su76 need adjustments

Emergency like emergency food, NOT like a medical emergency. Basically it's something cheap that is better than nothing.

The su76 does fine at zoning out axis mediums as long as you have some infantry based at support like cons with AT nade. But this is the same for most other TDs too.

Cheap in current cost, but expensive in aftermath. You will delay core building of your nation and have huge risk to lose su-76.
I ask again: if it so "good cheap emergency food" why no one use it? Maybe because if you like eat "cheap" sugar candies, after it you will go to dentist and will pay huge bill for your tooth?

SU-76 like old ostwind and old pgrens. No one used ostwind due bad AI and AA, few ones used pgrens - they were too expensive and don't give so much impact on their timeframe. Ostwind got AA in level to other AA platforms - good, it also got boost to AI and become very potent AI platform. Pgrens were moved to T0 and could arrive on the field in 3 minute mark if you want it, they also got good synergy with armor units.
I suggest rework role of su-76, because i don't think that there is another good ways to bring it back in SU roster. SU-76 bad not only because time of recharge of barrage is high, it's bad for multiple reasons that i pointed before. It must become AI support unit with some AT - what it was in real life, not subpar AT with some AI like now.

Cheap in current cost, but expensive in aftermath. You will delay core building of your nation and have huge risk to lose su-76.
I ask again: if it so "good cheap emergency food" why no one use it? Maybe because if you like eat "cheap" sugar candies, after it you will go to dentist and will pay huge bill for your tooth?

ia the puma free ? Cause last time a checked building delays ur tech too, and before u say u see much more puma than su 76 , ask ur self, is there any unit that counters t70 Stuart or AEC other than puma ? And then is there a LV that might pose a problem to the t70 that it needs a su 76 ? Spoiler no

ia the puma free ? Cause last time a checked building delays ur tech too, and before u say u see much more puma than su 76 , ask ur self, is there any unit that counters t70 Stuart or AEC other than puma ?

Very hard to understand such style of writing. I am trying to decrypt it. Any ATG counter LV, snares+ATG, also mines, you even could make AT upgrade for infantry if you want. All these tools also could counter mediums too when combined together, that another reason not build SU-76.
You want to know why OKW go to puma+p2? Because p2 have minor chances against T-70, while puma is hardcounter for T-70. If you could make quick kill of t-70 you will have very good AI armored unit and will increase your field pressure. Your enemy will be need to invest or in PTRS for penals or make backteching to zis or build zis if he have T2.

And then is there a LV that might pose a problem to the t70 that it needs a su 76 ? Spoiler no

That is reason why SU-76 don't popular - it hardcounter for LV, while germans have very minor reasons to invest in LV at all (especially OST with current early pgrens). While T-70 is some kind of "bridgestone" for SU in it timeframe, like P4 for OST. Timeframe of T-70 when germans have weapon upgrades and veterancy while you have only veterancy and you need some strong AI tool for field pressure.

ia the puma free ? Cause last time a checked building delays ur tech too, and before u say u see much more puma than su 76 , ask ur self, is there any unit that counters t70 Stuart or AEC other than puma ? And then is there a LV that might pose a problem to the t70 that it needs a su 76 ? Spoiler no

Not light vehicle, but Ostwind.
The fact is that while you can keep the Ostwind at bay, if you screw once, you can get your Su76 killed and further delaying any real answer to it, more so if you go T1.

Quick question: wasn't the problem of Su76 spam the fact that the barrage was free and that it stall for call in strats?
Isn't this a similar situation as to the current OH Mobile defense Puma that you could stall with no tech investment into a Cmd PIV for AI vehicle?

I don't trust any calculation which involves accuracy, unless you think the TTK between a Stug and Churchill is the same (it isn't, not by a long shot).

Better put them up against a 1 million HP medium tank at max range and see who wins first.

DPS as a metric on tank vs tank combat is bad. In the same way calculating average damage per area for Indirect fire is.

Just to give a brief example: say Zis gun is 160dmg with 6s reload (for math sake).
How long does it take to kill a tank with 640HP 100% acc + pen.

Zis fake DPS: 160/6 = 26.67
If you think that 640/26.67 = 24s would gives a "real result" let's check.
Shoot, (reload+shoot) x3 >>> 18s

How about 2 Zis guns against the same tank.
640/(26.67 x 2) = 12s
Real scenario: 6s

Well the su76 is underused and needs something to make it more appealing... soo what do u guys recommend?

Nerfing the t70. The reason why no one builds the su76 anymore is because a) t1 and t2 all have AT to deal with light tanks, b) t4 can deal with mediums/heavies, c) you can no longer build three and then call in a ISU or Is2, d) the t70 can deal with all axis light vehicles save the puma, and rape infantry and have godly recon.

DPS as a metric on tank vs tank combat is bad. In the same way calculating average damage per area for Indirect fire is.

Just to give a brief example: say Zis gun is 160dmg with 6s reload (for math sake).
How long does it take to kill a tank with 640HP 100% acc + pen.

Zis fake DPS: 160/6 = 26.67
If you think that 640/26.67 = 24s would gives a "real result" let's check.
Shoot, (reload+shoot) x3 >>> 18s

How about 2 Zis guns against the same tank.
640/(26.67 x 2) = 12s
Real scenario: 6s

You just skip 1 cicle of reload, if you want move "math" to "real" you can make like that (if pen and accuracy is 100%):
(640-DMG per shot) / (DMG per Shot / Time of Reload)=TimeLife of Armor
(640-160) / (160 / 6) = 480/26,6 ~ 18,04 seconds

Nerfing the t70. The reason why no one builds the su76 anymore is because a) t1 and t2 all have AT to deal with light tanks, b) t4 can deal with mediums/heavies, c) you can no longer build three and then call in a ISU or Is2, d) the t70 can deal with all axis light vehicles save the puma, and rape infantry and have godly recon.

How it will make SU-76 shine? It's like say: "Let's nerf pak 40 and OST will be build more pgrens with shrecks".
If you want nerf t-70, you need or buff SU-76 to some potent constant AI ("HE shells like sherman" or something else) or make stock infantry potent against upgraded axis infantry.
Problem in role of SU-76 as AT tool with some AI.

Nerfing the t70. The reason why no one builds the su76 anymore is because a) t1 and t2 all have AT to deal with light tanks, b) t4 can deal with mediums/heavies, c) you can no longer build three and then call in a ISU or Is2, d) the t70 can deal with all axis light vehicles save the puma, and rape infantry and have godly recon.

Lets nerf luchs and puma too!

That'll fix flak HT for OKW!

Very hard to understand such style of writing. I am trying to decrypt it. Any ATG counter LV, snares+ATG, also mines, you even could make AT upgrade for infantry if you want. All these tools also could counter mediums too when combined together, that another reason not build SU-76.
You want to know why OKW go to puma+p2? Because p2 have minor chances against T-70, while puma is hardcounter for T-70. If you could make quick kill of t-70 you will have very good AI armored unit and will increase your field pressure. Your enemy will be need to invest or in PTRS for penals or make backteching to zis or build zis if he have T2.

what im saying is that su 76 is similar to puma but there is no strong LT that axis uses that needs a counter like puma as a t70 will do the job just fine

You just skip 1 cicle of reload, if you want move "math" to "real" you can make like that (if pen and accuracy is 100%):
(640-DMG per shot) / (DMG per Shot / Time of Reload)=TimeLife of Armor
(640-160) / (160 / 6) = 480/26,6 ~ 18,04 seconds

You can make any equation to accommodate the values you want, it doesn't mean that the variable is valuable at all to make comparisons with.
Specially when you have vehicles which can't either kill or die with no overkill dmg.

Let me make it more clear.

Unit A: deals 120dmg/6s = 20 dps
Unit B: deals 160dmg/8s = 20 dps

Now: how long does it take to kill a 640HP tank ?

B: 3 Reloads > 24s
A: 5 Reloads > 30s (26s on math)

Tank performance is not balanced around DPS but TTK (time to kill) in conjunction with acc + Pen.

You can make any equation to accommodate the values you want, it doesn't mean that the variable is valuable at all to make comparisons with.
Specially when you have vehicles which can't either kill or die with no overkill dmg.

Let me make it more clear.

Unit A: deals 120dmg/6s = 20 dps
Unit B: deals 160dmg/8s = 20 dps

Now: how long does it take to kill a 640HP tank ?

B: 3 Reloads > 24s
A: 5 Reloads > 30s (26s on math)

Tank performance is not balanced around DPS but TTK (time to kill) in conjunction with acc + Pen.

"Real"
A: (640-160)/(160/8)=24
B: (640-120)/(120/6)=520/20=26

"Math"
A:640/(160/8)=32
B:640/(120/6)=32

Want some more funny math? HP is equal 660:
"Real"
A: (660-160)/(160/8)=500/20=25
B: (660-120)/(120/6)=440/20=22

Why? What you show just called "overkill". Unit with slower reload need to start new cycle of reload to kill almost dead unit. While more faster have kill in the end of cycle.

Yes, DPS from TTK not balanced. But turn on acc + Pen. We don't play in "starcraft" when only damage per hit and speed of attack exist and only one decreasing damage part is armor from upgrades.
But we have such parameters like accuracy and target size (if we consider situation with 100% pen). And in situation when you have slow, more damage weapon with chance to miss and fast, low damage weapon with higher chance to hit, you must consider what will be better. Just imagine two-handed battle-hammer and short sword. Their DPS could be equal, but against swarm of rats much more applicable sword not hammer, while against dragon hammer could be much better.

It's all just question about effectivness against targets with different HP pool. If you want have maximum effectivness you should't get "overkill" you must kill at the end of cycle. I don't know any other rules how unit damage could be valueted, only this one (HP/DPS). IF you know, show me and if it work better than mine, i will accept my defeat in our argue.

Ups, i did mistake in digits:
A: (660-160)/(160/8)=500/20=25
B: (660-120)/(120/6)=540/20=27

But it don't make my conclusion wrong. Problem in "overkill" and how damage of unit could be valueted in different manner from HP/DPS.
In fact, if you have such system when onle damage per hit and speed of attack exist, you can balance only units hp pools.

Example with old stats:
Unit A: deals 120dmg/6s = 20 dps
Unit B: deals 160dmg/8s = 20 dps

You have 2 enemies with 10 health each. How much time you need to kill both?
Unit A: 12s
Unit B: 16s

If you could change hp pools of enemies to don't get overkill, then you can balance 2 units. But again, it's just question about maximum effectivness against different targets. If targets makes constant damage to you it can be even "question of death and life".

Or instead of changing the damage.... Support your unit? The lesser damage of the su76 goes really well with PTRS'S who don't deal conventional damage. Su76 is PART of your army, not the whole bloody thing. I don't know why that concept is so troublesome to grasp.

Or instead of changing the damage.... Support your unit? The lesser damage of the su76 goes really well with PTRS'S who don't deal conventional damage. Su76 is PART of your army, not the whole bloody thing. I don't know why that concept is so troublesome to grasp.

"Old pgrens are PART of your army, not the whole bloody thing". Question: why we saw pgrens so rare? Because OST players don't know it sentence? Or maybe, because unit impact was so low in it old timeframe and for it's old cost (+t2 building)?

I repeat again problem not in AT of su-76 against mediums, problem in role of SU76. It must be AI support with some AT, not subpar AT with some AI. You can't make from su-76 potent AT against mediums for sake of balance. Because it will make spamm of t-70 and su-76. And OST player will be need to deal with cheap, spammable "hardcounter" mediums AT and aggressive AI unit.
SU-76 must become AI support tool with some AT.

You can make any equation to accommodate the values you want, it doesn't mean that the variable is valuable at all to make comparisons with.
Specially when you have vehicles which can't either kill or die with no overkill dmg.

I just think, in fact you can make "adjustments" for DPS.

(HP/DMG per Hit)=TimeLife => if digit is round we have TimeLife of Target.

Example: Hp=50, DMG=25, Speed of Attack=1
TimeLife=50/(25*1)=2s

When timelife is not round digit. We just add time until timelife not become round value if divided on speed of attack.

Example: Hp=60, DMG=25, Speed of Attack=1
TimeLife=60/(25*1)=2,4s
Real TimeLife=3s (+1 round of attack)

In fact any digits after comma "means" that attack in progress and in reality it must be ended.

If we add to our digits chance to hit, from this point we could only talking about "estimated" timelife.

Example:
Hp=50, DMG=25, Speed of Attack=1, Chance to Hit=80%
TimeLife=50/(25*1)=2s (we have got "raw" timelife - lowest value of our range, if all attacks were succesfull)
Estimated TimeLife= Timelife / Chance to Hit= (2 * 0,8)=2,5s

But we also remember that any digits after comma means that attack in progress.
Estimated TimeLife=from 2-3s.
We got range of time when target could be killed and from smallest to biggest time it increases on Speed of attack time (if we have 2-5 range, we could kill target on 2,3,4,5-th second if Speed of Attack is equal 1 second). If we add to our new digits chance to pen, it just make range wider.

I agree, that raw dps how i count earlier too rude method, if we turn on in game chance to hit and chance to pen. We could just got "estimated" range of timelife.

Nerfing the t70. The reason why no one builds the su76 anymore is because a) t1 and t2 all have AT to deal with light tanks, b) t4 can deal with mediums/heavies, c) you can no longer build three and then call in a ISU or Is2, d) the t70 can deal with all axis light vehicles save the puma, and rape infantry and have godly recon.

If we nerf the T70 then we need to make 7 man cons come significantly earlier... replace the maxim with the DSHK AND give penals an AI weapon...

The whole jig of soviet strategy at least in competitive 1v1 hinges around penals and guards and powerspiking to the T70 to win...

Likewise sov core T2 build's only saving grace is stalling for as long as possible to acquire a T70... without a T70 sov T2 would struggle even harder despite being the least viable core strategy ingame

snip

You are really missing the point of the discussion.

It's not about formulating a equation which reveals what is the time required for a unit to actually kill a vehicle (which is easy to make) rather than DPS as a metric been pointless when using tank vs tank combat.

IF 2 infantry squads have X and Y value of DPS, it's easy to compare and analyse cause the amount of "rolls" and HP difference makes the whole RNG "fair". Tank combat is more binary and with less margin.

Yes, this is not SC2. Which is to analyse tank combat you add into the mix the % for penetration and accuracy into the mix. Accuracy been a bitch cause you can't really calculate scatter hit at all.
That been said, with TTK, you can easily add acc + pen into the variables as the only thing you are taking into account is how much more shots on average you are going to spend due to misses and fails on penetrations. If i have 75% acc and 50% pen, i can expect to increase the amount of shots required by that amount and then easily multiplied that value by the RoF of the weapon in question.


Another point: you are missing that most weapons have similar damage "calibers" and similar HP pools.

We don't have arbitrarily 17dmg on rifles and tanks doing 182 dmg per shot.
640HP is the magic number for mediums. Magic number for AT damage is 160dmg. Guess what, it requires 4 shots to kill a tank. Most changes on dmg and HP are done taking this 160, by either full, half or quarter values (320/400/560/720/800/960/1040/1280)

You are really missing the point of the discussion.

We don't have arbitrarily 17dmg on rifles and tanks doing 182 dmg per shot.
640HP is the magic number for mediums. Magic number for AT damage is 160dmg. Guess what, it requires 4 shots to kill a tank. Most changes on dmg and HP are done taking this 160, by either full, half or quarter values (320/400/560/720/800/960/1040/1280)

Looks like i miss something. But i think i understand your point, just in different way.

Another point: you are missing that most weapons have similar damage "calibers" and similar HP pools.

That means that some weapons is created against exact targets? 160 dmg ATG is counter against mediums and heavies (640/160=4). While 120 SU-76 just closer to LV killer. SU-76 and puma have 400 hp. Stug 540. t-70 and p2 400 too IRC.

That means that some weapons is created against exact targets? 160 dmg ATG is counter against mediums and heavies (640/160=4). While 120 SU-76 just closer to LV killer. SU-76 and puma have 400 hp. Stug 540. t-70 and p2 400 too IRC.

Show me all these light vehicles who have up to 160 armor(pumas pen, SU-76 got even higher max pen, and more generous long range pen and pen dropoff, point is, no LV in game got as much armor as they got pen).

What you're not getting for whatever reason is that units are balanced and scaled off these "magic baseline numbers" elchino was talking about, but it doesn't mean units have or can fight exclusively in their own "weight category". They are balanced for their timing and for other vehicles around that timing, nothing prohibits them from engaging later and heavier units, Puma is well known for roflstomping stock meds, while SU-76 used to be less bursty, more flexible SU-85 alternative.