CE's are completely fine. They don't need a buff or a nerf. They're cheap, have decent utility, and can have good synergy when placed in a ScoutCar with a flamer. They're also surprisingly decent with a flamer, once they get some vet.
I'd argue that if every squad should be able to detect demo charges, than the detection radius should be lowered. They should detect it approximately at the point were they get the outer edges of the AoE damage. So no wipe if a player is careful and pulls back, but they should get damaged.
Firstly, the detection radius should never match the AoE radius, as this removes any ability for counter-play. I agree that the detection range should be smaller, but it needs to be slightly (+2?) larger than the AoE, to allow for the "attacking" player to back away on detection, while accounting for units that are sometimes unresponsive. Note, however, that any detection radius changes should also apply to other demos, including the goliath when it's not moving.
Secondly, the only way this would make sense, is if detected demos showed up like normal units - i.e. with a red highlight through buildings and a "unit" icon. Right now, even once detected, they can be incredibly hard to see on some terrain, and they can be placed behind stuff, so that they can't be seen from the default camera view.
Really, demos should just become a (slightly) cheaper, non-mobile, non-doc goliath.
|
It doesn't 1 shot squads under any normal circumstances. If the squad is clumped, maybe. But lots of units can wipe under those circumstances
Under any normal circumstances, it will take 2 shots, hence the importance of the reload time
It's "1-shot" radius is 1.01; and grens have a horribly tendency to 'blob' together in cover.
Regardless, let's image a "best case" scenario, where the shell only lands perfectly on one model. The squad is now at 3 models. However, the 2nd closest model was likely in the "mid" damage range, so it took 56 damage, and the other 2 models were likely in the "far" damage range, so they took. 32.
That leaves 1 model with 24hp, and two with 48hp: for a total of 120hp - or 37.5%. That squad is now forced to retreat, and wait a lengthy period of time to heal (not to mention, paying ~30mp). To remove that entire squad from combat, all the Sov player had to do was have the ISU within 70 range.
There simply aren't (and shouldn't) be any units with that level of performance for zero user input. It's the same argument as with the M8A1 scott and Pack-Howitzer. The Brummbar actually has it right in that the player needs to manually target the shell, and be within AT range, to do anything. |
Were you living under a rock last 2 years?
There are no generalizations of units for units that are a class of its own, these are some of the most specialized units and they have to keep their identity to be functional.
The balance isn't generalizing anything that doesn't have its own unit group, closest unit to ISU is KV-2 and guess what? KV-2 1-2 shoots infantry squads and ATGs from long range too and it does it more frequently(higher RoF in arty mode, lower scatter, meaning better accuracy vs inf).
Units are balanced at individual basis for years now and ISU was balanced years ago, even before JT and Ele lost their 2-shoot med potential. There comes a time in game where you need to accept that 260 fuel investment is going to roll over your 240mp generalist infantry and you'll have to engage properly with panthers.
There are no units in a "class of their own". Every single unit in the game has a counterpart on the opposite 'side' that is similar, if not identical, in role. It's 'power level' might be different, as could its cost, but there are counterparts.
ISU/JT/Ele
KV2/Brummbar
SturmTiger/AVRE
Tiger/Pershing/IS2/KT
STUG-E/M8A1 Scott
Further more, you completely missed:
Also, any examples of these "other unique units"? Specifically ones which counter their traditional counters?
Say what?
There is no allied unit in the whole game that can bounce elephant and it fires faster then ISU, dealing greater damage.
ISU can bounce off OKW P4.
What your "excellent AT power" argument comes from? Shooting at kubels AI just won't stop making?
"Excellent" really? Then what is the Elephants AT power? Godlike? The ISU-152's AT power isn't excellent. It's poor at best against anything heavier than a P4.
See Vipper's post. The AT power, when using AP shells, its actually quite good. It's not as good as a JT/Ele, but that's because those two units can only deal with vehicles, whereas the ISU can actually do damage to infantry.
Let's compare the ISU and Ele, against the toughest non-doc targets they can face, and at max range.
At 70 range, the ISU has 200 pen, and deals 240dmg, with deflection 120dmg. It has an average RoF of 10.26s. The toughest non-doc Axis vehicle is the panther, with 260 armor and 960hp.
This gives it a 77% chance to pen (and deal 240dmg), and a 23% chance to bounce and still deal 120dmg. That means, on average, it deals (185+27.6) 212.6dmg per shot. That works out to 4.5 shots (i.e. 5) to destroy a panther, which means 4 reloads, meaning 41s on average.
At 70 range, the Ele has 360 pen, deals 300dmg, with 0 deflection damage. It has an RoF of 8.76s. The toughest non-doc Allied vehicle is the Churchill, with 240 armor and 1400hp.
This gives the ele a 100% chance to pen (and deal 300dmg). That works out to 4.66 shots (i.e 5) to destroy a Churchill, which means 4 reloads, meaning 35.04s.
41/35.04 = 17%
So the Elefant is 17% better than the ISU against the heaviest targets they can face.
Against mediums?
An M4A3 Sherman has 160 armor and 640hp. That gives the ele a 100% chance to pen, meaning 3 shots, or 2 reloads; so 17.52s.
An Ost P4 has 180 armor and 640hp. That gives the ISU a 100% chance to pen, meaning 3 shots, or 2 reloads; so 20.52s.
20.52/17.52 = 17%
So the Elefant is 17% better than the ISU against an average medium tank.
I'll trade that 17% AT power for the ability to 1-shot squads. |
Are those full HP wipes?
Wipes will always exist. It's about 1 shot 1 wipe, we used to complain about.
Packs and Scotts are often built in pairs, so it's more of a pseudo 1-shot.
Both the ISU-152 and KV-2 have an "80 damage" radius of 1.01, so anything inside there is instantly wiped. Considering the awful spacing on Grens, that's pretty common.
|
But the obsession with four men = bad has to end. The only major issue was old gren indirect wipes and mines. Both fixed years ago
Pack-howitzer
M8A1 Scott
ISU-152
KV-2
Indirect wipes are still absolutely a thing. |
Because an Elephant crewman wrote about how shooting at infantry with the Elephant's main gun was basically impossible, like trying to smash a tiny ant 1km away with a high velocity round.
We really don't want to get into the "historical information" situation. If we start accepting that, then the Sturmtiger should out-range the ISU-152's AP shell by over 66%.
The ML-20s firing the 'BR-540' APHE shell had 4,000m of range.
The 'Raketen Sprenggranate 4581' (ST's HE shell) had a range up to 6,650m.
A SturmTiger with 115 range would be... interesting.
/edit
Additionally, the Churchill AVRE only had 91m of range, and had to be reloaded from outside the tank. Realistically, the ST's old "decrew when hit during reload" should be applied to the AVRE. |
I specifically said the live Tiger is better. It's also more expensive than any of those units besides KT, requires 14 cps and t4
ISU changes, in any form, are very unlikely to make it into the current test patch, so they need to discussed around the state of the game after the current 'patch-in-testing' is released, not before it.
Why are you talking about these units? None of them is really that similar to the ISU. The heavies don't have to wait 14 seconds to switch between fighting infantry and tanks. They also don't have 9-11 second reload times
The downtime between shots and shell switching was the main point in my last post, and you didn't even mention it
All of those units had the ability to fight ATGs head on, and all of them were nerfed because of it; that's the reason they're comparable..
As for the downtime between shots; then what of the SturmTiger? Can we buff it to 60 or 70 range? It's reload is much longer, it's manually fired, manually reloaded, it has an obvious wind up animation, it's doc-locked (in one, pretty bad doc), it's incredibly expensive, and it can't even directly target units. The larger AoE/Damage should be justifiable by the lower RoF and increased user input required. Or can we make the SturmTiger an ISU clone? Less AoE/Damage, but 70 range and auto-firing every 10 seconds - this might even make the ST usable.
I think both of those are completely unreasonable options, but maybe they're fine.
No, the reason I didn't mention reload or switching is because it doesn't matter. The ISU is such a 'set and forget' unit, and its effect is so powerful, that the reload/switch time isn't really a down-side. A single shot either instantly wipes, or forces a retreat, of almost every single OST infantry unit. If the shell was incredibly slow and required manually aiming (similar to the brummbar), then I could see this being a valid argument; but it's not.
It's completely viable if you have a large chunk of AT supporting it. Of course you can let it sit back and autofire, what else are you supposed to do with it? You can't exactly send it to any spot on the map like a heavy tank, it has to stay where it has plenty of space/vision
Brumbarr has 35 range btw, and I supported buffing its shell speed. But that has nothing to do with the ISU
By the time the ISU shows up, you'll likely have a lot of AT available; either in the form of other tanks/TDs, or ATGs, or infantry squads (penals, etc.). In most 2v2 games, that's how the ISU is used. It requires incredibly little user input for absurd results.
|
Hang on the ISU does not at all perform better than the live Tiger. I know Tiger is getting spanked by the nerf hammer very soon, but saying ISU is better than all the ones you listed doesn't seem accurate to me
ISU has also recieved plenty of nerfs in its lifespan? The round switching takes 14 seconds, its reload is 9-11 seconds. How many of the units you just listed have that much time where they aren't firing? The scott fires every 3.5 seconds lol
Post Tiger nerf, the ISU-152 is absolutely going to perform better against infantry than any of those units.
The brummbar requires manually firing every shell to hit anything, and even then, usually only wipes a few models. It only has 45 range.
The Tigers(s) can only fire up to 45-50 range (vet), and is getting nerfed severely.
The Scott is frustratingly inconsistent, but will still require several shells to wipe an ATG. And even then, it's useless against tanks, and incredibly squishy.
The KT has a ton of armor, but is incredibly slow, and also limited to 45 range. And like the Tiger, will rarely wipe more than a few models per shot, unless there's horrible clumping.
The Pershing is similar to the Tiger(s), but with less armor and AT power, but more AI.
Meanwhile the ISU-152 has 70 range and an AoE of 6. Against soft targets, it's by far the best AI-vehicle I listed. Setting it to HE and letting it auto-fire is completely viable, something none of the other units can do (except maybe the scott).
At that point you might as well just replace it with a KV-2, which will be much more usefull in every situation.
The ISU-152 would still have excellent AT power, so it's not a KV-2.
What if... now sit tight.... its MEANT to counter ATGs... because you know.... it outranges them?
Its a unit designed to wreck static defence from long range.
Outside of being limited to 1, these units have nothing in common, so using one as example of what should happen to other is void point.
The unit -IS- a sole exception.
Like many other unique units.
All the other units are either stock, much wider available, can't be killed by 1 tank or 1 AT infantry squad getting next/behind them or much more mobile, often a combination of all of the above.
"Sole Exception" isn't a valid argument, otherwise there are a lot of balance issues that would/could never be fixed; it opens the door to arbitrary balance choices.
Falls can keep their PFausts since they're "elite generalists"
OKW's Tiger can keep 'Panzer Commander', because it's a "Command Tiger"
USF's Pershing can keep its high AI power since it's the only doc-locked AI-Focused "Premium Medium".
etc.
These are all unacceptable responses, so why is it fine for the ISU?
As for unit comparisons, you're partly right, in that the other units are more common. So how about the SturmTiger? It's in one doc, only has 45-range, has to manually reload, can be destroyed by pretty much anything that flanks it, has an incredibly obvious wind-up animation, etc... There's a fairly large disparity between these two units, yet buffing the ST is apparently impossible, without making it over-powered.
Also, any examples of these "other unique units"? Specifically ones which counter their traditional counters?
|
Nerfing range by 20-25 seems pretty steep for a unit that a lot of people think dont even think needs changes
Anything less would be inconsistent. Every vehicle with the ability to counter ATGs head-on has been nerfed fairly severely: Tiger, KT, Brummbar, Scott (sort of, with the scatter changes), Pershing, etc.
Even in the current balance preview patch, the OKW Tiger lost its "Panzer Commander" upgrade for this exact reason.
Leaving the ISU-152 as the sole exception, while also having it perform much, much better than any of the previously nerfed units doesn't make sense. |
It already has an ammo swap? You mean you just wanna change the shells? AP rounds already have practically no AOE
Wow, I have no idea what unit I was mixing the 152 up with.
Anyway, yea, just nerf the HE shells range down to 45-50, that would pretty much fix it instantly. |
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
