Dosenöffner (ISU-152) [soviet]

2456

Comments

  • #32
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    @Makcum
    Brits have no early game snare , making light vehicle play agianst them more potent than vs SOV , USF , also those piats can be dogged.

  • #33
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75
    edited March 2017

    @Meow написал:
    @Makcum
    Brits have no early game snare , making light vehicle play agianst them more potent than vs SOV , USF , also those piats can be dogged.

    But they have mg at start, so they have advantage in early game, advantage at mid game with boforce and advantage at late game with comets

  • #34
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75

    @Meow написал:
    Dude you are annoying sorry to say that , you want a soviet TD , this is a balance forum where we should give feedback about units in game. You say its thrash because it can't kill tanks like jagdtiger , elephant which have zero anti infantry capabilities. Also as we know ISU 152 was beast in world war 2 , but this is not a simulator of ww2 , it has some realistic elements but to suit a pleasurable and balanced gameplay , ISU should be used as long range support tank which has phenomenal anti infantry , allowing you to secure 1 victory point no problem.

    ISU should be firing whole time WHY ? 70 Range only few units can punch it back , elephant , jagdtiger , packs 88.
    Maybe its not soo great when it comes to DPS vs tanks , it shouldn't be , it can also kill infantry. ISU is awesome.

    But its important realistic element that cant be ignored

  • #35
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165
    edited March 2017

    @Makcum
    Give some reasons so we can construct opinions why is realistic element so important?
    How does it affect balance , this is balance forum. Making such statements without explanations is pointless , such like -->
    @Makcum said:

    But its important realistic element that cant be ignored

    Mg is not strong enough argument for their lack of early game snare , wehrmacht have similar infantry and MGs and have access to early game snare.

    Bofors is so much worse than AEC , if you can't kill bofors then you lack some gameplay experience there are multiple ways to destroy bofors and trading bofors for AEC leaves your AT capabilities to AT guns only until armor comes in , luchs can evade both of these options easily.

  • #36
    3 years ago
    ubermenschubermensch Posts: 44
    edited March 2017

    I agree with you dude, in the grand scheme of play id rather have this vehicle prioritize as a heavy TD then a weird infantry sniper. There are already plenty of other ways to wipe infantry, but in terms of killing armor there are only a few methods that soviets can do it in terms of using their armor. Besides for the traditional spam t34/SU85s strat Id like to at least have this one Soviet tank to stand on its feet and actual represent the title that it earned during the war, which was the "beast killer."

  • #37
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    Since the buff soviet are certainly not lacking in tha ability to combat armour, some, myself included, would argue (along with others im sure) that the su85 offers an easy out to fighting armour. It is reliable even beyond its price point and its vet is unparalleled. Ths isu is a way to remove axis vet from the equation.
  • #38
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Since the buff soviet are certainly not lacking in tha ability to combat armour, some, myself included, would argue (along with others im sure) that the su85 offers an easy out to fighting armour. It is reliable even beyond its price point and its vet is unparalleled. Ths isu is a way to remove axis vet from the equation.

    Same could be said of both the firefly and jackson, however the SU-85 lacks both the mobility, moving accuracy and turret for its current performance, of the three, i would say its the closest to being fair.

    I still think in the spirit of SOV combined arms, the ISU should have a high chance of causing crew shock, wounded gunner etc, that way it doesn't become some quasi-elephant solo heavy td, but instead a powerful tool when comboed with other SOV at.

  • #39
    3 years ago
    KoenigKoenig Posts: 71

    @Makcum said:

    @Meow написал:
    Dude you are annoying sorry to say that , you want a soviet TD , this is a balance forum where we should give feedback about units in game. You say its thrash because it can't kill tanks like jagdtiger , elephant which have zero anti infantry capabilities. Also as we know ISU 152 was beast in world war 2 , but this is not a simulator of ww2 , it has some realistic elements but to suit a pleasurable and balanced gameplay , ISU should be used as long range support tank which has phenomenal anti infantry , allowing you to secure 1 victory point no problem.

    ISU should be firing whole time WHY ? 70 Range only few units can punch it back , elephant , jagdtiger , packs 88.
    Maybe its not soo great when it comes to DPS vs tanks , it shouldn't be , it can also kill infantry. ISU is awesome.

    But its important realistic element that cant be ignored

    Ok - history time - seems the best way to kill this one.

    Historically the IZU-152 does not hold a candle to the JagdTiger or Elefant.

    If you look at the shells that actually existed during the war, the best shells could penetrate 120mm under optimal conditions (meaning 90 angle of impact). This is because it is essentially a naval howitzer for a destroyer class vessel - it's muzzle velocity is not particularly high.

    Compare this to the Elefant - The standard AP shell would penetrate 165mm, at 60 degree AOI - And better shells were available though in short supply. The PaK 44 of the JT would penetrate 220mm under the same conditions.

    Additionally, the IZU and JT shell was so heavy that propellant had to be loaded separately, which makes a huge difference for rate of fire. Th IZU could be fired 2 per minute at best - the elefant would fire 6-10 times in the same amount of time. The JT also had significantly better rate of fire, being able to fire 3-4 times per minute.

    The IZU worked well as an assault gun - and could penetrate the Tiger 1 armor from the front at 1000m. Additionally its high explosive shells were on many occasions able to disable or even destroy panther and tiger tanks (the turrets would become stuck from the concussive force of the explosion) - but in a tank destroyer slugout against the Elefant, or Jagdtiger, it would have a poor chance of success.

  • #40
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75
    edited March 2017

    Additionally, the IZU and JT shell was so heavy that propellant had to be loaded separately, which makes a huge difference for rate of fire. Th IZU could be fired 2 per minute at best - the elefant would fire 6-10 times in the same amount of time. The JT also had significantly better rate of fire, being able to fire 3-4 times per minute.

    Right, in game ISU have slowest attack speed among all heavy tank destroyer like it was in history, but also need compensate it by high damage like was in history too. This attack speed also proves inefficiency to use it to kill infantry, and high damage gives balance with this slow attack speed. I can say more: abcence of tower and slow attack speed did this machine absolutely ineffective to use it against infantry. KV-2 can be assault gun in game but ISU must be tank destroyer

  • #41
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75

    @Makcum написал:

    Additionally, the IZU and JT shell was so heavy that propellant had to be loaded separately, which makes a huge difference for rate of fire. Th IZU could be fired 2 per minute at best - the elefant would fire 6-10 times in the same amount of time. The JT also had significantly better rate of fire, being able to fire 3-4 times per minute.

    Right, in game ISU have slowest attack speed among all heavy tank destroyer like it was in history, but also need compensate it by high damage like was in history too. This attack speed also proves inefficiency to use it to kill infantry, and high damage gives balance with this slow attack speed. I can say more: abcence of tower and slow attack speed did this machine absolutely ineffective to use it against infantry. KV-2 can be assault gun in game but ISU must be tank destroyer

    Even if i dont right (but i dont agree with it), if this tank must be assault gun, this tank also must have hinged fire for, at least, short distance like su-76, becouse this tank really can do it.

  • #42
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75
    edited March 2017

    @Meow написал:
    @Makcum
    Give some reasons so we can construct opinions why is realistic element so important?
    How does it affect balance , this is balance forum. Making such statements without explanations is pointless , such like -->
    @Makcum said:

    But its important realistic element that cant be ignored

    Mg is not strong enough argument for their lack of early game snare , wehrmacht have similar infantry and MGs and have access to early game snare.

    Bofors is so much worse than AEC , if you can't kill bofors then you lack some gameplay experience there are multiple ways to destroy bofors and trading bofors for AEC leaves your AT capabilities to AT guns only until armor comes in , luchs can evade both of these options easily.

    It was wehrmacht advantage have mg at start, british feels more than comfortable with mg in early game. AEC can destroy and infantry and heavy tanks, luchs and puma have only one role at same time and costs more than this unbalanced car. Bofors really hard destroy becouse british can use mortar building for cover and british buldings have ability with green shield, also i cant kill infantry inside building. Sniper with antitank rifle must have soviets, not british. Pak 43 can be used only by doctrine, 17-pounder not, and also have advantage with green shield and Invulnerable infantry, pak 43 not. Comets have armor like panthers but its impossible, their gun can pierce konigstiger and also kill infantry, movement speed like pz4 - this tank havent any lack. For flamethrower car british needs 30 fuel, wehrmacht - 90 fuel. British infantry at start good, like wehrmacht's, when upgrade becoming machine of death: with brens can kill mg in trench being supressed. Bofors shoots down plane almost at start, german antiaircraft guns cant do it And what weak sides have british?

  • #43
    3 years ago

    @Koenig said:
    Ok - history time - seems the best way to kill this one.

    I don' think it makes any sense to clear this one with history. This is for Makum too. Historically there is no proof that Jagdtiger and ISU ever meet because Jagdtiger were stationed at westfront, maybe some in Hungary. So its a theoretical debate that makes no sense if you ask me. Historically Jagdtiger - once revealed - would usally destroyed by US Jagdbomber support (if it wasn't abandoned and blown up by its own crew). Jagdtiger hit the battlefield in an already lost war and while they destroyed a lot of allied tanks they were fighting versus superior numbers with near to no air support and no chance to turn this war. In CoH2 forces are even and Jagdtiger comes on top of it (in 3v3/4vs4 it can decide a game, especially on some maps). Air supremacy seem so be more in favour of the axis in CoH2. Look at close air support commander, exchanging fuel for ammunition this one spams the best anti tank loiter in the game plus lolbomb. Perfect support commander for 3vs3/4vs4. Yes, you can have it next to Jagdtiger, so this game is so close to history as a potatoe to a banana (they are both vegetarian at least).

    @Farra13 said:
    I still think in the spirit of SOV combined arms, the ISU should have a high chance of causing crew shock, wounded gunner etc, that way it doesn't become some quasi-elephant solo heavy td, but instead a powerful tool when comboed with other SOV at.

    Yeah, I would like that. Maybe something of a crew shock skill shot (stun ability similar to Brummbar). That way you could use it as a temporarily snare and support your slow SU85 and ZIS-Guns to finish an axis tank. That way it would be more multi purpose without going back to ISU versus Elephant wars.

  • #44
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited March 2017

    The switching should not be removed, but the AP shell could use a slight penetration buff. It's max range pen is the same as an SU85 (200). I don't think buffing it to 220 would be a tall order, it takes 10+ seconds to fire the next shot, and 14-15 to switch I believe.

    Most of us agree the old state of AI/AP all in one was absurd. That said I do not think the ISU is worth its current cost, which is 260 fuel, not 245.

  • #45
    3 years ago
    KoenigKoenig Posts: 71
    edited March 2017

    @Make_love_not_war said:

    @Koenig said:
    Ok - history time - seems the best way to kill this one.

    I don' think it makes any sense to clear this one with history. This is for Makum too. Historically there is no proof that Jagdtiger and ISU ever meet because Jagdtiger were stationed at westfront, maybe some in Hungary. So its a theoretical debate that makes no sense if you ask me. Historically Jagdtiger - once revealed - would usally destroyed by US Jagdbomber support (if it wasn't abandoned and blown up by its own crew). Jagdtiger hit the battlefield in an already lost war and while they destroyed a lot of allied tanks they were fighting versus superior numbers with near to no air support and no chance to turn this war. In CoH2 forces are even and Jagdtiger comes on top of it (in 3v3/4vs4 it can decide a game, especially on some maps). Air supremacy seem so be more in favour of the axis in CoH2. Look at close air support commander, exchanging fuel for ammunition this one spams the best anti tank loiter in the game plus lolbomb. Perfect support commander for 3vs3/4vs4. Yes, you can have it next to Jagdtiger, so this game is so close to history as a potatoe to a banana (they are both vegetarian at least).

    Well the topic was that the IZU appears as a weak anti tank unit compared to the JT . Mackum - from a historical perspective - argues that the Izu should be nearer to the JT, and I'm pointing out that the the IZU would have been rather inferior in that capacity.

  • #46
    3 years ago
    KoenigKoenig Posts: 71

    Oh, and btw, WW2 era "tank-buster" planes were largely myth - the 20mm machine guns were insufficient against even the roof armor (except at high angles of attack), and bombs dropped during level flight needed to be dropped at relatively high altitudes lest the blast wrecks the plane (the shit you see in movies is complete crap). Rockets were somewhat effective - but also woefully inaccurate.

    However - attack planes like the P47 were highly effective against the logistics support required by tank divisions.

  • #47
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Completely offtopic, but wasn't it said that the allies destruction of the logistics support of the Jagdtiger, basically ended the threat before it ever really made an impact on the war?

  • #48
    3 years ago
    Selvy289Selvy289 Posts: 172
    edited March 2017

    Wow, more whinging than I did when I really cared about the game. The ISU is fine on a 1v1 and 2v2 basis, once in 3v3 and 4v4 practically no point because there is bound to be a jag or elefant. I always thought why did it receive more accuracy at vet 2 and 3 (more squad wipe potential) and instead replace one with a small pen buff like the Su85 (like 20%)?

    At lease then you have to earn its anti-vehicle capability than a straight buff (definitely should retain its damage through, 320 damage and add mark vehicle, not good).

    p.s concrete round still should deal 320 damage and avoid shot blockers (hits the dirt to often).

  • #49
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    Maybe buffing penetration on AP shells , its too unreliable shooting panthers tigers , king tiger , maybe how it should have been in first place , but i find it annoying , it takes so long to turn and when it fires reload kicks in and those 10 seconds are wasted on bloody bounce. But after all its multipurpose tank.

  • #50
    3 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    Say whatever you want OP, but ISU-152 is not a tank destroyer in this game. It's to smash everything else. For the tank destroyer role you have the SU-85 which requires no commander choice.

  • #51
    3 years ago

    Saying Su85 is an alternative option to the ISU AT role is such a copout in my opinion and a excuse that honestly I can't back up. Especially when you got german equivalents like the jadgpanzer and the stug and yet don't suffer through the same faults in their respective heavy TDs.

    An alternative solution to this predicament can be, make it the AT vehicle it is meant to be by removing the shell switching ability. However you replace it with a heavier caliber Barrage ability making it a mobile short-medium ranged fire support to represent its bunker buster qualities that everyone else seems to admire about it.

  • #52
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    I understand peoples frustration at having to deal with multiple super heavy tds cheese in team games, but coverting the ISU-152 into one isn't the answer to beating it. Vanilla coh 2 had a period of ISU vs ELE wars and it was horrendous.

    Axis tanks in general are far fewer in number than allied tanks, giving the allies a stronger ability to pick them off than the current td hordes would be a recipe for disaster. Better to place limitations and disadvantages on fielding units like ele and JT, Mrsmith did suggest a massive pop increase, this increases their upkeep severely and limits the support available to such a unit, that's a better way to handle them than trying to mirror the units with the ISU.

  • #53
    3 years ago

    Increasing the pop cap does nothing but limit the play of the axis and what they can field. Which is just an unnecessary punishment, especially to the fact that from earlier patches, they made the ISU effective enough to fight armor. Now I don't think it should go back to that amount of effectiveness but maybe a middle ground so that it actually can uphold the cost and actually pose a threat the heavies/later mediums that we need it to fight.

  • #54
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    Jt and elefant dominate AT because they are supposed to. There can be multiple in team games because team games are imba shit shows for mass carnage and fun, amd while 2s is compative there still exists synrgy that can make or break the game.

    The isu is a unique unit that if anything will help you handle elefants and JTs by ERASING the enemy infantry and weapon teams that are giving your infantry trouble. If one would like a super havy TD you are in luck because both axis factions have one, ost even has a couple of choices for it
    Embrace the difference and learn to take advantage of them instead of asking for a functional, powerful unit to be something its not.
    (And for the record i frequently use the isu to terrifying effect in team games, not just talking out of my ass here)
  • #55
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    I like ISU as multirole , but bouncing those 240 dmg shots and waiting 10 sec to reload makes me mad , nerf dmg to 200 or 160 and increase pen to 300 imo.

  • #56
    3 years ago

    When people talk about the ISU, they start to argue about it's role. Some people think it's a Jack of all trades (but still use only HEs and rarely - APs). Some say, that the ISU has hard times fighting Tigers and armored spam consisting of Brumbars, Panthers and Panzers Ausf J (that has 236 armor btw, while heavy Churchill has 240). The most suitable thing to do in such a situation is to replace the ISU-152 with the ISU-122, which would be a kind of the Elephant in the (
    ) doctrine, so that the Allies get a heavy AT unit. It would help developers decide what to do about the ISU-152.

  • #57
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    Allies have the best stock TD with range 60 in M36, Su-85 and firefly, if the get an Elephant type of units on top of them it will break game balance. It is a simple as that.

    The only thing that need a changes in the ISU-152 is the concrete bunker busting shot. (and the normal shots hitting the ground when in elevation)

  • #58
    3 years ago

    @Vipper said:
    Allies have the best stock TD with range 60 in M36, Su-85 and firefly, if the get an Elephant type of units on top of them it will break game balance. It is a simple as that.

    I'm not one of the players around that say ISU-152 should be like an Elephant and I already stated around here what I think about ISU-152 buff, but nevertheless I don't think this is a valid argument in this discussion.

    Reason? I would put stock JagdpanzerIV inline with the three allied TDs you stated. Good stats with range 60 and with great Vet boni (Cautious movement at Vet1 means you can even sneak up a little bit extending your range, with vet2 it can even spot for itself without limiting its sight to a cone or hampering its movement). You seldom get one to Vet5, but when... wow what a beast! Here comes the point: You can have it together with Jagdtiger. So OKW are gamebreaking because of this? Just asking, because you brought this up.

  • #59
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    JP has lower penetration than allied TD while being more expensive than Su-85 and M-36. The only thing that makes it viable is the Camo and that will be far less effective after WBP.

    Try using a JP vs IS-2 and you will how far less effective it is.

    Even if one puts JP in the same class thing are far equal since Allied armor is generally cheaper and allied TD nullify the only advantage German armor has the superior armor.

    Button line is ISU-152 received switching munition because its was OP and the alternative solution suggested (manual reload) was imo very bad. (I for one I am thankful it has switchable munition instead of manual reload)

  • #60
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    @Vipper said:
    JP has lower penetration than allied TD while being more expensive than Su-85 and M-36. The only thing that makes it viable is the Camo and that will be far less effective after WBP.

    Try using a JP vs IS-2 and you will how far less effective it is.

    Even if one puts JP in the same class thing are far equal since Allied armor is generally cheaper and allied TD nullify the only advantage German armor has the superior armor.

    Button line is ISU-152 received switching munition because its was OP and the alternative solution suggested (manual reload) was imo very bad. (I for one I am thankful it has switchable munition instead of manual reload)

    JPz4 does not shoot at 300 armor tanks every game. Its only few times it encounters IS-2 or pershing or comet.
    Allied TDs needed that pen because okw has best heavy tank available without any commanders , so threat is always present , why would allies need doctrine to counter heavy tank that requires no doctrine , thats why they have such high penetration.

    JPz4 does not need such high amount of penetration , its mixed bag , not glass cannon like allied tds , it can actually bounce shots from non TD tanks , that's why you pay little higher price. Still you have utility throughout vet and good penetration not excellent as allies but you don't really need such , most of your shots gonna penetrate targets you shoot so penetration does not matter in most engagements Jpz4 has , those are vs medium tanks t-34 , shermans , cromwells and such , it even does better vs such tank cause of higher armor.

    Jpz4 is highly effective tank vs medium armor , can fight it head on , unlike allies tds. Jpz is not supposed to counter IS-2 its anti medium armor TD by observing its stats it performs very good vs med tanks.

    Problem is that axis do not have reliable counter to high armor tanks like allies have , allies must have it cause okw has non doc beast heavy tank. While most of the time panther is good vs other heavies and prem meds its effectiveness drops due to this non doc high penetrating TDs which are a must because of king tiger...

  • #61
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    That JP is not cost effective vs allied medium because it cost more than most of them and has a higher pop.

    The are no that effective vs high end allied tanks either due to lower penetration.

    The argument that allied need more penetration because they have to deal with KT holds little water and in the end of the day if KT is the problem fix that instead of making all axis armor higher armor pointless.

    Since this thread is about ISU-152 I will return at the issues at hand.

    High penetration high AOE shell for ISU-152 and the unit was OP (just be thankful that the units is not forced to manually reload as I am thankful).

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский