Profile of Hannibal

Buy LMGs from brits #trade

That's some real Anno mechanics right there. CoH3 when?

Well, OST doctrines allow it to airdrop what I think is 150 MU or 50FU for 200MP with some commanders. These resources can be picked up by OKW too. SOV can also airdrop fuel for an ally. Some resource transfer methods have always been in the game.

Also every SVT crate transfered to an ally is 2 less mines planted by SOV and USF buying 1 BAR is worse upgrade than equipping Cons with 4 SVTs, so it seems fair enough for me.

I find all of these questionable. Osttruppen commander can buy PaKs for OKW, USF airborne commander can buy team weapons for the Allies as well. One big part of balance is the faction balance within itself. How much resources they need. Pro players are experts in managing the damage to their resources, this is one of the major skills that makes them better than the average players. Transferring resources can screw with that quite a bit.
Regarding the SVT/BAR argument: It might be a worse upgrade, but USF's early/mid game infantry balance relies heavily on how quickly you get weapon racks and those BARs out since muni is the limiting factor.
If the argument is that it will be (obviously) deducted from the SOV resources, then there would be no reason against directly transferring resources via a "send" button or even a common resource pool in AT team games (hyperbolizing this). Yes, it can work, but it can also create so many new issues.

No they should absolutely not. They way doctrines were designed is to offer additional options to the factions, which is especially true for OST and SOV since these factions are already complete and just get more tactical choice.

If a factions relies on one or two commanders to be playable, either the commanders or the faction have been horribly designed and are not fun to play.

If doctrinal units were stronger by default, this would also mean that you have a better chance to win by default in the late game if you just aggregate sufficient doctrinal units and abuse them enough.

EDIT: Slightly off topic, but it tackles a similar issue: We have actually seen where the "fixing factions by doctrines" lead us: Nowhere. UKF got a mortar, just to get non-doc smoke in a more recent patch. SOV got SVTs for Conscripts to fix the balance issues with Cons, just to get a 7 men upgrade later and now make it more of a choice of what you want. USF has had the airborne doctrine for a long time and some builds even relied on it to get both support weapons. However, outside of this doctrine the faction was still stuffed with problems, leading to a tech rework which in turn devalued the airborne doctrine.

While it would improve each mode by itself, this would be a nightmare to balance and work with for every developer.

And also for the players since you need to re-learn all units for each modes.

'Proper' seems to be a word that we have different definitions of.

Anyway, all this playercard/rank bullshit leads nowhere, so back to topic.

My point is, contrary to what some people seem to claim here, it does not take whole might of ze Fatherland to tackle ISU, all it takes is a player who knows it and knows how and when to engage.



I suppose clarification is in order, so the whole situation was flanking it first in a place it couldn't retreat from easily(rammed itself on that northen trenches on crossing) and at least 1 shot at panther was HE. Yes, there were 2 ZiS guns protecting it, but they were frag bombed into atoms instantly.

Hopefully that clears things a bit.

Bumrushing anything is always bad idea, but 80% of people discussing balance here seem to be playing the game by setting rally point on opponents HQ and then building random units, going by situations they themselves are describing.

I don't mind too much how your one specific engagement turned out. If you won, good for you. However if you need a Panther, two PaKs, frag bombs and additional infantry support to kill an apparently also mismicroed ISU with badly placed ATGs, I am not sure that this description actually helps your point.
I could state the same thing: Two days ago in a 2v2, the Axis players tried to overrun my ISU with a Tiger, two Panthers and some infantry plus a PaK behind that. Tiger hit a mine and died, one Panther died during the shoot out and the other Panther got snared and would have died as well if they did not rage quit beforehand. I had cons, an SU85 and a ZiS. My mate got an SU85 over, but only after the fight was already won. I lost my SU85 in the process, my ISU survived on half health. So you could say that I defended my ISU properly. Does this example prove anything? No, no it does not.


The vast majority of people in this thread described that the ISU is very good in AI while the AT is bad/mediocre for its price, but still decent enough to be a threat to vehicles of all classes. Many concluded that there need to be either changes to the ISU or to the commander. You argue against changes because - apparently - in your opinion the ISU is fine in both performance and synergy.

You started comparing it to Brummbärs for whatever reason (although in another thread you criticized others for comparing the ISU with Tigers) and claimed that the ISU is unreliable on long ranges which I could prove that it is not after which you stopped responding.

You then claimed multiple times that the AT capability of the ISU were bad, stated that even the SU76 has way more damage potential and reinforced it by saying anything above PTRS is better than the ISU. I'd still like to have proof for that.


The problem is that the ISU has an "okay" base AT can be bumped up to >320 damage with mark target. It bleeds your infantry with fairly accurate HE shells from long range while Axis can't use artillery due to the dive bomb. And heavies can also be cheesed with the ram+bomb.
Either the commander should to be changed (what I am arguing for), or the ISU needs to be changed to create a real weakness, like the Elefant has a weakness against infantry pushes.