SU-76 Rework
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Both things got nerfed, now it's AT is only okay for tanks up to mediums and the AI is very situational and absolutely not a reason to get the SU76.
Now the SU76 is just not worth the price anymore. The only situation where I could imagine building it is if I play a T1 Soviet build, got blocked out of the fuel points and did not back tech in time when a P4 or Ostwind show up. Also I need to have no manpower to afford a back-tech and ZiS (about 500 MP in total)
If I need very decent AT, a ZiS + snare threat perform better. The barrage costs 35 mun and there's the same ability on the ZiS. Also back-teching costs only 20 fuel and not 75, so I delay a real tank only by a minute and not by 3-4.
SU76 should perform similar to the ZiS in my opinion. Or make the barrage way cheaper (~15 mun) with a bit longer setup time to make it worse against moving infantry, so that there is a real benefit from spending so much fuel. Now all you get is a more mobile, but way worse ZiS that also punishes you by delaying a tank.
Posts: 711
The SU76 was OP in previous builds since it had decent AT capacity and a free AI barrage.
Both things got nerfed, now it's AT is only okay for tanks up to mediums and the AI is very situational and absolutely not a reason to get the SU76.
Now the SU76 is just not worth the price anymore. The only situation where I could imagine building it is if I play a T1 Soviet build, got blocked out of the fuel points and did not back tech in time when a P4 or Ostwind show up. Also I need to have no manpower to afford a back-tech and ZiS (about 500 MP in total)
If I need very decent AT, a ZiS + snare threat perform better. The barrage costs 35 mun and there's the same ability on the ZiS. Also back-teching costs only 20 fuel and not 75, so I delay a real tank only by a minute and not by 3-4.
SU76 should perform similar to the ZiS in my opinion. Or make the barrage way cheaper (~15 mun) with a bit longer setup time to make it worse against moving infantry, so that there is a real benefit from spending so much fuel. Now all you get is a more mobile, but way worse ZiS that also punishes you by delaying a tank.
Ye, it's all true, but problem with current soviet gameplay - all good things and upgrades lock behind T4. SU-76 don't fit to this design. Each builded SU-76 will delay you T4. It even don't fit to call-in strategy - because every builded SU-76 also delay your heavy on 75 fuel. It's like nail in coffin of your victory.
I like how Pgrens and Ostwind were returned to game. Pgrens now don't need T2 to build. Ostwind become really potent AI and AA platform. But i think for SU-76 there is no such simple decision. If we will change it's role on indirect artillery support - it could be option between fast mobile T-70 and fragile SU-76 with indirect fire. 2 potent options with different styles of usage.
Like in normal mode it fires low-speed HE shell as stug-e, on low distance. In focus mode become light howitzer (with another profile of shells) with increased range and regular and smoke barrage.
Posts: 495 | Subs: 1
As far as performance goes, the SU-76 has a role as a mobile and flexible TD in tier 3 that can also support with its light artillery barrage. It’s chief advantage over the Zis-3 is it’s mobility and inability to be killed by infantry small arms fire, while its chief weakness is its vulnerability to anti tank weapons.
The SU-76 has a role, but it may be too expensive for that role.
I suggest a simple cost reduction in its fuel price by 10-15 fuel, but no changes to its stats.
I would also suggest a slight reduction to the cost of the StuG III as well, but that’s off topic.
Posts: 5279
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 789
Oh, it could for example get damage boost from 120 to 160!
Oh wait! It does get it!
According to CoH2.DB the puma doesn’t. But if you tested it with cheat mod I’ll believe you. I don’t have time right now to check sorry
Just please consider that the su-76 has as much range as Jacksons, Fireflys and SU-85s. And vets pretty fast
So a 75fuel vehicle with SU 85 damage/range at vet 3 WITH AI barrage? Hmmmm,
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
According to CoH2.DB the puma doesn’t. But if you tested it with cheat mod I’ll believe you. I don’t have time right now to check sorry
Just please consider that the su-76 has as much range as Jacksons, Fireflys and SU-85s. And vets pretty fast
So a 75fuel vehicle with SU 85 damage/range at vet 3 WITH AI barrage? Hmmmm,
Go check veterancy guide here on .org.
Puma vet was never changed and it gets 160 dmg at vet3 for ost and don't know which vet for OKW.
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
Ost Puma does 140,4 damage at vet 3 (lul).
Posts: 5279
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I thought the puma went from 80 to 120?
Puma has 120 by default, always had.
Posts: 607
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Soviet T3 actually has a good unit mix. AA/AI-support unit. AI specialist light tank, AT specialist light tank. The SU76 is not an unreliable unit, but there are cheaper ways for Soviets to get the same performance by back-teching and buying a ZiS. So the problem is, as correctly stated previously, the cost/performance ratio.
So we have two options:
1. Make SU76 cheaper -> In my opinion a bad idea due to how many problems this could lead to regarding spammability and suicidal dives by using it's long range.
2. Make SU76 stronger -> In my opinion the way to go.
The earlier SU76 had mostly reliable hit/pen chance against a P4, 160 damage and 60 range plus a free barrage. The new version got accuracy nerfed and damage nerfed to 120 damage, which means 6 shots to kill a medium, plus an expensive barrage.
Upping the damage back to 160 could lead to random P4 RNG kills in a the 2v1 situations that the Axis player will likely face. So I'm not sure if this reversal would be so great or not. Lowering accuracy could counter that but makes the unit frustrating to use and fight against for both players.
As a first step to test how to get SU76 back into the meta, I suggest to give it a timed ability (heat shells) that increases damage to 160 and maybe penetration as well for ~30 mun. Also make the barrage ~20 mun.
In my eyes, SU76 could be mediocre unit for standard use that can be boosted to a strong TD or artillery piece if you pay muni in the correct moments. Due to the munition sink that a SU76 will be, it won't be spammable, but might fit into more builds since it can be very useful and be "a poor man's SU85" as originally intended. Also we would preserve the Soviet theme of utility with multi-purpose units.
This could come along with minor cost adjustments. If it's enough, we keep the unit like that. If not, we can discuss if we make stat buffs permanent.
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
Buffing its HP to 480 would also be a possibility, so it isn't doomed by a single faust.
Or lower its range to 50 and give it closer performance to the Stug.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
In terms of a rework it's fair to say making it cheaper would encourage some pretty bad spamming. Making it stronger could also lead to pretty bad situations when it gets spammed.
Buffing the SU76 could follow the original design of making things do multiple jobs on the battlefield. For instance the T70 can fight inf, scout and cap points. The SU76 can fight vehicles from range, barrage and track, which kinda feels redundant tbh. The recently buffed M5 can be AA and backline support, as well as mobile suppression in early-mid. So what could be done about the SU76:
Idea number 1: Make the barrage free, but change it. The original issue with the free barrage was that all 3-6 SU76s you made instantly barraged a unit for a near guaranteed wipe. This can still be done, but for a lot of munitions. I think the free barrage should be back, but changed to prevent cheese. First of all, you could have the SU76 start unable to barrage, unless it upgrades with HE shells (like pgrens getting shreks or grens mg42) for something like 80 munitions. You could also make the shells themselves less accurate and less lethal, so even en masse it's not a guaranteed kill but 1 barrage will force a unit to reposition. You could also increase the time from ability activation to the first shell, to make it less potent vs moving infantry.
Idea number 2: Replace tracking with a 60 muni ability to buff penetration by 30-40 for 20 seconds.
Idea number 3: Increase rotation speed to make it a bit easier to face enemy tanks trying to dive it.
Posts: 5279
Puma has 120 by default, always had.
Welp.... Should have known that. Thanks!
Posts: 789
Move SU 76 to T4 and buff it
Reduce the cost of t4
Add a tech cost to t4 to unlock T34/85, KV1 & SU 85
You could still only build t34/85s and kv1s with doctrine
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
In addition comparing the Zis with Su-76 barrage is rather misleading. Its like claiming that pak has better TWP and that makes Stug redundant and thus Stug should be buffed.
Su-76 is a cost efficient unit that is better option if one choose not built T2.
Posts: 3260
Idea number 1: Make the barrage free, but change it. The original issue with the free barrage was that all 3-6 SU76s you made instantly barraged a unit for a near guaranteed wipe.
You could hypothetically give the barrage a global cooldown.
Not very thematic, but it'd stop the barrage spam.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Su-76 barrage becomes superior to that of Zis with veterancy.
In addition comparing the Zis with Su-76 barrage is rather misleading. Its like claiming that pak has better TWP and that makes Stug redundant and thus Stug should be buffed.
Su-76 is a cost efficient unit that is better option if one choose not built T2.
Could you lease elaborateon your second point? Visually, they do pretty much the same, so I never thought about it if there were any drastic stat differences, since in game they behaved similar.
What are the differences between the two abilities?
The thing is that the SU67 is not a very viable option at the moment. It's not horrible, but there is little reason to build it due to other options. And since the other options are not deemed OP, SU67 could be overprized/underperforming.
The stuG was also not a horrible unit stat wise. The problem was that Allied TDs countered it heavily, so Ostheer usually relied on its PaK as it is more cost efficient.
The Su76 is by no means the most glaring problem of the game, but if there is interest to discuss it, why not. So we need to fiddle with small adjustments
Posts: 2358
If the SU-76 has an issue it’s one of coat vs performance.
As far as performance goes, the SU-76 has a role as a mobile and flexible TD in tier 3 that can also support with its light artillery barrage. It’s chief advantage over the Zis-3 is it’s mobility and inability to be killed by infantry small arms fire, while its chief weakness is its vulnerability to anti tank weapons.
The SU-76 has a role, but it may be too expensive for that role.
I suggest a simple cost reduction in its fuel price by 10-15 fuel, but no changes to its stats.
I would also suggest a slight reduction to the cost of the StuG III as well, but that’s off topic.
I politely disagree with you. I dont think su76 is a td, even when its gun solely proposes a threat to tanks,SU76 in game is like a self propelled zis, immune (almost) to small arms fire, a premium ATG rather a TD.
It is way to weak to other armor though, if target size could be buffed or get the su85 selfspot it could find a place
I agree with the fuel cost reduction idea.
Livestreams
4 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.626228.733+1
- 5.920405.694+4
- 6.276108.719+27
- 7.306114.729+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, EvedbPoole
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM