Login

russian armor

su-85 needs attention.

2 Aug 2014, 13:14 PM
#41
avatar of boc120

Posts: 245

I also support switching the t70 and su76.
2 Aug 2014, 13:25 PM
#42
avatar of ofield

Posts: 420

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Aug 2014, 11:24 AMsteel
While swapping SU76 and T70 seems like a good idea. The question is will Relic do it? I can't see Relic swapping them in the near future although they swapped Tiger Ace for King Tiger in COH1 before.


No. Relic would rather give the Su76 100% more damage and 100% more AoE. Then there will be 20 rage threads about how OP it became and a week later they will nerf the Damage back to normal and increase the price to 100 fuel.
2 Aug 2014, 14:13 PM
#43
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

I dont see an issue with SU85. Its mobility and rotation was changed for good reasons (it used to chase/retreat vs all armor at a rate completely unbecoming of a TD, rendering it pracrically unflankable, even during the eaelier Blitz period). Its range is its forte. Its hard to field TDs effectively, but this is not an issue that only Sov has. Overall though, I do agree with a balance and design direction that makes TDs the hard facepunchers, when properly aligned and positioned, that they deserve to be.

As to swapping T70 and SU76, you need to think a bit larger to understand why that doesnt work.

First of all, it places T70 way outside its already narrow window. Even with stat/cost changes, it would be crazy to field it in a T4 AT heavy environment. Nobody would buy it, when they can get SU76 instead to do the job arguably even better at an earlier tier.

Second of all, there is the incipient issue of ZiS and SU76 as artillery options. If these stacked early on, it would wreck both earlier armor and even more so early infantry. It would be pracrically impossible to hold an infantry front line vs the combined artillery of SU76 and ZiS, and even when you manage armor support i to the engagement, both of these units are natively effecrive enough AT to face punch the more expensive and fewer armor you wpuld face at that poi t. Its a double whammy combination that, ironically, would sqeeuze Sov t4 even further out of the meta than it already is, and to which most faction/Commander combinations simply cannot respond to in time with equivalent AT AND AI.

Fun to think about, but ultimately impractical in balance.

Having said that, I do agree the SU76 has problems, but that is not the purpose of the thread, and continuing on that would just derail topic.
Vaz
2 Aug 2014, 14:54 PM
#44
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1158

Wasn't the design of Tank destroyers supposed to be an extremely thick front and paper back? Generally my opponents don't care to flank my SU-85 and doing turbo from the front doesn't count as flanking. Anyhow, the front armor is penetrated by every axis tank gun. The panzerIV sometimes has trouble, but it's about the only one. Considering how clumsy it is, it shouldn't be so easy to beat down from the front.
2 Aug 2014, 15:38 PM
#45
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1


As to swapping T70 and SU76, you need to think a bit larger to understand why that doesnt work.

First of all, it places T70 way outside its already narrow window. Even with stat/cost changes, it would be crazy to field it in a T4 AT heavy environment. Nobody would buy it, when they can get SU76 instead to do the job arguably even better at an earlier tier.


Of course people would buy it. The T70 has perfect synergy with the SU85. Likewise a SU76 has perfect synergy with a T34/76.

What do you get when you buy a SU85? Long range tank killing power on a low mobility (no turret) platform. What do you lack? Mobility and anti-infantry killing power. The T70 complements the SU85 perfectly, while the SU76 does nothing to help the SU85. The SU76 can't hit infantry and the barrage is only useful against stationary support weapons, for the latter a katyasha is a better option. The SU76 primary attack is long range AT, which the SU85 already does. There is no reason to ever get a SU76.

Now look at soviet T3. What do you get when you buy a T34/76? A medium range all round tank with plenty of AI fire power. What does it lack? Long range anti tank. There is no reason to get a T70 after you get a T34/76 because everything the T70 does, the T34/76 does better. A SU76 would complement the T34 perfectly, it could add long range AT support and use the barrage to soften up weapon teams. Soviet T3 does not contain any other, superior, artillery so the SU76 would be an attractive option to make if you are looking for a way to soften up enemy positions before going in with your tanks.

T70 swap with SU76 would be the best thing to ever happen to soviets. It would make getting T4 worth it again and open up more options other than T34/76 spam or call-in spam. You could actually use combined armor forces because each tier would contain units that supplement each other, rather than units that do the same thing at different price tags.

2 Aug 2014, 16:28 PM
#46
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Aerohank, my reply to that is already answered in my "second of all" part.

I understand your desire for the units to synergise, but it just ends up creating a too powerful tier, without needing the other.
2 Aug 2014, 16:33 PM
#47
avatar of FriedRise

Posts: 132

Aerohank, my reply to that is already answered in my "second of all" part.

I understand your desire for the units to synergise, but it just ends up creating a too powerful tier, without needing the other.


But as Soviet, you're not supposed to get both T3 and T4. So it makes sense if the units in either tier synergize.
2 Aug 2014, 16:39 PM
#48
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752



But as Sviet, you're not supposed to get both T3 and T4. So it makes sense if the units in either tier synergize.


Thats my point exactly. Would result in individual tiers that are complete in all they could need, in AT or AI, mixed into one package, but without having to go through the tech structures of other factions from which Sov is free to choose.

2 Aug 2014, 16:52 PM
#49
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

Aerohank, my reply to that is already answered in my "second of all" part.

I understand your desire for the units to synergise, but it just ends up creating a too powerful tier, without needing the other.


The current soviet tank meta can be summed up in 1 word: T34/76. Because that is the only non doctrinal tank you are going to see with the current state of soviet T3/4. That is if you even bother getting tech.

The synergy argument being too powerful is simply fear of the unknown. The americans already have long range AT, long range arty, and a medium tank in the same tier. Ostheer already have long range AT, mobile AI and arty in the same tiers (no arty in T3 though). OKW can already combine these types of units for cheaper tech cost than soviets.

Every faction can combine non-doctrinal tanks that have good synergy. Except for soviets. It's shitty design that leads to extremely boring and repetitive gameplay.
2 Aug 2014, 17:54 PM
#50
avatar of Abdul

Posts: 896

it would be really interesting that mix the t70 providing scouting for the su85 long range
3 Aug 2014, 02:21 AM
#51
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

Second of all, there is the incipient issue of ZiS and SU76 as artillery options. If these stacked early on, it would wreck both earlier armor and even more so early infantry. It would be pracrically impossible to hold an infantry front line vs the combined artillery of SU76 and ZiS, and even when you manage armor support i to the engagement, both of these units are natively effecrive enough AT to face punch the more expensive and fewer armor you wpuld face at that poi t. Its a double whammy combination that, ironically, would sqeeuze Sov t4 even further out of the meta than it already is, and to which most faction/Commander combinations simply cannot respond to in time with equivalent AT AND AI.


Soviet T3 and T4 have the exact same price so the "dreaded" ZiS-3 and SU76 combo would arrive at exactly the same time as it does now were the SU76 and T70 to be swapped. In light of this I'm surprised we haven't seen more "ZiS-3 + SU76 = Sovjet OP!!!!" threads on these forums.
3 Aug 2014, 02:42 AM
#52
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665



Thats my point exactly. Would result in individual tiers that are complete in all they could need, in AT or AI, mixed into one package, but without having to go through the tech structures of other factions from which Sov is free to choose.



Why? Most other high-end tiers in the game are fairly all-around.

Ost T3 has an all-around tank, a tank destroyer, and an AI tank. T4 has primarily AI artillery, AI assault gun, and an AT tank.

USA T4 has an AI tank, a tank destroyer, and an all-around tank.

OKW tiers all have AT options (Puma, Jagd, Raketen, Panther) on top of their various infantry and/or AI platforms (Volks, ISG, flacktrack, Stuka, Obers, Sturmtiger).

Soviet tiers are the ones that are too specialized. In theory, getting X tier to have Y sort of units is good, but in practice it just creates severe unit overlap. The T-70 is overshadowed by the much more versatile T-34 which, apart from the speed, is the same thing but better. The SU-76 is an artillery, at which the Katyusha is better, and a moving AT gun, at which the SU-85 is much better too. These two units offer very little in their respective tiers.

I have seen very few T-70 since they were nerfed some time ago, and I almost never, ever saw SU-76 in CoH2's entire lifetime, and I wouldn't be surprised if people had similar experiences to me. Either these two units need a role change, major tweaks, or to switch places.

And no, this is not calling for faction homogenization. Soviet tech structure is supposed to give them choice, but in practice it pretty much pigeon-holds them into getting T-34s because T4 is too immobile and unreliable. It needs changes. There's also the separate problem that calls-ins do basically everything their T3 and T4 does, but better.
5 Aug 2014, 06:20 AM
#53
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Probably what's been so bad for the SU-85 was the nerf so long ago that trashed it's frontal armor.

KovuTali you say you got lucky but a Panther will penetrate an SU-85 100% of the time at any range.



Ah! A great piece to use as a comparison.

The Jagdpanzer IV has 230 armor compared to the SU-85's 140.

The Jagdpanzer IV has a target size of 17 compared to the SU-85's 22. This means it is easier to hit the SU-85.

The Jagdpanzer IV has more accuracy; particularly at long range. (JP4: .04 vs SU-85: .025)

Both tanks have compariable speeds and penetration. JPIV avg penetration: 185, SU-85: 190

The Jagdpanzer IV is basically superior in every way aside from the fact that it has a vision cone (but it has higher base vision to compensate). Not to mention it's wonderful five veterancy levels that give it incredible bonuses.

It's a shame really. I used to really like Tier 4 Soviet play but I've not been able to make it work in so long. The armor on the SU-85 is just such a joke. The Panzer 4 penetrate's it's frontal armor ~80% of the time! It's one of the lowest average penetration weapons that the Germans even have that's capable of anti-tank.

Tank hunters usually need two: armor, mobility, or range to be a significant threat. The SU-85 has range. That's it.

Honestly mobility ain't even that great but it works for the Jackson because it packs 50% more damage per shell. It sort of works for the Panther because the Panther has armor and range.


Your posts are excellent. Have you experienced your SU-85 firing at infantry rather than armor lately?
5 Aug 2014, 07:00 AM
#54
avatar of Midconflict

Posts: 204

I am all for a Su-76 and a T70 change, but I think this should have its own thread. Back on topic, the Su-85 I think is fine in all respects except the pen. It needs to be able to pen heavy tanks more reliable, and it should always pen a p4. This is because of the speed and smoke the p4 has it doesn't need to armor to save it from that Su-85. Other then that I don't see much other problems with the Su-85, just need to micro it right and have mines on your flank.
5 Aug 2014, 07:46 AM
#55
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

as long as jadgtiger is in the game, su85 will always be useless together with entire t4. the jadgtiger will put an end to any kind of armoured defensive playstyle. an isu152 is better served with t34/76 and AT guns, rather than su85s.

maybe lesser noticed in 1v1s, su85 has always been quite useless in the 2v2. mobility and firepower that the t34/76 and t34/85 is superior to the defensive play style of su85s.

the moment jadgtiger is out, you will lose all initiative with su85s, but you can still maintain some form of initiative if you have t34/85s against heaives.
5 Aug 2014, 08:10 AM
#56
avatar of PanzerErotica

Posts: 135


Huh? No, in the context of Coh2 that makes perfect sense. If you wanna kill the SU 85 with a PIV, you ideally want to get up close and personal in order to circlestrafe it - utilizing whatever terrain features and shot/sightblockers available. If the opportunity does not present itself or you don't want to commit your P IV you have to run anyways - the SU outranges you and can push you across the map as long as it is open. Pretty straigthforward if you ask me. In a sterile environment, 1v1 meeting engagement, the SU is going to win the fight very consistently.


Well, yes, I realize coh is all about circle strafing slower targets, but my biggest gripe is there is not much flanking involved in driving towards and then past su85 to get behind it. Sure it will lead to su85 being flanked but it isn´t a flank to begin with. I do understand most of the maps have all kinds of corridors and bottlenecks made of buildings and environment, so if su was buffed it could lead to problems as often you are forced to approach it from the front. But still, I think there are plenty of ways to take on su85 other than rushing PIV at it (shrecks, at guns, blitzkrieg, smoke, proper flanking ie. approaching from side / rear).
5 Aug 2014, 08:18 AM
#57
avatar of ofield

Posts: 420

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Aug 2014, 17:54 PMAbdul
it would be really interesting that mix the t70 providing scouting for the su85 long range


*looks at SU85's focus sight ability*

I'd would love to see some kind of buff to the su76's maingun. Atm it can only deal dmg to Inf with the barrage ability.
5 Aug 2014, 11:43 AM
#58
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664

If the SU-85 maintains its current armor I think it could get a mobility buff. Not the crazy speed wagon of days of future's past but some more acceleration and maybe rotation.
5 Aug 2014, 12:12 PM
#59
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Imo range and sight should be where SU85s main strength should lie (especially as a half-step as compared to such true "elite" units like PaK 43 and Elephant) Scope is sort of the defining feature, especially as compared to its weaker cousin, the Stug, ehich unfortunately has failed completely in regards to what I perceive as one of their core mechanic features as on many Commanders, of Hull Down, which we all know just doesnt work in the scale and design of CoH2 maps.

Dont leave it exposed to frontal fire, pull it directly back in reverse when enemy armor starts bringing their guns to bear at their range, and continue to maintain range and sight.

TDs a are a peculiar kind of unit in the intermix of turreted tanks and ATGs. The entirety of how to use these properly is very different than either of its AT alternatives, and unfortunately CoH2 maps are not kind to what TDs would need to shine in a more historically accurate representation. For all intents and purposes, they are essentially a more mobile ATG without an AI weakness, and should be regarded and played as such.

As to stat changes, having reviewed how it compares to its half-step, the Stug, and especially to ATGs, I think it could use an intermix small buff in range, penetration and damage of about 10-40 points per stat. Its maingun currently operates pretty much like a ATG, but considering its T4 status, I think it should have a bit more oomph of the 3 stats I listed, than ATGs. (And for that matter, Stugs also need a reviewing, for a long time now, but that is not the topic of this thread).

Im against mobility and rotation rate changes though. Weve already been there and we dont want old previously corrected imbalances re-occuring. Im also against armor increases, because really you shouldnt be sitting there against even medium tanks taking it in the face at their range, and even less so vs dedicated tank hunters the approach of which can and shpuld be screened by mines and ATNades.
Vaz
5 Aug 2014, 12:59 PM
#60
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1158


Im against mobility and rotation rate changes though. Weve already been there and we dont want old previously corrected imbalances re-occuring. Im also against armor increases, because really you shouldnt be sitting there against even medium tanks taking it in the face at their range, and even less so vs dedicated tank hunters the approach of which can and shpuld be screened by mines and ATNades.



Really? That seems like the exact purpose tank destroyers were built for.


As we all discuss this it's starting to become obvious to me the problem with turretless tanks in CoH2, because it's not just the SU-85. These weapons were designed with super hard front armor to sit in the face of armor and win. The buffs these units need are not mobility buffs, they are going to always going to have terrible mobility. They need stronger front armor (only front) and in the case of SU-85 it needs a higher penetration value. I get the most rng lol moments with the SU-85, when I have to fire 20 shots to blow a tiger or 10-15 to blow a panther (sorry I don't always count, but they are this bad or worse). It performs well against the PIV. I think the scatter is a little off too, it misses a lot at max range. It could use just a small reduction so it occasionally misses, that way people who actually pay attention can back up, but the careless are destroyed.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Offline

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

417 users are online: 417 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
84 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44636
Welcome our newest member, otorusmfqz
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM