Dual Role SU-76

Sounds like we yet again have a cost to performance problem again.

Problem: Zis-3 and SU-76 barrages are not good enough to justify their cost.

Solution: Reduce the cost of barrage ability.

Making it cost 25 munitions on both units sounds like a viable solution to me.

Those barrage CAN very well be worth their cost, the price is there to prevent spamming them. Having an AT unit that can break up hard points or even advancing infantry if your timing is good is far too powerful to be cheap enough to use at every opportunity.

God I still have memories of my opponets building 6 of these in 1v1 prenerf and they countered everything. Literally one of the worst designed units of the games history. Good riddence to dual roles imo.

God I still have memories of my opponets building 6 of these in 1v1 prenerf and they countered everything. Literally one of the worst designed units of the games history. Good riddence to dual roles imo.

*chuckles in stuka close air support*

Su76 is good spammable unit with 60 range
But since su85 is better and not much later, better to save for it. I guess to encourage more sov diversity, relic need to lengthen it's mid games for t2-t3. Its a tough act. Ost mid game lenght seems fine.

God I still have memories of my opponets building 6 of these in 1v1 prenerf and they countered everything. Literally one of the worst designed units of the games history. Good riddence to dual roles imo.

Imo it has more to do with implementation and not principal. Unit could have dual roles but they should not be good at both roles in most cases.

Imo it has more to do with implementation and not principal. Unit could have dual roles but they should not be good at both roles in most cases.

Except, they have to be good at both roles to have that secondary role be of any use.
Ironically enough, pretty much all dual role units are soviet units.
They should not excel at that role to not overstep on the specialist units field, but they most certainly should perform up to the cost.

Except, they have to be good at both roles to have that secondary role be of any use.
Ironically enough, pretty much all dual role units are soviet units.
They should not excel at that role to not overstep on the specialist units field, but they most certainly should perform up to the cost.

You are entitled to your opinion but pls do not state as a fact.

Not all dual roles units are Soviets, hardly. Ostwind has a dual role of AI and AA.

And they do not, actually they can prove problematic even they are average in both roles if the like the M-42.

(disagreeing with my every post is non constrictive, try giving it rest. Have you decided if the Sherman is the most cost efficient medium yet? )

You are entitled to your opinion but pls do not state as a fact.

Not all dual roles units are Soviets, hardly. Ostwind has a dual role of AI and AA.

And they do not, actually they can prove problematic even they are average in both roles if the like the M-42.

(disagreeing with my every post is non constrictive, try giving it rest. Have you decided if the Sherman is the most cost efficient medium yet? )

You want facts?
Here are facts:

Dual role units in the past who were incapable of performing both their roles well:

SU-76
KV-2
ZiS-3
ISU-152

Steps taken to make the secondary role viable:

SU-76 - increasing base pen(its main role was irrelevant, it used to be alright mini arty with free barrage)
KV-2 - tank mode was made viable by adjusting penetration, deflection damage, projectile being changed from low arc slow "mortar" into actual tank shell, health was buffed to justify using it IN tank mode AS actual tank.
ZiS-3 - barrage was buffed to be efficient
ISU-152 - it didn't performed at all in anti tank role, so it was split between switchable ammo and penetration was massively buffed so that secondary TD role is viable.

M-42 was problematic exclusively due to bad implementation of canister shot, not its existence all together.
It should be canister shots for X seconds for X muni, which would prevent literally all the problems past and future as
1) Gun would still be spammable, but its AI part wouldn't overperform as it wouldn't be constantly on
2) If you really did wanted to use canister often, you wouldn't be able to use other muni things and soviets are pretty muni heavy already with all their abilities costing muni and having muni cost increased in the past
3) Upcoming nerfs that'll very likely lead to units death, because why should anyone get ATG that performs 50% worse then ZiS but costs 2/3rds of ZiS? Its better to wait these 20 secs and just get ZiS or penal PTRS upgrade(which will actually help late game due to AT satchel).

And now M-42 is having canister shot soft removed from the game while getting massive 20% cost increase, because throwing multiple random nerfs is always better then pinpointing the problem and addressing it.

Oh, and while your ostwind example isn't really incorrect, its a complete stretch and grasping at straws, by that logic all axis tanks are dual role units because they can also shoot planes down, but fuck it, lets pull that ostwind example further - looksie look! Its secondary role of anti infantry unit is now getting buffed with the patch! What a coincidence! I thought you were going against my argument, while in fact, you are reinforcing it! Thank you!

Oh dear, I feel su76 is good as it is. It's ability to barrage can't be cheaper than a standard infantry grenade simply because it is much more powerful and has more range.

As a unit I like it a lot. Just don't expect it to win you the game when you're losing. It's a relatively fragile TD which supports t34 and other tanks really well. It supports units such as ATpenals or guards or ATcons really well too. If you throw it into a mix of AT infantry and use it as part of combined arms strategy it is a really well designed unit.

In comparison to su85 it's much worse only because su85 is just great as a TD and comes from a higher tier building.