As others have said, pen and damage mean less in the picture of the ISU152 if you count in reload time. It takes twice as long, possibly thrice as long, for the ISU to reload in comparison to the Tiger 1. An SU85 is a much better AT option in both regarding overall performance and its pricetag.
Hence, it is a less potent AT vehicle than the tiger. I'm really just repeating what others have said here, so i'll just leave it at that.
And you can prove easily that the DPM of the ISU-152 isn't that bad considering it's range, and the reload time match it's higher damages, so stating that it is not an AT option is simply wrong. |
The negligible difference in penetration is easily outshadowed by the Tiger's superior DPM. As demonstrated by the significantly faster TTK against a heavily armored vehicle like the IS-2 that I showed before, which is based on the IS-2s effective health (taking penetration vs armor into account).
You can have the Highest DPM of the world, if it doesn't pierce through the result is the same. And if 20 pen is negligible, since the Stug 3 has 170 pen it is still a better choice over the Tiger for every Medium target. |
This is just false. The Tiger has a (much) better TTK against all vehicles. A vet 3 Tiger is significantly better than a vet 3 Panther at killing tanks.
Counting from the first shot, at mid range,
A Panther has a TTK of 19,95-26,6s against a medium tank, as it's likely to miss one shot due to average accuracy and poor scatter.
A Tiger has a TTK of 15,75s against a medium tank, with a small chance of 21s because it has high accuracy due to very tight scatter.
Against an IS-2 at far range, the Panther has a TTK of around 59,85s (disregarding accuracy this time) while the Tiger has 47,25s. The difference will probably be bigger because the Panther is more likely to miss shots.
The Tiger loses the range disadvantage at vet 2, is usually able to vet up faster because it can also easily deal damage to infantry, has higher accuracy, significantly higher DPM, has more staying power, while the mobility disadvantage is not that big. In summary, it does not have worse AT capabilities than the Panther. It's not even close.
Panther has better pen(220 for 200 far), better accuracy far (0.035 for 0.025) and the 0.3 sec more reload time ( 5.6 for 5.3 far). Again if i'm facing medium, I will always prefer Stug 3 for accesibility and price. And if i'm facing Heavier tank, I will go for Panther or rely on Pak, since both have higher pen and more range from the get go.
Having a Tiger require logistic with enough Pios to heal it fast enough to keep it in the fight, plus at his timing you will likely face 60 range TD, probably vet-ed. If you must wait vet 3 to have a worthy tank, maybe it would be too late in most game mode, that's why nobody use it anymore. Vet should reward micro, not be the standard of a good vehicule. |
|
What is the point of having a UNIQUE heavy tank which cannot be the pinacle of your composition? There is already a lot of drawback having so many ressources concentrate in 1 unit. Building 1 is already a challenge considering that sparing those ressources means that no other tank hit the battlefield during this time. And the tank isn't good enough to repel rushing section and has even worse AT capabilities than the Panther.
Having all those ressources concentrate in the same unit also mean that you're more vulnerable to Combo (Ram+IL2, Guard immobilisation, marked vehicule, tulipe ect...), which adds up with your slower mobility.
I though the patch was ok, but now I realize that the Tiger isn't use anymore. And that's even worse for the Ace Version and the Pershing. |
Yes, as balance indicates, safer option is incomparably less efficient at AT job, unless we talk ele or JT, then its superior again.
Then saying that "it is not an AT option" is false, since it has 70 range, 240 dmg/shot, same pen as Tiger far,same ready to aim time, ISU even has slightly better accuracy.
Tiger DPM: 1920
ISU AP DPM: 1440
The ISU is 25% less effective than the Tiger, I find it quite fair considering its range, so "incomparably" is quite false too. |
But in the time ISU will take one shot that will likely miss, Tiger will do 3.
You are better off with desperate SU-76 then ISU if you need actual AT.
One has 70 range and the other 45. |
ISU doesn't have the AT performance of a tiger, and should really only be used for AI.
Seems both Tiger and ISU have 200 pen far. |
I have not seen a Tiger in a 1v1 or 2v2 since the patch.
Since we can conclude absolutely anything from what we have seen from the tournament, did we see a tiger? |
CPs were nerfed because people felt they did arrive too early in teamgames, where it was often possible to get them as soon as they unlocked at 9 CPs. But increasing the CPs alone wouldn't have cut it for 1v1 and 2v2 where CP timing wasn't an issue, so they got some minor performance nerfs as well. Which in my opinion people are completely blowing out of the water. Heavies are still excellent, they just are not one unit armies anymore (expecting a Tiger to casually get 90 kills).
That's quite irrelevant, the Tiger's AT performance wasn't changed. It's still one of the best AT vehicles in the game with veterancy, with DPM only second to the Tiger II iirc. The new turret traverse made it even better (scatter nerf was mostly negligible in regards to AT since it already has incredibly high accuracy).
A properly supported Tiger is still a very good unit that brings both great AI and AT to the table and on top of that it has a lot more staying power than medium vehicles.
The goal of taking a Tiger over 2 Stug 3 is to have so AI and AT at the price of mobility. But since it has not enough AI and can be out maneuver by 2 medium at the time it hit the field. It has now to many drawback for pretty much nothing. |
|
The problem is, for the price of a Tiger, you can have 2 Stug 3 which are better AT, and by far. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
