[All] Big Boomers postpatch

2»

Comments

  • #32
    3 years ago

    @Vipper said:
    If on includes the M8a1 one probably needs to include the WBP Stug -E also.

    This thread is about units that have huge amounts of RNG involved in their ability to kill infantry. The STUG-E is nowhere near as hit-or-miss as the main guns of all of the other units here are. Most of them Lob their shots with ISU being the only exception, however it's received more nerfs than most units in the game, many of which took place under far bunchier squad conditions.

    If anything, the brumbaar and the Scott are the 2 most important units in this discussion as both make up part of their army's stock offering.

  • #33
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    This thread is about units that have huge amounts of RNG involved in their ability to kill infantry. The STUG-E is nowhere near as hit-or-miss as the main guns of all of the other units here are. Most of them Lob their shots with ISU being the only exception, however it's received more nerfs than most units in the game, many of which took place under far bunchier squad conditions.

    If anything, the brumbaar and the Scott are the 2 most important units in this discussion as both make up part of their army's stock offering.

    Have you tested WBP Stug -E? you will find very similar to M8A1 but with less range and without a barrage ability.

  • #34
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited February 2017

    @Vipper said:
    Have you tested WBP Stug -E? you will find very similar to M8A1 but with less range and without a barrage ability.

    Yes, I know there's more of a chance to dodge the shots now, but that's because the Stug-E is already being altered in WBP. That's my point, we know these other vehicles aren't being touched, and they need to be. The Stug - E was overperforming before, and they're not done changing it, so I'm not as quick to think it needs help as something that was underperforming before and is going to do so even more now such as the Brum and Scott.

  • #35
    3 years ago

    Why is ISU basically an AI unit? Should it be an AI unit at all? Why don't you make it a proper heavy AT unit?

  • #36
    3 years ago
    @Boris_yeltsin
    Because I like easy team game when playing axis. No unit from ally can be matched with my jagtiger and elefant. So relic satisfy my wish.
  • #37
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    Why isu should be heavy AT? That's not necessary.
    ISU is multirole heavy assault gun , used for sniping teamweapons , infantry , bunkers , basicly everything but not HEAVY AT like JAGD , FRED , PAK 88.

    Asking why is stupid , that's way this unit is , it could have been heavy AT.
    1 explanation is historically it had huge HE shells good vs infantry other is balance.
    Soviets get long range anti infantry tank with small AT capabilities which allows soviet infantry to go freely with ISU support and maybe that's what relic wants from this unit.

  • #38
    3 years ago

    It is strange that you say, that soviets dont need some heavy AT. There are many heavy-armored vehicles on the german side. There are Pz4 with 236 armor, panthers with 320 (352 with vet), brumbars with 270, kingtiger with 375 armor and 1200 HP. Elefant and jagdtiger have more than 400 armor. Soviets need heavy AT. Soviets have KV2, KV-8 which are able to kill enemy infantry. ISU is not а universal unit, it doesn't deal as much damage, as eli of jagdtiger do. "Mark vehicle" doesn't really help, as it doesn't boost the incoming damage even close to those 320 points of German heavy AT units.
    And if you want speak from the history side, google photos of Panthers, shot by ISUs.

    Again historically, besides ISU-152 Soviets had such AT monsters, as ISU-122 and SU-100, which are not present in the game.

  • #39
    3 years ago

    @Boris_yeltsin said:
    It is strange that you say, that soviets dont need some heavy AT. There are many heavy-armored vehicles on the german side. There are Pz4 with 236 armor, panthers with 320 (352 with vet), brumbars with 270, kingtiger with 375 armor and 1200 HP. Elefant and jagdtiger have more than 400 armor. Soviets need heavy AT. Soviets have KV2, KV-8 which are able to kill enemy infantry. ISU is not а universal unit, it doesn't deal as much damage, as eli of jagdtiger do. "Mark vehicle" doesn't really help, as it doesn't boost the incoming damage even close to those 320 points of German heavy AT units.
    And if you want speak from the history side, google photos of Panthers, shot by ISUs.

    Again historically, besides ISU-152 Soviets had such AT monsters, as ISU-122 and SU-100, which are not present in the game.

    I'll double this one. It's ridiculous Soviets don't have at least one proper heavy AT-unit. At least doctrinal.

  • #40
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    Has any one checked the penetration of the SU-85?

  • #41
    3 years ago

    @Vipper написал:
    Has any one checked the penetration of the SU-85?

    240 and 300(vet2)

  • #42
    3 years ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    Well ISU was a beast in world war 2 , but does not has to be in coh2. SU 85 at vet 2 can contest every tank but jagdtiger and elephant. Why soviets need 320 dmg tank ? They don't "need" such tank. It would be nice and easier but why Germans does not have long range anti blob tank? Asymmetrical balance. ISU can fight any target at some degree , people do not respect that. If you want specialist unit play axis. This is a game after all , historical elements are present but not a simulator. ISU as a unit is pretty good for its intended role , that is multirole long range assault gun , only problem now will be spacing changes for infantry.

    SU-85 is dedicated TD , with 300 pen at vet 2 + 7% if you have 2 bulletins gives you 316 pen , always penetrating tiger , panther , 85% to pen king tiger , 79% to pen elephant 60% to pen jagdtiger.

    In every fight ISU will be there , when you fight infantry , ISU support , attacking bunkers ISU is there , fighting panthers ISU supports , when you get one on battlefield its always useful regardles of situation . Nobody respects ISU for 70 range squad wipe potential , can engage AT guns without them counterfiring can Jagdtiger do that or elephant?
    You want to change unit profile for no good reason , if you can't deal with heavy tanks than you are missing something , isu is good for what it is.

  • #43
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Boris_yeltsin I think the main reason for Soviet lack of heavy AT is their faction is designed to fight OST (and vice versa), consider the difference in cost and tech to produce a tank. OST tanks are more expensive and lack the numbers SOV has, giving them a unit that can wreck such expensive units in 2-3 shots would be pretty disaterous.

  • #44
    3 years ago
    @Boris_yeltsin kinda defeats the purpose of the axis "having better armour" if you could easily nullify that from a mile away, su85 does that more than well enough now.
  • #45
    3 years ago

    In my opinion we need some more stuff for all fractions to relieve some units. Like in CoH1 = Mörser, Nebelwerfer, Stuka zu Fuß and call-in abilities. So every unit can get its own strength. 

    Not Brumbarr, its Brummbär xD

  • #46
    3 years ago

    I'm not saying they should increase the damage, but I want the penetration of the AP round to be boosted. You're wrong about ISU being universal - it's terrible against tanks, AP round is basically useless atm, it takes forever to switch between ammo types, the gun's penetration is simly bad. ISU was universal till they introduced that HE-AP rounds thing. IMO, they should either boost the penetration of the AP round up to 310 points or make one universal ammo type without all those switches. Also, germans have means to fight blobs - Brumbars and Sturmtigers (and Brumbar is not even docrtinal). And I got the the reason to change the unit's profile: people simply don't use the AP round, preferring to fight infantry with HEs.

  • #47
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited February 2017

    @Meow said:
    Why isu should be heavy AT? That's not necessary.
    ISU is multirole heavy assault gun , used for sniping teamweapons , infantry , bunkers , basicly everything but not HEAVY AT like JAGD , FRED , PAK 88.

    Can it be heavier? It has 200 pen at max range, which is the same as the su85 I believe, except the su85 gets 2 penetration buffs. The ISU gets 0. Yes it does more damage, but it also takes just under twice as long to fire the next shot. OKW p4s and Jp4s have a 15% chance of pinging an ISU shot. It's obviously not much, but the fact that they even have any chance is a little absurd given how long the ISU takes to reload, and how long it takes to switch shells, and how much it costs.

    It's not even that good at killing infantry anymore, and it's only gonna get worse after WBP with the spacing changes, given the point of this thread. The ISU used to be too good at fighting both vehicles and infantry at the same time. Now it's average at best at both, but one at a time. Unless you're playing on Rhzev winter, because then HE shells are sending tanks to the fishies.

  • #48
    3 years ago
    Eh. I always look at the isu as AI first with the ability to engage tank if needed (i remember way back when it would would bounce a stug) its multi role in that its better at killing tanks than an elefant is at infantry. Too much more pen and it becomes too good again. I use the isu ALOT in 4s where admittedly its holding less up on its own but also theres an ass tonne more armour to shoot at and straight up, for its AI capability its AT is fine. Its a hard nut to bust because of its range. It cant be a mass murder at a mile away because thats bad, it also cant beat the tits off of tanks at a mile away out of range while being able to swap to AI either.

    Again as someone that uses it (in 4s) all the time its multi role is good. Problem with it is its concrete piercing round colliding with terrain and soon to be spacing nulifying its advantage in AI.

    Anyways thats MY point of view from extensive use in team games
  • #49
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited February 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo I too use it alot in 2's and 4's. Its a great heavy hitter if you know how to use it. Thing is, its slightly unreliable with how it clips terrain pretty consistently, that and how the concrete round doesn't work properly. I would advocate changing it to either A. A stun round that ignores all shotblockers, B. The next three shots that ignore all terrain, that makes it far more reliable.

    And for a small change, attach a 20% reload bonus to vet 1 and to compensate reduce the 30% at Vet 2 to 20%, so in total it equals 40% (firing about every six seconds), then finally if need be, I'd do a firefly and up its damage to 320 at Vet 3 so it can really frighten Axis armour for letting it vet like that.

    @Boris_yeltsin The ISU takes some practice to use properly, but I can assure you its a beast in the right hands. Think of the range 70 as a delivery mechanism for the HE rounds, AP rounds lose too much Pen at that range and aren't very effective. The sweet spot is about 60-50, the same an an SU-85, now the ISU is no delicate flower with more armour than a tiger and a health pool to match. Just support it properly, (guarded flanks and cons/guards to snare vehicles for it to hammer), it can take plenty of fire so don't be afraid to move in close for that better pen chance, just keep the enemy in front of it, it really suffers with rotation and speed just like a JT/Ferdinand and a flank can all but eliminate it, mines are its best friend, just pepper the area its going to be fighting in and all will be good.

  • #50
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    With the sucess of the brumbar change I'd like to necro the fuuuuhuck out of this and discuss spreading the change to other large caliber guns
  • #51
    2 years ago
    moremegamoremega REDWOOD CITY CA USAPosts: 229

    nerf the rate of fire on the scott

  • #52
    2 years ago
    KoenigKoenig Posts: 71

    @Meow said:
    Well ISU was a beast in world war 2 , but does not has to be in coh2.

    People think bigger caliber is always better - that is not the case for anti tank guns.

    The ISU152 was a piece of shit in the anti tank role - sure it looks impressive, but the muzzle velocity is too low, and the caliber is too high making the shells too heavy to be reloaded quickly.

    The JT and Elephants could fire 2-3 times faster, were more accurate AND had better penetration.

  • #53
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681
    edited June 2018

    @Koenig said:

    @Meow said:
    Well ISU was a beast in world war 2 , but does not has to be in coh2.

    People think bigger caliber is always better - that is not the case for anti tank guns.

    The ISU152 was a piece of shit in the anti tank role - sure it looks impressive, but the muzzle velocity is too low, and the caliber is too high making the shells too heavy to be reloaded quickly.

    The JT and Elephants could fire 2-3 times faster, were more accurate AND had better penetration.

    ISU did not needed to penetrate.
    Non penetrating direct hit would be more then enough to kill the crew or render tank useless at worst, at best it would blew the turret off the tank, you know, like it actually did.

    Not even a direct hit was needed with its high explosive shells.

    But its not a historical discussion, ISU is inferior in anti tank duty to other super heavies and isn't especially accurate against infantry either.

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.