Profile of Aerohank

The doctrine is loaded with anti-garrison with flamer pios and flame barrage. I like that volks get a normal grenade to get those juicy yellow-cover squad wipes.

You did claim that "AT performance of the ISU-152 poor vs anything above a PzIV" (and since have edited your post).

If you are going to accuse someone of sneakily editing a post, at least make sure you that your very next post 20 minutes later didn't quote the original post, which shows that my original posts hasn't been edited. So tho this I say:

PLS be more carefully about your claims and accusations.

I provided that stat that proved that claim false. The AT performance of the ISU-152 is good specially since it will do 120 damage on any target it hits.

You provided a stat in isolation, as you always do, and then claim that that stat alone proves that the ISU is not a poor AT vehicle. Because you know, speed, cost, no turret, the fact that is has to swap ammo mid-fight, that it will face Tigers/Elephants/Jagdtigers/Panthers don't at all factor into the equation. It's all about single stats, by themselves, and pretending that you are proving claims are false.

I did not stretched stats, I provided the TTK of 4 units to demonstrate that they close.

You posted the TTK against mediums (which, you know, a P4 is by the way) to demonstrate that the TDs are really all the same. Which is the most stretching of stats you have done so far. Because not only are you now no longer looking at speed/cost/turret/potential targets, you are now also conveniently leaving penetration out of the picture to claim that, and I quote "the differences in TDs is not that great".

PLS move on

You move on.

The differences in TDs are actually not that great:

TTK vs a mediums is:
ISU-152 21.79
Panther 19.95
Elefant 17.14
SU-85 16.95

And here we go again...

TDs are compared with literally 1 stat, with absolutely no regard to what targets they will most likely encounter in matches, or their mobility or anything else. and the conclusion is drawn that there really isn't that much difference between the TDs at all.

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 you intentionally leaving out the King Tiger in your analysis to make the ISU-152 look better than it is?

Edit: I have to say, and this relates to multiple posts in multiple topics, the obsession with isolated unit stats by some posters is getting really tedious. Everyone knows thats OST T4 isn't up to snuff and needs buffs, yet when suits the axis/allies agenda, suddenly OST T4 will be used as the benchmark to which all others should be balanced. Likewise, everone knows the Elephants AT power blows the ISU out of the water, yet people will throw meaningless stats around like the TTK of the elephant vs Churchill to make it look as if the Elephant and the ISU are really just slightly different. In other topics, tests are performed in vacumes with absolutely no regards to a units micro-potential or mobility and used as proof that X is OP or Y is UP. It's just silly.

Is the ISU good? Unboubtly. It's being used a lot in team games after all. Is it too good? Well, if it was, a map like Rails and Metal would be dominated by it - yet Rails and Metal has been a meme since forever in that it favors axis.

If you want to decide what is too good and which units needs help, the meta and winrates are the best we've got. What strategies are used and how often do they win and on which maps? Those stats are more meaningful than comparing the gun of unit X with the gun of unit Y.

What makes you think that it is "impossible to implement in meaningful way without also making the game play itself"?

Because, as I said, units don't have an optimum range since optimum range depends on what they are fighting and what the cover situation is.

The game already plays itself and that makes moving units into desired range very difficult due to number of thing like formation and cover gravity.

And it does so the same for everybody. What difference does it make if A-move now will always take SMG troops into the magic <10 range for all squad models? SMG squads will get nerfed and so their effectiveness stays the same and you have achieved a grand total of nothing.