Profile of hubewa

i will repeat what i said before and request you to play 40! GAMES OF 2vs2 and up as soviets and spam those su-76s and tell me how OP it is cause from your experience(or the example you gave us to describe the power of the su-76)its unfair for the panther to get penetrated by alot of tank destroys,with that logic the su-76 is op THEN half of the AT the Germans have should not even penetrate IS-2s or ISU-152s,but since you clearly dont play Allies you think its "OP" for doing what is supposed to do,and if you lower the penetration of the su-76 see how awful 4 AMERICAN AT GUNS FAIL TO PENETRATE THE PANTHER! EVEN WITH HIGH VELOCITY ROUNDS(if you nerf the penetration the su-76 will become the new american AT GUN),but thats ok to you since "balance" is all about allies having crap units.

I'll make it easy for you since pressing a button is sooooo hard for you right?

Most Played Faction/Mode:
Soviets 1v1 Ranked Games played: 110

No wonder you can't grasp basic balance concepts.

Unless if you want to look at 2v2 stats and try to be a judgemental moron because 37 < 40....
_____________________________________________________

Because 2v2 is sooooo competitive right? (Rolls eyes)

I wonder what kind of tournament OCF is? Lo and behold, its a 1v1 tourney.

(In all honesty, 2v2 is not too bad a gamemode, I have fun in it, but if a unit is okay in 2v2, but screws a lot of things over in 1v1 due to size of maps, then there's an obvious problem that needs to be fixed)

Mate, I pity how clueless you are, you don't even have any knowledge of

a) Balance
b) Player Cards
c) Basic math
d) Basic comprehension
e) Any sense of communication

I have more sane commentary with my dog than I have with you.

Please put 5 cents in this thread to try again.

And do keep on abusing SU-76s in 1v1s while it lasts.

Lot of talk about how earlier useless SU-76 is OP now. No one talk how useless 1 vet Soviet TD generally. Again. First veterancy of SU-76/85/152 is absolutely useless. This is normal?
Returning to the topic. The price of SU-76 can slightly increase but that is all.
P.S. Barrage SU-76 is awful. There is only one point - free.

Abilities could do with a rework, I'll admit.

Barrage from SU-76 isn't as reliable as a ZIS-3, but its still a way that TDs can reliably kill infantry, which is still unique. There is not a single TD in the game that has the potential AI that the SU-76 has. And I don't want to remove it.

Sorry, for double post, I'm going to post on Kaitof's last post. Its usually tough for me because I usually reply by phone but now I'm on a computer so yeah.

I agree, nerf PaKs and shrecks.

By that logic we should completely butcher all the infantry units, because most of them perform ridiculously good late game.

Er.... no they're not.

Take a PzGren with shrek army vs an IS-2, T-34-85s (hell, even throw in the T-34-76), SU-76 and tell me how that goes for you.

The only reason they "perform good" is because infantry does what vehicles can't do (if you ignore soviet abilities) - cap points and capping points, especially VPs by endgame wins games. Of course, you need units to be survivable but if you kill a lot of infantry so they can't cap, you will win.

IMO There's a big difference between infantry and tank balance. Infantry balance has to worry about MP bleed (MP cost of any infantry squad is always greater than MP bleed from any tank in the game), tank balance has to worry about pennetration, ROF, survivability mostly. So to compare infantry and vehicles is a bit silly.

Balance in the game is all about cost efficiency, risk and reward comes with different BOs, specific unit/doctrine usage and the way you actually use the units. Baserushing T-70 is about risk vs reward, making a wall of TD, even cheap ones, really isn't.

True, you make a good point about cost efficiency and I agree with you. But at the end of the day, the strats ultimately determine cost efficiency anyway. If there is good reward for low risk, everyone's going to favour that strategy. I think one of those ways is a quantitative description (yours) mine is a qualitative description of the same thing.

PE T3 was designed for early game harass with 222s and hard AT with light tank destroyer that could be pierced by small arms, it arrived early and units scaled into late game no problem.
Marder III is nothing more then axis version of SU-76, only difference is Marder was pure TD while SU-76 still have that divisional field gun capable of both AT and barrage.

Hell, whole PE army is a proof that lights have all the right to scale into late game and engage heavier armor as long as that is their role.

Firstly, ask any veteran CoH1 player about faction design of the brits and the PE and they'll tell you its far worse than US and Wehr, which are the iconic CoH1 factions, but thats a moot point.

My main point is - Barrage actually is the kind of kicker between comparing the Marder and the SU-76. The Marder doesn't have the ability to kill infantry as easily as the SU-76, esp at long ranges, which, both games considered, makes the SU-76 a far better vehicle than the Marder. Now I understand that while the Marder was truly a dedicated TD IRL, the SU-76 IRL could actually fire supporting artillery fire. That and it can't fight German heavy armour so well.

Not even relevant as luchs have no AT capabilities.
Now, if we take enough Stuarts and put them against Tiger, you might be surprised a bit.
3 or more Pumas circling IS-2 will give it a hard time as well.

I don't see anything wrong with fragile, turretless tank destroyer being able to take on and destroy heavy armor when massed. To me its WAI.

Lets say, hypothetically, we had a turretless fragile tank Destroyer that was armed with the weaker soviet AT Gun currently in the game (so a 37-50mm gun). Is it still fine if it penns Panthers, Tigers and Elefants when the real thing struggled frontally against P4s?

IMO, the SU-76 can either be a dedicated TD like the COH1 Marder (I don't really like that considering that wasn't its role IRL) or it can be a strong Early-midgame unit. But atm, it has its cake and eats it too.

The idea of an extended tier 3 is to push axis forces off the map, esp in a 1v1. If you're not doing it with superior firepower and units with extended tier 3, its not the most optimal use of your resources.

In a 1v1 game, this will deny Germans resources, slow down his tech. By the time the Germans get any heavy armour, its possible to get 3 SU-76s which can by itself deal with the new German tech.

Good luck flanking 3 TDs that can more often than not Penn you from the front, especially on smaller 1v1 maps, it may be easier on 2v2+ maps but not 1v1.

And for the record, the Stug is a dedicated TD, it doesn't have a barrage or any significant AI apart from self defence.

JohnnyB, in your post of cost effectiveness, it seems perfect, but you didnt consider barrage which will always dent early-mid game performance in a way the Stug never can.

you don't need a high velocity round for anti-tank work if your shell is heavy enough. This is why the soviet gun have comically large caliber. Their gun design went for increasingly heavy shell instead of higher velocity.

True, but I wouldn't call 76mm High caliber, especially considering what the soviets went for.

The trouble with heavy shells is that they take forever for crews to load and gun is nowhere near as accurate. So although, if it hits an enemy tank, it will kill it, it can't fight multiple tanks.

I've played it only in other mods.

The reason why you wont see the KV-1/KV-2 more is, sadly, due to Relic's business model.

If they put the KV-1/KV-2 in more doctrines, then the commanders are worthless if you were going for them just for the KV-1 and KV-2.

If they buffed it so it was usable, ppl would cry P2W. Tbh, I would too.

Its their shitty business model that has dug themselves into this hole, and sadly, tanks like the KV-2 and especially the KV-1 which is an iconic Soviet WW2 Vehicle has to suffer.