Thread: ISU-15227 Apr 2014, 16:36 PM
Are you complaining about 100 range? Or you're complaining about a squad at HALF of its health getting killed by a single shot of 152mm gun?
Uhhh the problem isn't the 2-man squad, it's the 4-man squad at 90% health. |
Thread: ISU-15227 Apr 2014, 16:34 PM
You can kill SU85 with 1pak but you cant kill a Brummbar with 2zis
You absolutely can kill a Brummbar with 2 zis as long as they are not directly next to each other. And the Brummbar cannot kill the pak from beyond the pak's functional range, especially if it has even a single con squad in support. |
Thread: ISU-15227 Apr 2014, 15:53 PM
You can kill elephant with 1zis gun but you cant kill an isu152 with 2 pak
This. |
Thread: ISU-15227 Apr 2014, 14:44 PM
OZ, perhaps in a vacuum on a wide open map without any infantry or Soviet AT support, 2 panzer IVs could take an ISU. Perhaps. But in a vacuum on a wide open map without any infantry or German AT support, the Elefant is useless. A single Zis can take it out.
The problem here is not that one single unit can take on the whole opposing army (which, yes, was a real problem with the initial Tiger Ace). The problem is that as long as the Soviet player has even a tiny bit of support, he can hang back and obliterate the German army--both armor and infantry--from practically right outside his base.
I'm sympathetic to the "best way to fight it is not to allow your opponent to get it" but let's be honest, how hard is it to get 260 fuel by the late game?
Australian Magic there are plenty of "line breaker" Soviet units (SU-76, IS-2, howitzer, skillplanez) and I am starting to get really tired of your vapid responses. |
Thread: ISU-15227 Apr 2014, 13:53 PM
I'd be happy to see an entire update dedicated to reducing one-shot wipe potential across both factions, to be perfectly honest.
QFT |
Thread: ISU-15226 Apr 2014, 20:55 PM
Pumas are doctrinal.
van voort, balance is not designed around 3v3s or 4v4s. |
Thread: ISU-15226 Apr 2014, 18:49 PM
Neo, thank you so much for linking that video. I think Aerohank and Katitof should watch it before commenting again.
I'm with Sully: if it has such an extreme range, it shouldn't be able to one-shot both triple vet Gren squads and medium armor. |
Thread: ISU-15226 Apr 2014, 17:46 PM
Aerohank you are confusing army design with balance problems. |
Thread: ISU-15226 Apr 2014, 16:19 PM
Aerohank, in the past I have made the point again and again that the T34 was not worth it for the cost, and hadn't been for some time. I am very happy to see it buffed.
Howitzers are basically unviable 1v1. "Overwhelming armored assaults" and "small clever flanking" will fail if the ISU has any support and/or if the battle takes place on maps like Minsk or Stalingrad. That leaves the Elefant... remind me why it's OK for Soviet players to insist that it's acceptable to require a doctrinal counter, especially after all the griping about having to use a doctrinal counter? |
Thread: ISU-15226 Apr 2014, 15:07 PM
Katitof, first of all your attitude is a little rich. There was a good period when conspam was just about unbeatable, and Shocks were basically invincible terminator squads. The March Deployment that Soviet players looooooove to complain about was specifically directed at the fact that the game mechanics rewarded blobbing and charging into entrenched positions (== Soviet mid and late game). Have we already forgotten?
Second, you still haven't gotten past the two wrongs make a right school of thought. Is there anybody here defending the Tiger Ace? I play both factions, I thought it was BS when it first rolled out... and your point is what, exactly?
Finally, the problem is not that you can't attack an ISU from the front with armor. The problem is that you can't attack an ISU from the front with armor OR infantry, and it can 1-shot a pak from beyond the pak's range. The Elefant does not have those characteristics, and the OPness of the initial TA is completely beside the point, for God's sake it's been nerfed for longer than it was OP. |