Complaint/rant about soviet heavy armor

I have been a long time relic fan but what are you guys thinking here?

An IS-2 costs 680 manpower and 300 fuel. That's almost enough for 2 panthers and more than enough for 2 panzer 4s. That would be perfectly fine if the tank didn't perform so poorly. It is slow and has a slow turning turret, understandable. Its armor feels like paper and does not penetrate all that well considering it is a heavy tank, now that I don't understand.

A tiger costs 250 fuel, 50 less fuel than an IS-2... what? Just because it's German? I'm also pretty sure than an IS-2 will lose in a straight fight with a Tiger. At LEAST put them on equal footing. The only historical disadvantages I have read about the IS-2 compared to the Tiger was that it was difficult to reload the main gun and that the tank crews weren't as well trained. It did however carry a 122mm cannon, which is more than a match for any opposing German armor even at long range.

An IS-2 can't take a panther head on either, I sort of understand that since a panther is a dedicated anti tank, but this is a 300 fuel doctrinal tank we are talking about here.

I see what you are trying to do. A tiger is better against armor but only fairly effective against infantry. As opposed to an IS-2 which is better against infantry and only moderately effective against armor. I don't think this balancing works. IS-2s only come out late game where armor superiority takes priority over infantry superiority. The issue is compounded by the fact that IS-2s are also more expensive.

It's a somewhat similar situation with ISU-152s. Why are they more expensive than elephant tanks? Why can they not stand toe to toe in 1v1s with them? ISU-152s are also more expensive. Can anyone explain to me how that is balanced?

I usually play medium tank games but I tried to switch it up and was horribly disappointed. Right now getting soviet heavy armor is more for bragging about how much further ahead you are than it is about actually trying to win.

I can explain, build SU-85s it's best tank after Elephant

I agree with your sentiments, the IS-2 and ISU-152 are pretty useless for their price (the former especially).

Meanwhile, KV-8 is the most efficient vehicle for its role and less than half the price of the IS-2 and does essentially the same thing except better (heck, Shock Rifle commander even has both of them for some reason). How the hell is this justified?

The ISU-152 has the best gun. Vaporises infantry, smashes PAK 40s, smashes vehicles smaller than an Elephant.

The IS-2's AI is very good, its AT is so-so, its armour is very good. Turret speed presents it with a bit of a problem. The supertanks need to be just a bit more King Tigery right now. Currently they're both a tad unimpressive.

People should have some patience. Relic already mentioned they're going to balance the heavy armor, but you can't balance late game if you're not done with mid game, which is what they're/have been working on lately.

The ISU-152 has the best gun. Vaporises infantry, smashes PAK 40s, smashes vehicles smaller than an Elephant.

It's outdpsed by a single SU85 against any vehicle (but especially high armor ones because it has less penetration than an SU85). An SU85 is in turn outdpsed by an elefant.

The ISU-152 is very much an anti-infantry unit, just like the IS-2 (and the KV-8). I'm pretty sure everyone playing as soviets wish it wasn't so we'd have some alternative to SU85s.

Thanks for the feedback bigchunk1.

We delayed on adjusting heavy tanks purposefully. They are late game units which will be impacted by early to mid game changes. So until we felt the early-mid game was in a good state, we held off on changes to the late game.

That said, we have adjustments in the pipeline which we feel pretty good about.

It's outdpsed by a single SU85 against any vehicle (but especially high armor ones because it has less penetration than an SU85). An SU85 is in turn outdpsed by an elefant.

The ISU-152 is very much an anti-infantry unit, just like the IS-2 (and the KV-8). I'm pretty sure everyone playing as soviets wish it wasn't so we'd have some alternative to SU85s.

I think the ISU's range is even better than the SU-85's, and the pen and damage to it is very effective against medium armour. Even heavier armour other than the elephant can't really compete with a supported ISU.

The ISU is far better than the Elephant because it's effective against all units. Other than that, your argument with the IS-2 is agreeable. Soviets do need AT more than AI in the endgame, usually.

Thanks for the feedback bigchunk1.

We delayed on adjusting heavy tanks purposefully. They are late game units which will be impacted by early to mid game changes. So until we felt the early-mid game was in a good state, we held off on changes to the late game.

That said, we have adjustments in the pipeline which we feel pretty good about.

It makes sense to do things that way. Thanks for the reply.

I think the ISU's range is even better than the SU-85's, and the pen and damage to it is very effective against medium armour. Even heavier armour other than the elephant can't really compete with a supported ISU.

It has the same range as the elephant. It has a very slow turn rate, more scatter than the su85, very slow reload and can't fire while moving, so getting hit by it more than once with vehicles is generally very much not an issue in 1vs1. Claiming that heavier armour can't compete with one is effectively saying they can compete with an su85 even less, because apart from the range the SU85 really is a much better unit in every way.

I guess it's an ok unit for large team games (3vs3 and 4vs4) and the most open 2vs2 maps where you can use the range on it to gib infantry from multiple players whenever you're not faced with an elefant (a pretty big requirement there...) but it just effectively becomes a katyusha replacement with mild AT then. In 1vs1 I'd be glad my opponent wasted resources on one no matter the situation, which puts it in the exact same bin as the IS2.

I still think all armour problems for soviets would be countered by a infantry ability to disable, stop dead, a tank. This would stop the tactic of rushing at anti tank guns and ISU's and circling them until dead.

I still think all armour problems for soviets would be countered by a infantry ability to disable, stop dead, a tank. This would stop the tactic of rushing at anti tank guns and ISU's and circling them until dead.

Yes, especially when the axis don't have a commander ability to get out of that infantry ability immediately for a cheaper cost than the infantry ability.

Yeah, lets make Ost tanks completely incapable of flanking or micro intensive and pathing bugged circle strafing on anything without a turret.

That would be good balance and unbiased.

I have been a long time relic fan but what are you guys thinking here?

An IS-2 costs 680 manpower and 300 fuel. That's almost enough for 2 panthers and more than enough for 2 panzer 4s. That would be perfectly fine if the tank didn't perform so poorly. It is slow and has a slow turning turret, understandable. Its armor feels like paper and does not penetrate all that well considering it is a heavy tank, now that I don't understand.

A tiger costs 250 fuel, 50 less fuel than an IS-2... what? Just because it's German? I'm also pretty sure than an IS-2 will lose in a straight fight with a Tiger. At LEAST put them on equal footing. The only historical disadvantages I have read about the IS-2 compared to the Tiger was that it was difficult to reload the main gun and that the tank crews weren't as well trained. It did however carry a 122mm cannon, which is more than a match for any opposing German armor even at long range.

An IS-2 can't take a panther head on either, I sort of understand that since a panther is a dedicated anti tank, but this is a 300 fuel doctrinal tank we are talking about here.

I see what you are trying to do. A tiger is better against armor but only fairly effective against infantry. As opposed to an IS-2 which is better against infantry and only moderately effective against armor. I don't think this balancing works. IS-2s only come out late game where armor superiority takes priority over infantry superiority. The issue is compounded by the fact that IS-2s are also more expensive.

It's a somewhat similar situation with ISU-152s. Why are they more expensive than elephant tanks? Why can they not stand toe to toe in 1v1s with them? ISU-152s are also more expensive. Can anyone explain to me how that is balanced?

I usually play medium tank games but I tried to switch it up and was horribly disappointed. Right now getting soviet heavy armor is more for bragging about how much further ahead you are than it is about actually trying to win.

Only Guard regiment have the privilege to field JS-2 tanks, they are battle hardened veteran, lacking of crew training issue starts from the beginning of the Barbarossa, after the great purge.

Thanks for the feedback bigchunk1.

We delayed on adjusting heavy tanks purposefully. They are late game units which will be impacted by early to mid game changes. So until we felt the early-mid game was in a good state, we held off on changes to the late game.

That said, we have adjustments in the pipeline which we feel pretty good about.

You must have like 1 or 2 Beta Testers, who play alot of single player.

oops double post...