Profile of hubewa

IMO Barrage is not an issue. The SU-76 is a multi-role platform unlike the Stug where if you wanted AI performance, you needed to mount the short gun (Stug A). If you used the long gun (Stug G) you had far better AT performance.

Barrage can hurt, but personally, I don't mind this. Its what makes the SU-76 unique and it is what makes the soviets unique. I do not mind if it keeps its AI performance.

However, compared to history, its AT performance is simply too strong. Panthers, Tigers and Elefants can be dealt with by the 3-4 SU-76s that have been built at that stage of the game, which is ridiculous. How can a unit that you start building in the first 5-10 minutes of the game that can be massed, has good AI and no historical basis for it kill the heaviest German tanks in the game? I don't mind if the SU-76 deals with P4s, stugs etc but there's a serious problem when it can deal with Panthers, Tigers and Elefants from the front.

Once again, history may not be used to fully balance the game, but there has to be a limit to how much artistic licence can be used. Otherwise, it becomes Company of Placeholders as someone called it earlier.

Elchino, I liked your posts. One thing I don't agree with tho is Stug AI performance. The Stug mounted MG provides at best a bit of self defense. You don't use that mg to assault infantry or attack. The SU-76 however can blow holes in defences, decrew and squad wipe in a way that the Stug can't. Nothing wrong with that feature but just want to show that both AI imo are incomparable.

Personally what I think of the state of the SU-76 is that it has been left in a state where it had to compete against the SU-85. As such, the SU-85 was built far more in the past and buffs to SU-76 did not entice ppl to build the Su-76.

Now, it doesn't need to compete with the SU-85 anymore yet its viable even in the endgame so no one ever techs to T4 as relic intended. Changing the range could work but for a gun that was ineffective irl against panthers, tigers and so on I feel the Penn of the SU-76 reduced would be more accurate.

If Penn was reduced and teaching costs decrdecreased for Sovs or camo was added to SU-76, it would make the game a lot better than lel my unit I built in the 5th-10th minute can smash heavy breakthrough units in ways the SU-76 couldn't even deal with IRL

What's wrong with Su-76? It just became efficient, chill boys, and it is in a right spot. It could be MAYBE to cheap for what it does, but I wouldn't like to see any other change related to it.
I beat the shit out of axis using it and I can kill it easily while playing axis. Why can't everybody do like me and be happy without so manny nerf threads?
Let's just admit that the current meta is so good.

The problem here isn't the Early-game or the midgame role of the SU-76.

The problem is the endgame role of the SU-76 where it can Penn panthers, tigers and elefants reasonably reliably from the front when it historically wasn't able to even come close. For a unit that comes into the game after 5-10 minutes that is mobile and is strong early and mid game as it should be, that is a big problem.

It's balanced early and mid game, its OP in late game IMO. The penetration is too strong.

And in most cases, the game is balanced around 1vs1 and 2 vs 2, not 3vs3 and 4vs4+.

"Game is harder for axis" - well that's what balance is for - fine tuning units of the game so that they're working as intended. I don't care if axis or allies are harder, but I'm looking for what's reasonable and what isn't

Holy shit, dedicated tank destroyers can do penetrate tanks... Need to re work them into tank fail to destroyers

I'm starting to get annoyed with these kinds of arguments. Yeah, its a TD. And? I'd want to see an SU-76 fight something like a Maus and a T-54 and penn every time because its a TD so it'll magically penn everytime.

ATM, its essentially a TD/Assualt that has decent AI due to barrage that comes rather early in the game as well. Gameplaywise - its bad if it can last into lategame if heavy tanks are sent in. If SU-76s were to flank heavy tanks/Panthers and kill them that way, I'd be okay with that. But penning frontally is a big problem. For instance, the KT in VCoH couldn't be killed reliably by a pack M10s or M18s from the front. But if they flanked the KT, then it would be killable. I think these kind of mechanics are good for the game.

If you want a video example this is one

If you want history


And okay, if you want to talk about history, well okay, German Guns were far more accurate and harder hitting than the SU-76 in real life. At normal combat ranges, Panthers and Tigers can easily kill SU-76s at a further range than the SU-76 can even kill Panthers and Tigers. Yes, the game isn't balanced around history but at the same time there's what's reasonable and what's not. You don't see Luchs killing IS's from the front.

Plus, when it comes to shells, there's a tradeoff between AI and AT. The higher velocity the gun, the better the AT performance, but that means that you can't pack enough HE into the shells so the AI performance is reduced.

Oh and for the record, I don't think heavy tanks being stunned anymore is a good idea, esp when you're limited to one heavy tank in a game. Stunning heavy tanks was a mechanic more designed for when you could field multiple heavy tanks than one. Relic are making big changes to the gameplay without adjusting what the role of the unit was designed for in the first place.

If the pennetration was nerfed for the SU-76, I wouldn't not mind if to counter that nerf, a camo ability was placed on the SU-76. That, after all, was one of the advantages of the SU-76 in the war anyway.