Zis2 OP

Seriously, this 290 mp unit does more damage than a flak 88. It one shots Halftracks and takes out armor like the panzer iii in a couple hits.

Well, it's doctrinal so it needs to be quite good. I do remember its deflection damage to be quite nuts. Still, its weaknesses are like any other AT gun. Maybe something is up with stats, Darc could verify pls? ^^

Last edited November 26, 2014 at 5:59 PM by chaosval3

I can agree on that. I played a game with my cousin last night and had a Zis2 (and the AP ammo upgrade from ammo depo), the Zis took out three vehicles in four shots. 2 halftracks and one panzer III. It punches the health bar on the panzers to almost 2/3. 

It was an extremely potent AT gun, even in real life. In fact, it was so strong in early 1941 that the rounds would punch clean through the Panzer III without inflicting any significant damage. They had to retire it form service and re-introduce in 1943 because it was too powerful in the early stages.

Apart from that, I think a HT should have a chance to get away I suppose. But remember, the HT for OH is a fragile unit. Wehrmacht's HT when hit by AP rounds from the American 57mm also practically dies in 1 hit.

It might perhaps be too spammable. Once again, I can't verify the stats. Darc could if he has time or feels like it :).

Still, I would say that the LeIG, the mortar and the Panzerwerfer are extremely good at routing them. You shouldn't have any issues with it. I didn't atleast.

132 wrote:
Seriously, this 290 mp unit does more damage than a flak 88. It one shots Halftracks and takes out armor like the panzer iii in a couple hits.

Oh come on... It deals 35 more damage than the US at gun, has slightly worse reload and a tiny bit better penetration (5%). And costs 10mp more than a US at gun, with a worse crew and no ap rounds...

Hendrik wrote:

132 wrote:
Seriously, this 290 mp unit does more damage than a flak 88. It one shots Halftracks and takes out armor like the panzer iii in a couple hits.

Oh come on... It deals 35 more damage than the US at gun, has slightly worse reload and a tiny bit better penetration (5%). And costs 10mp more than a US at gun, with a worse crew and no ap rounds...

Oh come on?

Come on, Don't bullshit me!

Did you even read the posts above based on other's experiences? As far as I know, USA 57mm AT guns do not take out halftracks in a single hit, even with AP rounds. It will cause significant damage, BUT it will not insta-gib the unit. Also take note, the RANGE of the unit is much larger than a regular AT gun. It has similar range to the 17 pounder AT gun. As for the crew being less weak, that is not the point. Like regular AT guns, the crew usually is shielded well by the gun itself. If a tank were to flank the gun, ofcourse they would die quickly, but thats no different than any other crew.

RE-think about it again, Darcy.

10 more manpower = much larger range, much more damage (even more than the AP rounds ability)
That seems like a bit too much.

chaosval3 wrote:
Well, it's doctrinal so it needs to be quite good. I do remember its deflection damage to be quite nuts. Still, its weaknesses are like any other AT gun. Maybe something is up with stats, Darc could verify pls? ^^

chaosval3 wrote:
It was an extremely potent AT gun, even in real life. In fact, it was so strong in early 1941 that the rounds would punch clean through the Panzer III without inflicting any significant damage. They had to retire it form service and re-introduce in 1943 because it was too powerful in the early stages.

Apart from that, I think a HT should have a chance to get away I suppose. But remember, the HT for OH is a fragile unit. Wehrmacht's HT when hit by AP rounds from the American 57mm also practically dies in 1 hit.

It might perhaps be too spammable. Once again, I can't verify the stats. Darc could if he has time or feels like it :).

Still, I would say that the LeIG, the mortar and the Panzerwerfer are extremely good at routing them. You shouldn't have any issues with it. I didn't atleast.

Of course it is doctrinal. So is the flak 88. Thats why they are powerful. They fulfill the similar purposes of ANTI-Tank duties (Anti air for the flak88 is not its main use and is irrelevant). However, the Flak88 costs 450 mp and dozens of fuel to produce, costs lots of CPs from a primarily defensive doctrine. It is also immobile. Based on my experiences, the flak 88 DOES NOT one shot halftracks at all.

On the other hand, the Zis 2 requires much less CPs and is a bonus to an already-very powerful doctrine with many varieties (it seems a bit like an overkill too). The Zis 2 in comparison only costs 290 manpower and NO fuel. It is mobile and also has very good range. Like me and what others said before, it ONE-SHOTS halftracks. Based on this logic, the zis 2 does more damage than the flak88.

However, the flak 88 has advantages in terms of penetration and range. But this perfect example of evidence is not trying to steer the topic off board with a flak88 vs zis-2 topic. Instead, im comparing the two, showing how ridiculously effective that the Zis2  itself has many advantages to the point where it is better than one of the most feared german AT/anti-aircraft guns of WWII.

Range is 60m, just like every other at gun in the game. Range parameters also are the same. I'm gonna check ingame, too. But from what I've played so far in the past it was fine.

Last edited November 26, 2014 at 9:41 PM by Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.

I doubt it. The OH halftrack has the same hitpoints as the Wehrmacht HT, which is 315.

315:(150+35)= 1.7027~

Unless some modifiers are bugged, it should take 2 shots without crits.

Well me and others above say that that is not the case, that the friggin zis-2 one shots my halftrack with full health. I remember one game I was destroying infantry with my horde of halftracks with the flak upgrade, but many of them, even the ones with ace veterancy level 4, just died in one hit by a single zis 2.

If you could upload a replay to provide evidence then we can perhaps spot the issue. The stats should be in order so maybe it is a bug.

Cheers!

As already written: My Zis had the AP ammo upgrade AND was vettet up - this might come in handy when making in-game test.

SchlagtSieTot wrote:
As already written: My Zis had the AP ammo upgrade AND was vettet up - this might come in handy when making in-game test.

That explains a lot... Upgraded ZiS-2 guns with veterancy are of course much more effective. 15% higher damage, 15%better Penetration + vet boni (more range, more damage, 40% better Penetration). Overall, vetted ZiS-2 are deadly against all kinds of armour. But that's intended, just like vetted US at guns rape axis tanks.

Yeah I thought it was probably a thing worth mentioning. That said, I vets up pretty quickly. Dunno if it raise in ranks faster then PAK or 57 mm tho.

I will have do do some testing with this beast.
Ordinary Zis2 w/o ammo upgrade and vet.
Ammo upgrade no vet.
Ammo upgrade and vet.
No ammo upgrade, vet crew.

@132 Do you know if the Zis you played against was vetted and/or had the ammo upgrade?

Ah yes, thanks for the details. The AP upgrade is quite incredible. I can't say if it's needed or fair for it to effect the zis-2, but then again, we would have an upgrade without benefit really if you went RHS Propaganda. The vet scaling should be pretty similar to the US 57mm, I think. Nothing out of the ordinary, unless Darc proves me wrong.

Last edited November 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM by chaosval3

Can one of you number-fiddling-stat-gurus please enlighten me on how the AP upgrade affects the different weapon systems?
Exactly what does it contribute to Zis (2+3), SU76 and so on.

Just played a game vs expert ai. Had the ammo improvement upgrade on zis 2 and it 2 shotted panzer iii with full health.

Played a game against another expert AI. The zis 2 had a very large range than an AT gun. It took only 2 shots from it to kill my ACE VET marder II. BUT it took only 5 SHOTS FROM THE SU-85 to kill the marder, which is a huge difference. So I can tell you there is no way the Zis 2 does as little damage as you say.

Please upload the replay in the replay section. We need to directly see the issue. This is all nice and well, but the stats are fine so it must be some bug. If you can't upload the replay, we can't help.

132 wrote:
Played a game against another expert AI. The zis 2 had a very large range than an AT gun. It took only 2 shots from it to kill my ACE VET marder II. BUT it took only 5 SHOTS FROM THE SU-85 to kill the marder, which is a huge difference. So I can tell you there is no way the Zis 2 does as little damage as you say.

I can imagine. Vet for ostheer doesnt give many defensive bonuses, mostly its better reload, more damage and so on.

I'll look into the matter.

i think it probably is a bug,  maybe having to do with the model. I know when i was modding a year or two ago, I used the tiger ace skin from the campaign and it did very little damage compared to what it initially states in the stats (cannon was same damage as regular tiger but just did less damage than I thought)

Let's recap, Zis 2 does 185 per shot and like the Flak it has a huge 50% extra damage modifier against the enemy halftracks (actually I saw Flaks one shooting on M3s with awesome out of control scene  :P), while by itself the Zis 2 shouldn't kill the sdkfz 251 from full health, this cannon shares all boni from its "lesser cousin" so the extra 15% damage and penetration from the armoury upgrade paired with the vet 2 +25% damage and +40% penetration make this Zis 2 a frightening presence for any German vehicle. Any of these two could be enough to one shot kill the halftrack.
As a side note IIRC the Zis gets a range improvement on vet 3.

Ah right, I forgot about the bonus damage modifiers. Still quite new to this lol, my bad. Why should we have these against a harmless HT again?

chaosval3 wrote:
Still quite new to this lol, my bad.

I can tell. If the zis 2 is almost as good as the flak 88 there is something wrong.

chaosval3 wrote:
Ah right, I forgot about the bonus damage modifiers. Still quite new to this lol, my bad. Why should we have these against a harmless HT again?

Leftover from 1.00 I guess. I've deleted the value already.

As in the bonus damage modifiers? Yes. I doubt we all know as much as Darc does about it(since he implements most of it :P). Otherwise, one wouldn't compare the strength of the Zis-2 to a Flak 88. The Flak does 225 damage per shot excluding damage modifiers while the Zis-2 does 185 without any upgrades and damage modifiers. I suppose the crazy buffs could be toned down. Still, if you get it to vet 2 or spent this much resources only to kill a HT, then I think it's only fair to do so. I mean, 3CPs + 290 manpower + 140 manpower & 35-40 fuel( IIRC) is a lot if you want to kill a HT. Besides, some units just lose their worth a certain amount of time into the game. COH has always been like this. A Faust hitting the Jeep is an instant kill or an AT gun hitting a Wehr Bike is an instant kill. This is merely a step up, the same idea applies. But, I suppose we could make the HT able to survive 1 shot.

Thanks for the clarification by the way ATL! I don't have COH here so I can't check the stats with Corsix unfortunately :P.

Edit: Seems Darc ninja'd me lol

You still don't get the point. Regular at guns will take out around 40% health of a Halftrack. A zis 2 only needs one shot and its kaput.

Hendrik wrote:

chaosval3 wrote:
Ah right, I forgot about the bonus damage modifiers. Still quite new to this lol, my bad. Why should we have these against a harmless HT again?

Leftover from 1.00 I guess. I've deleted the value already.

...

132 wrote:
You still don't get the point. Regular at guns will take out around 40% health of a Halftrack. A zis 2 only needs one shot and its kaput. You can say the same for many other vehicles, since a couple less shots needed to kill is a HUGE bonus to the AT gun.

...

@132
I'll try to word better what @darc said in his last post, because of your reply #28 it seems there is some sort of confusion.

It is uselss you argue than we don't get what you say and that only zis 2 one shots halftracks is irrelevant at this point... because it was acknowledged as a bug due to an old stat from an ancient version (reply #24).

Thank you for getting this thread open so we notice the problem and thanks to @ATL for the tip, I'm sure we would haven't gotten it that fast if both of you wouldn't have point out this, so I'm locking the topic because the rest is up to us.