Dosenöffner (ISU-152) [soviet]

1356

Comments

  • #62
    3 years ago

    @Makcum написал:

    Need to strengthen ISU 152

  • #64
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    Slight buff to AP shell penetration. For its reload time, and the time it takes to switch shells, the AP shells should penetrate a little better than 200 at max range. Buffing to 220 is not a tall order, and makes it almost impossible for a p4/jp4 to "ping" the shot.

    Add a fix to the Conc Piercing shells and you've got my vote.

  • #65
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    Aqua said:
    Add a fix to the Conc Piercing shells and you've got my vote.

    Yes indeed, I didn't leave that out intentionally.

  • #66
    3 years ago

    @Vipper said:
    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).

    First: You brought this up as an argument that ISU can't be buffed to level of elephant/Jagdtiger because it would to be op in the mix with allied TDs, so it would be a part of this thread if it is true. You yourself made it a part of this thread or would you say otherwise? Sometimes it is just easier to say "It was my fault" instead of pointing out that we drove down a road taht was originally leveled for us by yourself.

    I wont challenge that old ISU was op, it just was. It was the Soviet Wunderwaffe. The current problem for soviet in lategame is that they are the only faction without a Wunderwaffe after the ISU nerf.

    The argument that allied TD penetration has to be higher to deal with higher armoured threads holds alot of water if you ask me, otherwise Soviet would have no tank that can deal with superheavytanks if flanking is not possible. JP on the other side does a very good job in dealing with soviet armor, with problems penetrating IS-2 - no doubt, but that is a single tank that is doctrinal (in contrast to Kingtiger). Jp is my favourite OKW tank I always build at least one of it, it is on par with allied TDs without question.

    And if we stay at Soviet/OKW comparison: JP costs 5 fuel more and 60 manpower than SU-85. If we take into account that in the gamemodes ISU, Elephant and JT play a role there is mostly an Ostheer mate around, you'll have the advantage of fuel cache plus using wrecks for ressources. Furthermore soviet bleed manpower like a pig in those modes, one of their big problems. So a JP really isn't really more expensive than a SU-85. 2 population more is correct, but most soviet units have a worse population/performance relation than OKW counterparts, so it holds little relevance for OKW player.

    One last thing you shouldn't forget about. ISU-152 beeing mainly an AI unit means that JP live is a lot more comfortable, Elephant and JT hardcounter allied TDs in teamgames, especially on some maps.

  • #67
    3 years ago

    Look if you want a general purpose heavy tank, invest in the IS-2, thats its overall concept and designed for that type of role. Let the ISU-152 actually take up the position that it actually is needed for, not as an overpriced infantry sniper but a devastating tank destroyer with some bunker buster type abilities tied into it.

  • #68
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    You have opened a number of issue that are not relevant to ISU-152 and I will not respond to them here.

    You seem to disagree into turning ISU-152 into an Elephant as some people have suggested which is what I respond to.

    If you actually have a suggestion about the ISU-152 will be happy to read it.

  • #69
    3 years ago
    Make_love_not_warMake_love… Posts: 166
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:

    You have opened a number of issue that are not relevant to ISU-152 and I will not respond to them here.

    You seem to disagree into turning ISU-152 into an Elephant as some people have suggested which is what I respond to.

    If you actually have a suggestion about the ISU-152 will be happy to read it.

    and

    @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.

    You openend it with post #57, I only responded to that statement with #58. It is okay if you are not able to admit it, I can live with that and not talk about it anymore from now on.

    Back to ISU-152, here is my suggestion:

    As I said somewhere down the road in this thread I think a long range crew shock ability for ammunition cost would be a perfect addition of making it more useful for AT plus adding something to combined arms without bringing it back to its old status. Something similar to ability of Ostheer PAK.

  • #70
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    My post was a response to suggestion like this (there other before that):

    @Boris_yeltsin said:
    .....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.

    So I did not bring the Elephant into the debate.

    About your suggestions:
    I personally would prefer to see the piercing shot working better (more like the Pershing) than have the ISU-152 have the same ability with the Elephant.

  • #71
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    @ubermensch said:
    Look if you want a general purpose heavy tank, invest in the IS-2, thats its overall concept and designed for that type of role. Let the ISU-152 actually take up the position that it actually is needed for, not as an overpriced infantry sniper but a devastating tank destroyer with some bunker buster type abilities tied into it.

    Its not about units that are needed or not needed
    ISU has a defined role which is performing quite nicely , multirole long range support tank , not a TD no no no.
    For this role ISU is fine , i guess most players don't use ISU effectively as it should been , it can snipe at guns from them firing back , that is some good performance , It can assault any axis position very strong AI , weak AT for its price but at least it has some AT.

  • #72
    3 years ago
    ubermenschubermensch Posts: 44
    edited March 2017

    @Meow
    But it is, thats the question being asked here, whether it should be intended for a tank destroyer with slight support capability or this useless jack of all traits abomination it is now. I truly don't care that it has the ability to snipe AT guns, infantry or other support equipment, ya know why? Cause I don't need it to do that, I need it to deal with the heavier more lethal aspects of the german war machine, like tigers, panthers and so on. If I wanted to invest in something that can barrage a position from a distance that had support equipment or infantry id just get a katusha, a howitzer, a mortar, or hell Id just send in the infantry. Thats why I want it made into a TD but retains that supporting role by giving it that barrage ability, so that you get what you want in the sense of support while we get what we invested in which is a Soviet Heavy tank destroyer.

  • #73
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @ubermensch sounds like what you need is an su85, with the highest potential pen of anything short of double the cost super heavies it will take care of tigers and panthers just fine.
    If you dont want something to erase infantry from a mile away, you are picking the wrong unit mate. Use what you have instead of trying to create a no tech solution to an already answered problem.
  • #74
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75

    @Koenig написал:

    @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.

    But ISU have less armor than JT and elefant and sl> @Koenig написал:

    @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.

    But this tank have less armor than have JT and elefant and slowest attack speed in game, so anyway this tank will be worse than other heavy TD

  • #75
    3 years ago
    ubermenschubermensch Posts: 44
    edited March 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo Just to put that out there I have no issues with the SU85 its a good tank destroyer. However its not enough of a substitute to fight and stand up against a jadgtiger or an elefant, unless you just spam them. Which is a effective strategy, but doesn't have to be and shouldn't be the ONLY strategy in terms of tank on tank action for the Russians. This is particularly prevalent for them because they designed and fielded equipment that could and did stand up to the more potent weapons of the germans. That is what should be emulated from the IS-2 and the ISU-152, but as alot people have come to realize they don't do that. So again why Shouldn't it be given that treatment for its cost? What makes this suggestion so abhorrent that your so stern about us wanting to make it into the heavy tank killer that we need it to be?

  • #76
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165
    edited March 2017

    @ubermensch

    It's not about what you need , ISU is balanced , has unique role , ability to snipe infantry from a far , its not artillery , not a TD but a support tank and really good one. Unit is balanced for its intended role , you wan't to change its profile to suit your playstyle. ISU-152 is not TD it requires different approach to micro and strategy with it and if used correctly it performs good. If you want to punch heavy armor get SU-85 , vet 2 300 pen with bulletins gets 320 - 100% pen on tiger with fast fire rate. If you don't need ISU for what it brings that does not mean unit is bad but your army composition needs changing.

  • #77
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @ubermensch the entire pointof the JT and elefant is tank domination and forcing an agressive AT action from your enemy. Build t34s, they are a dime a dozen, soon penals will have ptrs with incredible potental vs the slow moving and highly armoured beasts. Get t34 85s if you want a commander option, they survive 3 shots from both of these. The isu needs to be unique and the soviet ALREADY have many long range AT options

    Just like the su85 offers a counter to everything that ISN'T a super heavy TD those super heavy TDs offer a counter (that otherwise is hard pressed) to the su85.
  • #78
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited March 2017

    @ubermensch said:
    @thedarkarmadillo Just to put that out there I have no issues with the SU85 its a good tank destroyer. However its not enough of a substitute to fight and stand up against a jadgtiger or an elefant, unless you just spam them. Which is a effective strategy, but doesn't have to be and shouldn't be the ONLY strategy in terms of tank on tank action for the Russians.

    Do you expect a single SU-85 to deal with a Jagdtiger or Elefant? Why? Both of the latter cost about or more than twice as much as an SU-85 and both have the maneuverability of a brick. Flanking them is very, very easy. Hence T-34 spam and rush works, too. Fun fact: An Elefant cost just about as much fuel as 3 T-34s. Not to mention that you can simply ignore them. They wont kill more than one infantry model per game, so if you shift your focus to a mostly Infantry based army with AT gun support, that Elefant wont do squat.

    I am strictly opposed to any ISU buffs for 2 reasons: First, I still remember it being the omnipotent Doom-Cannon it once was. There is no need for it to return to these days. Second, The one big advantage Axis armour should have over Allied tanks is... armour. If we buff the ISUs pen, we have yet another unit that negates that advantage. Axis tanks have poor offensive stats, all have pretty mediocre to crappy AI, poor DPS, are slower or much more expensive than similar vehicles the Allies can field. They should in turn be very durable. They arent anymore thanks to TDs basically completely negating that advantage. So while it might be annoying to have an ISU bounce a shot on a Tiger... remember that it is that armour which is the one thing that should stand out.

  • #79
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    @Hingie said:

    So while it might be annoying to have an ISU bounce a shot on a Tiger... remember that it is that armour which is the one thing that should stand out.

    Just want to say that tiger is not armored tank its armor is not epic and not its main characheristic

    5 sec reload , 45 range , 220pen monstrous DPS for a heavy tank

    5th highest dps of all tanks , those top 4 are also germans... (jagd .ferd , king , stug3)
    Most of those vehicles are not used much due to their cost but tiger is really strong when in range of enemy armor , rips apart tanks quickly 20% slower than stug3 but can afford to take more shots than stug probably 3x more (depending whos shooting at it)

    So by saying axis have no dps is not true , there are some tanks with ridiculous dps like stug.

  • #80
    3 years ago

    @Hingie No I don't expect a 85 to fight by itself, but to say "oh here is an alternative so don't critique the ISU" is just such a copout. Especially when the axis are in no short supply of their own decent enough TDs.

    Moving on

    1- when did I say we should return it to the potency of the early days? I just want it prioritized in performance as a TD with slight supporting abilities.
    2- why should the axis be the ONLY faction that has effective heavy armor in regards to fighting opposing medium and heavy vehicles? It makes no sense, again Its not like they are lacking in terms decent TDs. So I see no reason as to why crippling the performance of one vehicle to benefit its opponents is considered balance. Especially when you can equip the elefant with a spotting scope and let it rain death down at such a huge distance.

  • #81
    3 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo and the entire point of a ISU-152 should be to contend against that response and meet out that challenge. Just like I would expect the axis would feel the need to call in a heavy TD if I were to bring out the ISU-152. Now obviously there are ways to counter both beyond the tank on tank action, but to eliminate that option for the Russians with their own tank is just idiotic and only dampens their capability if they decide to pursue a strategy encompassed around such a high investment tank.

  • #82
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    If one want to compare the DPS of tank one has to input the targets statistics.

    DPS of Tiger firing on IS2

    tiger_kwk36_88mm_mp----19.5----18.8----18.1---15.0

    DPS of IS2 firing on Tiger
    is2_d25t_122mm_mp----20.1----19.2----18.0----14.3

  • #83
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @ubermensch thats their role! Thats why they offer nothing to infantry fights, just because YOU dont want to flank does not mean the soviet nees ANOTHER case mate tank destroyer in their line up. The ENTIRE point of elefants and jts is armour supremacy because the stock lineups of the axis lacks the range and reliability of allied TDs what in the ever loving fuck is the point of them if the soviet can match them and if needed also engage soft targets?

    When the soviet get their ptrs you can use your isu to eliminate anythign keeping then and the enemy armour at bay. The factions are not supposed to play the same.
  • #84
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165
    edited March 2017

    @ubermensch

    Germans have answers soviets have questions.
    let me explain what i mean.
    Soviet player goes for ISU-152 , question it demands an answer , why? Your infantry would die , every unit can't fight back at ISU-152.
    German heavy TDs are answer to heavy vehicle play , they should offer axis player safety and ability to engage enemy tanks at long range while reducing their mp income and they have to pay ridiculous price.

    Generally answers could be done before questions but you can change question and make answer useless----> German player gets heavy td and sov goes infantry only.

    Generalist units are questions , specialized units are answers.
    King tiger is generalist , TD is answer.
    Answers are more cost efficient.
    Questions have much more use and can always do something and force opponent to respond (answer to your question)

  • #85
    3 years ago
    Make_love_not_warMake_love… Posts: 166
    edited March 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @ubermensch thats their role! Thats why they offer nothing to infantry fights, just because YOU dont want to flank does not mean the soviet nees ANOTHER case mate tank destroyer in their line up. The ENTIRE point of elefants and jts is armour supremacy because the stock lineups of the axis lacks the range and reliability of allied TDs what in the ever loving fuck is the point of them if the soviet can match them and if needed also engage soft targets?

    Thats true for Ostheer, I'm with you there. But its not true for OKW. They wouldn't need a Jagdtiger, their Jagdpanzer does a good job versus allied armour, Kingtiger isn't bad at this either.

    I'm personally would be perfectly fine with all this super heavy long range killers if their population would reflect their game impact. The population is just ridiculous low for all of them.

  • #86
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    @ubermensch said:
    2- why should the axis be the ONLY faction that has effective heavy armor in regards to fighting opposing medium and heavy vehicles? It makes no sense, again Its not like they are lacking in terms decent TDs.

    The Pershing and IS2 are phenomenal at fighting armor. IS2 has great penetration, great armor, and decent movement speed for its size. The Pershing has great penetration, good armor, a great AT ability, and amazing movement speed for its size/power.

  • #87
    3 years ago

    @SkysTheLimit the Pershing is a panther/comet equivalent in overall performance and durability, while the IS2 is a mix of a water down tiger in terms of firepower but have decent enough armor to take the hits.

  • #88
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    There is nothing common between the Comet, the Persing and the Panther. Panther gun is only good vs vehicles, Comet's and Pershing's gun are good both at AI and at AT.

    IS-2 has the same frontal armor with a KT.

  • #89
    3 years ago

    in terms of general performance and in overall effectiveness ya the comet, Pershing and panther are in the same category.

  • #90
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    The panther is nowhere near the cost efficiency of a comet or (to a lesser extent) the pershing. The panthers one job is to fight armour and it will frequently miss while shooting at a stationary target without the moving penalty so no.
  • #91
    3 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited March 2017

    im a bit yet not entirely on board with OP.

    why would i pay a ton of fuel and manpower for a machine that excels at killing infantry? i can buy several T34s or rocket trucks for this ones price.

    and honestly, its TD capabilities does not really make up for its pricing either.

    id rather reduce its AI capabilities (reduce not remove) so it still retains its AI power, yet in turn give it higher penetration to be more well rounded. For its price it bounces shells on panthers a bit too often.

    having an AI tank is fine, but having an AI tank this expensive is just weird and it leaves the tank largely unused. armor always poses more of a threat than infantry does due to one needing specific units to deal with it. a big group of infantry have a number of ways to be dealt with.

    also if im not mistaken, it takes a ton to change that shell thing, which hurts its performance.

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