Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Why wouldn't it have sufficient penetration? It's the top tier tank destroyer. There is litterally nothing above it in the Soviet roster you could bring against tanks. If it didn't manage to penetrate a Panther or Tiger, then what's the point?
I personally think the regular TD's for all factions (axis and allied) should have their range reduced -7 to give mediums a slightly better chance. Panther should be -3. Heavy TDs, such as the ISU-152 (which slaughters infantry from afar too), Elephant and Jagdtiger should have -10. Pak 43 and 17lbr should remain since they're somewhat squishy and immobile.
None of that will happen.
The whole point of a TD is to hard-counter armor. You lower sight that much, it means heavy tanks will roll over any of them, because you can't have screening/spotting units in every direction, and heavies already can eat too much of medium TD fire anyway.
Not to mention that tanks already are overperforming in their capacity to eat anti-tank ordnance. AT guns shouldn't require three-four hits to blow up a medium like they do now. Tanks shouldn't be able to advance blind and just back away if hit by AT fire with impunity the way they can now.
If you're struggling with tank destroyers you might want to invest in some infantry-held AT weaponry. Or an AT gun. Not try to hard-press with units it's specifically intended to counter. Which you can still safely do if you use smoke cover, anyway, much less approach from the flank.
I'm speaking specifically about my experience in a game on Eindhoven Country, I had a hard flank on an SU-85 with a Panzer IV (The doctrinal one with the AsGrens)
Not only did I approach from his blind side and ambush him from multiple angles, it proceeded to turn in lockstep with my Panzer IV as my Panzer IV continued to try to maintain its flanking position.
To rephrase, a PANZER 4 COULD NOT circle around an SU-85 faster than that SU-85 could turn on its EXTREMELY LONG treadbase to keep its gun trained on the Panzer IV.
Does that not seem extremely broken to you?
Or the enemy player (presumably) was using reverse-turn skillfully enough to keep your tank in sights. Basically issuing "reverse" order in appropriate direction complements turning speed.
Even then, if you were approaching from hard flank (and not on wide open distance that allowed for spotting your approach), you absolutely should not have a problem out-trololo-circling an SU-85 facing the wrong way. If it wasn't, it means you were spotted beforehand, flank or not.
I don't have a problem with good micro allowing a dedicated anti-armor unit taking out a medium, at all, but I come from a biased position that CoH2 is already way too lenient in how tanks are allowed to operate.
The problem with TD range is that TD's are as mobile as mediums, so they can permanently kite at max range and never take a single point of damage from said mediums - especially extremely fast TDs such as the Jackson.
AT guns have no such opportunity. AT guns are also extremely squishy, being vulnerable to artillery and infantry and even medium tanks as you remarked. TD's are immune to all the above, exempting specialized AT infantry (who in turn are extremely vulnerable to rocket artillery - the perfect combination with TDs.)
So I stand by my belief that the extremely mobile, relatively immune TDs deserve to be worse than the immobile, weak AT guns. But I don't expect that'll change at this late in CoH2's life. More something to be improved if we ever see a CoH3.
The other problem with TDs having same range as AT guns is they can enter an AT gun's range and potentially leave it immediately without taking any damage - yet still get off a shot at a nearby tank. Furthermore, since AT guns require a set-up time, on occasion you can kite with your TDs and avoid the enemy's supporting AT guns, while still beating the crap out of whatever tanks you desire to fire on.
... SU85 extremely long threadbase?
It's a T34, man. Yes.
SU85 = T34/76
SU85M = T34/85
SU100 = T34/85
I think you are saying you can't flank an ISU152 with a blitzing Pz4 from close range
is that what you are saying?
I wish MGs didn't have any suppression.
I wish mortars couldn't do dmg to MGs and buildings.
I wish all Ger-tanks had x10000000000000000000000 armor and allied TD and AT and
mines were removed from the game.
I wish MP40s could 1-shot pershings from across the map.
Everything should be a swastika.
Then the game would finally be balanced.
As for circling around, if the other player was manuely reversing the tank with enough distance a SU-85 can keep up with a non-bliz panzer 4.
Also depens if he had bulletins for this, since you can get a bit extra with that.
Jackson, Firefly, and the Panther (which functions as a heavy TD with some AI capacity) perform better, but pay for it in both production cost and relative ineffectiveness against infantry.
Moving TD suffers from mobile accuracy penalty, which at long ranges can be significant. Meaning if you see a "kiting" TD, you have ample time to get your armor out of harm's way.
TDs mostly can't handle AT infantry, usually have much crappier armor than medium tanks and/or slower firing rate.
You're not supposed to trololo medium tanks at TD's, nor are you supposed to operate AT guns OR TDs without screening units that also act as spotters.
TD's are "back-campers" by design - that's their purpose, to hang behind the firing lane and cause grief to any tank sent right into the fighting.
AT guns don't cost fuel. That said, I do wish they did more damage to vehicles myself.
If you're concerned your AT gun can't immediately drop some theoretical attacking TD, build two. Or have some other means of adding AT damage nearby.
Why even bring something like that as an argument? That's a once-in-a-blue-moon situation. For that matter, that AT gun has much better chance at hitting the TD than that moving TD has of hitting your theoretical nearby tank. And in either case, that's damage you can eat and react to the situation before you lose either unit.
Oh, and by the by, that tank is likely to be in range of firing right back at any TD without a spotter (aside from triggered sight ability on SU-85, which means it isn't reversing anywhere near as fast as without it while taking AT gun fire).
Why is your hypothetical situation reliant on the target tanks having to frontally attack a known TD location in the first place?
Because the game would be more balanced if allies didn't have any ATs at all :)
- Infantry lovers hate MGs
- MG lovers hate mortars
- Tank lovers hate AT
- Super armor lovers hate advanced TDs
Wouldn't paper play be so much more funnest if you removed scissors from play?
The greater differences in range make these vehicles more distinct in their roles. And the key to utilizing it is always sight. When it comes to managing that, CoH2 is by far a more complex game than the first one. Many people just go over true sight like it's no big deal, when really it is. More similar range made sense in the first game, where this wasn't in place as a second layer to combat.
I haven't played in damn near a year, so my rank doesn't mean anything, and it's not even a relevant point of discussion and has nothing to do with the subject matter. If we were talking about competitions or tournaments, sure, but we're talking about how fast an SU-85 with a frontally fixed gun can rotate on its axis compared to a Panzer IV rolling to its neutral flank with a traversing turret.
Stay on topic or get removed from the discussion by moderation. You're obviously attempting to troll and I won't feed it.
That's a weak argument, as StuGs, Panthers, and Tigers have all been known to bounce off of ISU-152's, IS-2's, Pershings, and the KV-series tanks frontally.
It's almost hypocritical to say that the Soviets somehow "deserve" a 'reliable' TD that can frontally pen Axis Heavies/Super-Heavies with almost absolute certainty when the reverse scenario is anything but certain.