Profile of achpawel

In your scenario, the zis would just be treated as a quasi mortar, meaning that an actual mortar would pretty convincingly deal with the problem.

Well, you have to invest a lot of manpower to buy a mortar. This is not my scenario - it is just what happens - you want to attack zis with infantry, or even worse with an mg and you are made to retreat. Zis is a very good offenbsive weapon supporting a push. You can use it to dislodge an mg and scare vehicles away.

It is still fairly ineffectual as a mortar replacement. It cant deal with garrisons or counter barrages (and it shouldn't). If both sides have the same# of squads and mgs, and it it's a zis vs a mortar, the mortar wins.

I agree with the above. But this is not what I meant. A mortar is a mortar and we are speaking of an at gun. In real game scenarios it will make short work of an mg FASTER than a mortar. It will also deal with garrisons pretty well. Mortars usually take longer time to do that.

Better accessabity to cqc units further tips the balance.

It is the Soviets that have better accessibility to such units. With ostheer it is only very expensive panzergrens who are just four models.

You're right that the differences in rof is essentially negligible, but only if you are talking about mediums. A pak will deal with high HP and armor targets far better than the zis will.

Pak won't deal with high HP much better. You need a wall of them as they bounce. Zis will do the job equally well, especially against chrchills and other tanks that like to close in. Better zis survivalability (mone models and cons merge) will usually let it land more shots. Paks will be decrewed earlier and are more difficult to recrew by 4 men squads.

Actually, it makes for a massive difference, 1 shot might be insignificant, what can you do in 1 second, right?

However 3-5 seconds make a huge difference and its these follow ups that rack the time difference in time to kill up, which puts PaK at vastly superior spot, if you land stun shot as well, its pretty much guaranteed kill on medium, while ZiS can only scare tank away on its own.

I play with both and the seem really similar. Stun shots used to be good. What is the difference in the rate of fire?

I didnt realize higher rof and stun rounds are completely worthless compared to the zis barrage. A Zis barrage is the same cost as a bundle grenade, and it gives ample time for you to take the 5 steps needed to get out of its barrage. It no longer instagibs squads at point blank. If you stay in the barrage now, it's your own fault. If you charge 3 squads into the barrage, its your own fault. For the same reason why you dont do the same vs pgren. Long range barrages are fairly inaccurate, meaning that 9/10 times it will just force an mg to displace. When I play germans, I have literally never had an issue with dealing with the zis.

Agree with all the points. The problem is that it counters it's counters and requires you to micro. You never leave zis alone and it is supported. Attacking zis will mean you have to deal with support AND the barrage. And that is the problem - in real game scenario a prey will throw a grenade at the predator. If support is where it should be attackers have much harder time and the barrage will turn the engagement in your favour. Adding larger crews zis guns are really difficult to dislodge. Vet 1 would be a good idea.

Combing back to rof. Generally the difference is insignificant. You absorb the same number of shots and retreat with a vehicle. Doesn't really matter if it is zis or pak or 6pounder or USF at.

No, they don’t. Anti-tank guns usually have the worst high-explosive projectile, due to the fact that the projectile in them flies at a higher speed. So the walls of the projectile have more thickness to withstand the pressure of the powder gases and less explosives. Plus anti-tank guns have a lower elevation angle of the gun. QF 6 pounder: + 15°, PaK-40: + 22°, ZiS-3: + 37°

I meant at guns that are manned by infantry and that we use in game. Not in real life.

The pak and zis face targets non doc with very different armour values. The zis faces far higher armour and higher hp values non doc with a slower rof and slightly lower pen profile. How the hell does this play almost identical to you?

It doesn't and it shouldn't. You keep making logical mistakes. In general, the price should reflect performace. If zis is not more expensive than pak, it shouldn't be better. It is better because of the barrage. Some people on this forum suggest moving it to vet 1 which makes semnse to me and is very logical as it counters units that are designed to counter zis, which is already more difficult to decrew because of higher number of models.

The armour on vehicles is another story. Those with more armour are more expensive and require more complicated tech. To counter them you should build more powerful AT units or build 2 zis guns for example. You can't have a very cheap unit to counter expensive units. Soviets are supposed to build more cheaper tanks to overrun enemy. It can be done easily. With doctrines they get much heavier units. But this has nothing to do with zis barrage which is just still too potent.

The pak can pen any sov stock vehicle no sweat, the zis cant do the same. It has a higher chance to bounce because of it. AND STOP BRINGING IN DOCTRINAL UNITS TO BALANCE A FACTION. YOU ADJUST THE DOCTRINE TO THE BALANCE OF A BALANCED FACTION. Soviets have no heavy armour non doc, sov have no nade or ai upgrade non doc. The su76 and zis barrage compensate that.

No it doesn't. SU 85 compensates that and satchels, etc. Zis barrage keeps making it too difficult for typical at gun counters to counter them, and you get it for free as an extra.