Dosenöffner (ISU-152) [soviet]

1246

Comments

  • #92
    3 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo maybe not but it still falls under the category of a late medium piece of armor then the heavy classification it has now. Especially for the fact that the health is alot less then the tigers or the Russian and Brit heavies.

  • #93
    3 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    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.

    I don't understand this debatte, now Panther isn't good anymore? PZIV could get a buff - yes, but Panther is great as far as I'm concerned. It's my favourite axis tank and it is on level with Comet, just more of a specialist.

    • yes its is worse versus infantry because of inferior AOE, no question. But of course, while allied handheld AT can't properly damage a Panther, axis handheld AT is a thread to Comet (just to keep that in mind)

    • beside having slightly more frontal armor (320 to 290) and way more penetration (240 to 190) its faster than Comet on Vet0 on Vet2 (so it could always escape an unfavourable engagement) -> Overdrive and Blitzkrieg/Combat Blitz can play a role here and change that depending on usage

    • on Vet3, when Comet gets faster than Panther, Panther has 20% more health (Vet2) and -30% reload (Vet3), while comet boost only accuracy (which isn't that important when they shoot at each other because of size) and speed. so Panther will shoot faster and can take one more penetrating shoot. If you are smart enough you'll even stop for shooting ;)

    • OKW Panther gets additional Vet-Boni at Vet4 and 5 such as range and sight, really great once you are there

    • don't want to go further into doctrinal Panzer tactican and Command Panther Aura, but this two abilities can really turn a tide

    So my conclusion: Yeah Panther isn't that good in killing infantry unless you are blitzing into a splatter road kill. But its still the best stock mobile Antitank-Tank of the game, especially when you pick some special doctrines. While both axis faction have it and Brits have the Comet the other two allied factions would sell their grandma for having a Panther in their tech tree... really :)

  • #94
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    there are threads about the Panther and the Comet this one is about ISU-152 so lets try to get back on topic.

  • #95
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited March 2017

    @Make_love_not_war said:
    the other two allied factions would sell their grandma for having a Panther in their tech tree... really :)

    Right, then I'd like to trade you that overpriced and underperforming pile of garbage that is the Panther vs a Jackson, which is a much more reliably damage plattform which doesnt miss half its shots and is much cheaper.

  • #96
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    @Make_love_not_war said:
    So my conclusion: Yeah Panther isn't that good in killing infantry unless you are blitzing into a splatter road kill. But its still the best stock mobile Antitank-Tank of the game, especially when you pick some special doctrines. While both axis faction have it and Brits have the Comet the other two allied factions would sell their grandma for having a Panther in their tech tree... really :)

    Well your conclusion is without equivocation an absolute backwards summary of the situation. The Panther is the worst stock mobile anti-tank tank in the game. The closest contender is... I don't actually know to be honest. The Panthers literal only advantage is it's durable - but that doesn't mean anything anymore because we designed Allied anti-tank around penning King Tigers frontally, so getting through Panthers armor is a joke. Otherwise the Panther has terribly low DPS - only having average damage of 160 (as opposed to Western TDs 200), having a painfully low RoF (as opposed to auto-cannon SU-85), has shorter range (because of the higher armor that means nothing) and has absolutely abysmal accuracy (meaning that even though it takes upwards of 7 seconds to shoot, there's a damned good chance you'll miss standing still unlike any other TD in the game).

    Hell - look at all the complaining about the stock Churchill. Durability doesn't mean a damn thing if you can't dish out damage.

  • #97
    3 years ago

    @Lazarus said:

    @Make_love_not_war said:
    So my conclusion: Yeah Panther isn't that good in killing infantry unless you are blitzing into a splatter road kill. But its still the best stock mobile Antitank-Tank of the game, especially when you pick some special doctrines. While both axis faction have it and Brits have the Comet the other two allied factions would sell their grandma for having a Panther in their tech tree... really :)

    Well your conclusion is without equivocation an absolute backwards summary of the situation. The Panther is the worst stock mobile anti-tank tank in the game. The closest contender is... I don't actually know to be honest. The Panthers literal only advantage is it's durable - but that doesn't mean anything anymore because we designed Allied anti-tank around penning King Tigers frontally, so getting through Panthers armor is a joke. Otherwise the Panther has terribly low DPS - only having average damage of 160 (as opposed to Western TDs 200), having a painfully low RoF (as opposed to auto-cannon SU-85), has shorter range (because of the higher armor that means nothing) and has absolutely abysmal accuracy (meaning that even though it takes upwards of 7 seconds to shoot, there's a damned good chance you'll miss standing still unlike any other TD in the game).

    Hell - look at all the complaining about the stock Churchill. Durability doesn't mean a damn thing if you can't dish out damage.

    If the panther is so bad, why do people keep on spamming them, and most allied players think the Jackson is pretty much garbage? Panthers were amazing and difficult to deal with before brits were introduced to the game. If you want better panthers, you need to give usf and soviets better medium tanks. The easy 8 and the kv1 should be non doctrinal. They will not 1v1 a panther, but it is better than using a sherman or 76 versus a panther.
    Now, for the isu-152:
    Isu-152 only needs arching projectiles to help fight infantry over uneven terrain. The elephant and Jagtiger will probably receive some nerfs around the same time arty cover is nerfed, so buffing isu-152 to those lvls is silly.

  • #98
    3 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited March 2017

    Tier 2 or bust :). Besides scout car openings, Tier 1 is not viable anymore.
    Lol, I swore i posted in the other thread. Delete this or move it to ''soviet infantry lineup thread''.

  • #99
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @company14u2 said:

    If the panther is so bad, why do people keep on spamming them.

    People spam panthers? With those tech and unit costs? Why would anyone spam a pure at specialist tank? Surely you would be laughing yourself silly as you push with handheld at and at guns, the axis players panthers being able to do jack**** against you?

    and most allied players think the Jackson is pretty much garbage?

    Could you please eleborate who these players are? And of course, what they are smoking?

    The Jackson is second only to the firefly who borders on being broken (cannot physically miss at full range with tank commander upgrade, even on the move) In a good players hands a jackson should be untouchable, that speed, pen, damage and range means the only thing that should threaten on is a super heavy td, if most allied players that you know think its awful, then perhaps they should try improving their micro skills in-game.

    Panthers were amazing and difficult to deal with before brits were introduced to the game. If you want better panthers, you need to give usf and soviets better medium tanks. The easy 8 and the kv1 should be non doctrinal. They will not 1v1 a panther, but it is better than using a sherman or 76 versus a panther.

    Panthers were only amazing and actually "difficult" to deal with in vanilla COH2, back when most at sources weren't able to pen a solid 375 armour consistently at their max range. They are crazy expensive, awful dps, no moving accuracy and incapable of handling much more than a lone stock medium, and you want to buff those tanks to be able to fight it?

  • #100
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    @company14u2 said:
    If the panther is so bad, why do people keep on spamming them, and most allied players think the Jackson is pretty much garbage?

    Simple answer is people don't spam Panthers, and good players don't think the Jackson is garbage. People who want the Jackson to be a Panther think it's garbage.

    @company14u2 said:
    Panthers were amazing and difficult to deal with before brits were introduced to the game.

    Yes, then Brits were introduced AND all Allied TDs were buffed including non-Brit TDs. Now Panthers are hilariously easy to deal with for a fraction of the cost.

    @company14u2 said:
    If you want better panthers, you need to give usf and soviets better medium tanks. The easy 8 and the kv1 should be non doctrinal. They will not 1v1 a panther, but it is better than using a sherman or 76 versus a panther.

    Other way around - if the Allies wanted better TDs (which they got) then the Panther needed a role change so armor wasn't its only defence.

  • #101
    3 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited March 2017

    @Farra13 said:

    @company14u2 said:

    If the panther is so bad, why do people keep on spamming them.

    People spam panthers? With those tech and unit costs? Why would anyone spam a pure at specialist tank? Surely you would be laughing yourself silly as you push with handheld at and at guns, the axis players panthers being able to do jack**** against you?

    Good players still use the panther. Watch the 4v4 annihilation tournament. I am talking about top 20, not 50 or above. ;P

    The Jakson is too squishy. It is okay defensively, but it is not an offensive tank. Zooks and rocket arty are the winning combo. Top teams do skip jaksons.
    If you have never heard of anyone bashing the jackson, you could watch Stormless's stream, he loves to bash the jackson in his stream, but he is not a top lvl player.
    Here is the order of the best stock tank destroyers to worse tank destroyers:
    Firefly, Jagpanzer, su85, stug, jackson.

  • #102
    3 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited March 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    @company14u2 said:
    If the panther is so bad, why do people keep on spamming them, and most allied players think the Jackson is pretty much garbage?

    Simple answer is people don't spam Panthers, and good players don't think the Jackson is garbage. People who want the Jackson to be a Panther think it's garbage.

    @company14u2 said:
    Panthers were amazing and difficult to deal with before brits were introduced to the game.

    Yes, then Brits were introduced AND all Allied TDs were buffed including non-Brit TDs. Now Panthers are hilariously easy to deal with for a fraction of the cost.

    @company14u2 said:
    If you want better panthers, you need to give usf and soviets better medium tanks. The easy 8 and the kv1 should be non doctrinal. They will not 1v1 a panther, but it is better than using a sherman or 76 versus a panther.

    Other way around - if the Allies wanted better TDs (which they got) then the Panther needed a role change so armor wasn't its only defence.

    But people do spam panthers! ;P

    Usf and soviets infantry are getting scaled down, so they will need something to help against axis heavies. Arty cover is the solution, but it is too good in 1v1, and the community will have this ability nerfed. However, there is small talk about nerfing axis heavy tank destroyers, because axis jagtigers and elephants would become, overwhelmingly, too strong without the use of arty cover. This might be enough to balance larger game modes, but we will see. If panthers were to receive buffs, then easy 8's and kv1 (or some sort of tank that requires side tech and helps vs a buffed panther) will probably be added to help fight against panthers.
    Let's try to make the game balanced!

  • #103
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @company14u2 said:

    Usf and soviets infantry are getting scaled down, so they will need something to help against axis heavies. Arty cover is the solution, but it is too good in 1v1, and the community will have this ability nerfed. However, there is small talk about nerfing axis heavy tank destroyers, because axis jagtigers and elephants would become, overwhelmingly, too strong without the use of arty cover.

    First off, both USF and SOV infantry are still a work in progress, the mod-team only scaled down what was primarilarly overperforming. However further changes to units like rifles should be expected. But that is to mainly balance the infantry game, those changes have little in relation to how Axis heavies perform, nor should it really dictate how they are adjusted in the future.

    Arty cover is simply broken, it requires no line of sight, has no risk, no counterplay and essentially permastuns tanks and infantry in its radius. The balance of the Axis superheavies has little to do with the nerfs that this ability needs, its simply ridiculous in its current state.

    As for said superheavies, its more a case of adjusting their population and upkeep so axis players suffer a heavier penalty to deploy these units.

    This might be enough to balance larger game modes, but we will see.

    The main problem in teamgames is resource inflation, the income for munition and fuel far exceeds what each player recieves in manpower, leading the likes of USF and SOV to float fuel, while Brits and the Axis basically have the fuel premiums they pay for better vehicles made negligible, therefore they easily match the other factions vehicles unit for unit, when they should really be outnumbered.

    If panthers were to receive buffs, then easy 8's and kv1 (or some sort of tank that requires side tech and helps vs a buffed panther) will probably be added to help fight against panthers.
    Let's try to make the game balanced!

    Panthers simply need to be a threat, for what a player plays to tech and produce one should leave it at the top of the food chain in terms of At. If an Axis player manages to deploy one, an allied player should have to actually react to it, as currently the allied factions hold all the cards in that regard. Right now, the panther is little more than a wasted investment for a unit that contributes little more than a moving target, its simply awful. Note, if you tone down fuel income in team games, spamming them would not be an issue due to cost, so buffing them would not break the overall balance of large games.

    The KV-1 defintely needs buffs, even being made a stock option has been advocated by alot of players. The Easy-eight however is a premium medium that makes up the core of a commander, there is no way in hell that USF needs any more of an advantage than it currently has over all other factions bar the UKF. Their faction is focused on mobile infantry and light vehicles, with limited armour support. Just as OST is limited in terms of infantry, but has a good roster of armour and support weapons.

    USF players quite often complain about having tanks with the durability of paper, yet forget they have some of the most durable and flexible infantry in the game to screen them, use your shermans in numbers, spot and screen for your jacksons and use the rifle company or heavy cav if you want something with a little more staying power . Assymetric balance is the name of the game, no-one wants to see the factions homogenized.

  • #104
    3 years ago
    The panther already has great stats just not for its assigned job. Its fast and moblie. It has high armor and hp wich get even higher with vet. Great pen.

    Only rof and the acc can be better.

    If the rof or acc are made better without compensation the mediums will be worthless vs the panther forcing usf and soviets to certain doctrines or make going for or spamming tds even more neccsary to be able jo compete.

    As for the isu. I feel its great for sniping inf and team weapons. The at rounds feel to weak. So i think its a bit pricy for 2/3 of the total package.
  • #105
    3 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited March 2017

    @Farra13
    Actually, we want something that can deal with super heavies. We use rocket arty because we cannot deal with them directly. We focus on killing the jagtiger's or elephant's support from a safe distance, then we close in. Most of the complaining is about the brits. If Usf feels bad, we just switch to different factions.I used to play Usf only. Usf is not bad currently, but i prefer soviets for their flexibility and their tier 1 sniper. This next patch is going to hurt usf and soviets early. I can either wait until more patches are released, switch to axis, or play a different game. I have been doing this since 2014. I play the game and switch faction when it feels good to do so.

    Usf tanks are made of paper and is why i go zooks and caliope. Zooks> jakson. i really love the easy 8, but it is a suicidal commander in team games. Easy 8's feel good, man.

  • #106
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096
    USF and SOV infantry being nerfed has nothing to do with anything - especially heavies. What Soviet infantry was killing Axis heavies before this change? Flamethrower penals? Because as far as theyre concerned their AT got buffed.

    There will be no need to add anything to anyones roster. Panthers just need a buff because the TD buff upset the Panther balance. This change is already in response to another change upsetting balance. You dont then need to respond to that buff with another buff to the other side because then you go back to square one.
  • #107
    3 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited March 2017

    @Lazarus said:
    USF and SOV infantry being nerfed has nothing to do with anything - especially heavies. What Soviet infantry was killing Axis heavies before this change? Flamethrower penals? Because as far as theyre concerned their AT got buffed.

    There will be no need to add anything to anyones roster. Panthers just need a buff because the TD buff upset the Panther balance. This change is already in response to another change upsetting balance. You dont then need to respond to that buff with another buff to the other side because then you go back to square one.

    Axis will have an easier time getting to the late game after the patch. It is an indirect buff to them. Super heavies are too good, and buffing an isu-152 to their levels is only going to make this game more linear. Same thing will happen if the panther gets buffed. If usf and soviets do receive a decent counter to them, why would i not pick brits.

    Here is what i think the future patches will cover:
    Comet nerf
    Arty cover nerf
    Caliope nerf
    Landmattress nerf
    Elephant nerf
    Jagtiger nerf
    call in nerfs
    Further nerfs to spotting scopes (I may be alone on this one)

  • #108
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096
    USF and Soviets do have counters to them though. Penal Satchels are now going to be an excellent answer to JTs and Elefants, and USF has the most omnipresent smoke in the game allowing them to easily rush and flank these super heavy TDs because once youre past the gun thats it - your 110 Fuel medium can solo this fight.
  • #109
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited March 2017

    @company14u2 said:
    Same thing will happen if the panther gets buffed. If usf and soviets do receive a decent counter to them, why would i not pick brits.

    Your answer to the panther will still remain the same. As Sov its at guns, mines, button and the SU-85. As USF you have plenty of easy access handheld at, the best at mine in the game, jacksons and the 57mm. Its supposed to be a scary unit, hence the massive cost to tech and produce, its only the insane fuel income on large games that could cause an issue by making them too easy to access, but regardless it needs buffs as competitively in 1v1 and 2v2 its a peice of crap that is completely unviable.

    Why not pick UKF? You would not pick brits because they are boring? Hopelessly overpowered after the WBP goes through? You want a challenge?

    And Laz summed up the super-heavies counters, the only faction that really should struggle with them is SOV due to their limited smoke options, but the penal sticky satchel will be great against them. USF and UKF meanwhile apparently have enough smoke sources in a single company to give half the german army lung cancer. I've had plenty of games were I've rushed a super-heavy with a wave of rifles followed by a pair of shermans, just smoke out his support elements and push them away/tie them up with the rifles whilst the shermans flank. Hey presto, wasted 720mp and 200 and something fuel.

    You want to balance the superheavies better? Limit what a player can support them with by reducing fuel income in large games, increase their pop and upkeep to once again limit what a player has to work with them. Standalone they are balanced units with defined weaknesses and key strengths.

  • #110
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    For those saying that panther is UP and that dmg is only thing that matters.
    TDs exist because there are targets that can't be damaged by normal mediums and need better punch.
    So you pay little more for a TD and lose all AI fair trade if you have really good infantry like USF and UKF you don't need medium tanks to combat infantry.
    Panther is mobile great vs all targets but lacks dps to deal with any fast. So you trade dps with some durability and high penetration which it does not really needs. Only IS-2 , KV-2 , comet and pershing are true targets for panthers gun.

    I fell that people are missing point of ISU-152 role and that is issue. Main argument is that its not great vs any target.
    So all generalist units are bad, people are complaing about pz4,panther,isu152 , tiger add some if i forget.

    PZ4 is performing bad compared to other same role tanks , panther too , tiger is fine imo because really high dps vs tanks basically stug with 1040 hp and 230 pen , enough to pen most tanks and some with 66% chance.

    Now back to ISU-152 70 range AI potential you can't negate that when saying isu is bad , most units can't counterfire it , trading shots with isu with tanks is bad 240vs 160 most of time isu gonna shoot you twice because you have to close in.
    While closing in you lose some time and isu already fired on your tank but its low pen most of time makes it RNG a lot which I do not approve 10.5 sec reload and such unreliable pen hurts its AT potential which is already low.
    So when tank closes in to take a shot its committed and you can go back without firing a shot , isu wins trade with your tank , it fired and you didn't but sometimes it does not matter cause low pen.

    So isu is support tank with long range , with long range comes price , low dps , look stug , su 85 balance , stug if gets close and has vet 1 would win almost always.

    If you don't want all in 1 package don't buy ISU , don't expect it to solo enemy TANK HUNTERS (Panther).

  • #111
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007

    @company14u2 said:
    Here is the order of the best stock tank destroyers to worse tank destroyers:
    Firefly, Jagpanzer, su85, stug, jackson.

    The Jackson being worse than a Stug? Yeah, right. Sure thing, mate. The Jagdpanzer is pretty shitty apart from cloak abuse (which will get nerfed), so I dont see how its better than the SU85 let alone the Jackson.

  • #112
    3 years ago

    @Hingie said:

    @company14u2 said:
    Here is the order of the best stock tank destroyers to worse tank destroyers:
    Firefly, Jagpanzer, su85, stug, jackson.

    The Jackson being worse than a Stug? Yeah, right. Sure thing, mate. The Jagdpanzer is pretty shitty apart from cloak abuse (which will get nerfed), so I dont see how its better than the SU85 let alone the Jackson.

    Lolz. Stugs can disable tanks from shooting and are cheap. Not much to say here.

  • #113
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    @company14u2 said:
    Lolz. Stugs can disable tanks from shooting and are cheap. Not much to say here.

    Yeah, but they have to be 10 range closer to do it, and need to face their target. All it's really better at is being cheap and fighting lighter armor. They really aren't comparable at all, they aren't designed to fight the same things.

  • #114
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75

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

    Panther destroys pershing but pershing have good attack vs infantry and large attack distantion

  • #115
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    Funny option which would make ISU-152 too versatile but i will give idea anyway.
    ISU-152 gets ability to upgrade 122mm at gun , 7 sec reload , 240 dmg , 350 pen for 200 munitions.

  • #116
    3 years ago
    SNAFUSNAFU Posts: 2

    I make some tests with cheatengine about the ISU152.
    ISU152 needs 12 - 18 shots to kill a MG43.
    Best score against a MG43 was in range of the fireing cone of the MG43 then it kills
    a entity every 3 shots - that means the ISU152 can kill a MG43 after 12 shots (near).

    In a head-to head fight with a PAK43 (outer firering range of PAK43)
    the ISU152 does not kill any entity of the PAK. A PAK43 alone can push the ISU152 away.
    The ISU152 is a useless waste of resources. A Mortar can fulfill the role of AI better then a ISU152.

  • #117
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,007
    edited March 2017

    @SNAFU said:
    I make some tests with cheatengine about the ISU152.

    What kind of shells were you using? Sounds to me like you shot AT shells at infantry targets.

  • #118
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    @SNAFU said:
    I make some tests with cheatengine about the ISU152.
    ISU152 needs 12 - 18 shots to kill a MG43.
    Best score against a MG43 was in range of the fireing cone of the MG43 then it kills
    a entity every 3 shots - that means the ISU152 can kill a MG43 after 12 shots (near).

    In a head-to head fight with a PAK43 (outer firering range of PAK43)
    the ISU152 does not kill any entity of the PAK. A PAK43 alone can push the ISU152 away.
    The ISU152 is a useless waste of resources. A Mortar can fulfill the role of AI better then a ISU152.

    I guess you used AP shells cause from my gameplay i usually kill mgs with 2-4 shots at distance and 2 max at close range.

  • #119
    3 years ago
    SNAFUSNAFU Posts: 2

    @Hingie , @Meow - OMG - your are right - i use AT instead of HE shells. My first Post and makeing a big mistake...

  • #120
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited March 2017

    @SNAFU said:
    @Hingie , @Meow - OMG - your are right - i use AT instead of HE shells. My first Post and makeing a big mistake...

    The switching is the ISUs only downside really. If you use it enough you become pretty instinctive about when to switch shells and it's easier to get the best out of the unit. When you're not active about switching shells you'll spend too much time waiting for it too switch while you need it to fire. That's one of the reasons it's very bad in 1v1s, but can be monstrous in 2v2s and up. Having a buddy to spot flanks/targets for you is very helpful for the slow assault gun type heavies.

  • #121
    3 years ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 75

    Nevertheless i tried to play ISU-152 as assault gun - its terrible: 11 seconds reload and misses, front armor doesnt enough to confront paks, always miss by ISU and always penetrate by pak 40. Need or increase accuracy or increase attack speed, without this its disgusting tank especially for 720 mp and 260 fuel

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