanks though.

This is meant to be a discussion, not a flame thread. Please refrain from needless aggression.

I do find it odd how a 152mm shell does nothing to persuade a enemy tank but that's how balance works considering the infantry obliteration of the HE shell. I quite like it as is, given it's a interesting multi-role Assault gun that has versatility and range at the cost of switching shells and mobility. If anything I could see the HE doing crew stun at a higher chance but short span. Three seconds or below would do as that be enough time to slow down the enemy tank to a still giving the ISU a chance to reposition or fall back.

This also could extend to rewarding a more combined arms approach with ISU stunning enemy tanks so other units can get into position to take advantage of it. But again I find the ISU a good unit that has good strengths and weakness that can be countered by skilled play. (I'm glad for the shell switch give the sheer power of HE. There needs to be some counter play given the massive range and if a player is countering the ISU with the shell switch that's merely a good player using the ISU weakness.)

The main issue of the HE buff is that it would soft counter the hard counters to it. Not a bad thing but a bit much considering the range advantage the ISU has and destructive capabilities as well.

My opinion is it should not be anti-everything unit. Want to kill tanks? Load Ap. Want to kill inf? Load HE. Fair enough.

ISU in good spot and does not need any buffs.

Considering if you don't have an Elefant or a Jadgtiger (the only 2 100% effective ISU counters) the ISU can seriously ruin your day I'm going to say it's fine. Normally if my enemy goes for one I always make sure to have an elefant or jadg. The best non-doc counter is the JPIV.

Does anyone know how you counter it as Ostheer? Because the 50 range on the StuG makes getting to it to hit it hard.

Does anyone know how you counter it as Ostheer? Because the 50 range on the StuG makes getting to it to hit it hard.

That thing from your avatar. TWP on ost puma is beyond op.

That thing from your avatar. TWP on ost puma is beyond op.

man i really have to go mobile defense every game as ost don't I? it is my curse/blessing.

My opinion is it should not be anti-everything unit. Want to kill tanks? Load Ap. Want to kill inf? Load HE. Fair enough.

ISU in good spot and does not need any buffs.

Nothing more to add.

@Alexzandvar if you go for mass Stugs, by the time he gets an ISU152, you should have TWP at your disposal. Just chain hit with them.

Or force HE shell and then push with several tanks.

isu is still very powerful. i dont think there is a need for it to get a buff.

i think the ISU is ok but not really stellar. i tend to have the best luck just leaving it on the AP shells if i'll have to deal with vehicles as it can still wipe infantry.

as for balance, i don't want it to go back to the old combined form but i do feel it has a little bit of room for buffs at this point. maybe a slight decrease to the ammo switching time, provided that it still has at least the normal reload time between shots.

I should probably mention that I have no overwhelming position here, hence my interest in other people's perspective. I can't remember the last time I used the thing, so my knowledge of its current performance is limited. It's more that I also so rarely see it used by anyone else either anymore that I'm curious about people's opinions on it.

It may be powerful, but very, very often shells cannot reach infantry because they end up in the ground somewhere in the middle. Not saying it's a problem - just saying it's not alaways possible to use it efficiently on each map.

Countering it as Ostheer? Many ways to go...

Elephnat (2 great doctrines), Pak43 (at least 1 very useful), CAS, Lightning - all work quite good agasint it.

You can even try Panther/Stugs with sandbags since they increase range.

I think HE should receive additional nerfs, but AP penetration and accuracy heavily increased.

ISU got AP and HE shells with reason, it is true that HE of ISU IRL was very very strong against tanks, but if u gave them AT buff then that negates the reason why ISU got the "big nerf" together wih JT...
Keep the HE for infantry and AP for tanks for the sake of balance and simplicity.

ISU would be fine if the shells would stop hitting little bumps in the geography

Well, something had to be done about the ISU, but this manual switching between AP and HE bugs me.

I know this isn't history simulation yada yada but it strike me as both silly and inconsistent. Vehicles carried both types of shells and chose which to load situationally; either the commander or the gunner would tell the loader which to use.

However, the same is or should be true for generalist tanks like the P4 and Panther; they operated exactly the same way. As did every other tank.

So what they have in effect done is make the unit dumber, requiring a user input for something that should be done automatically. What next, requiring a manual gear shift for driving? Manual turret traverse?

Now I'll freely admit I don't have any actual better idea to suggest, but I really dislike this thing as it stands.