Tanks in city battles: Something feels wrong

Having played a decent number of games I have come to realise - as probably most of you - that most games end in heavy tank battles. Perhaps more so in team games than 1v1.

On most maps in COH2 this is not really a problem. They are fairly open and rural maps. Tanks should rule in such environments.

But there are a few exceptions such as City 17. All games here also end in tank-onslaughts.

Bearing in mind how city battles on the eastfront worked out, it doesn't feel right that tanks also decide the matter here. There may be a few other maps too.

It is probably a part of the problem that the SU infantry doesn't have any real AT. They have the AT-grenade, but it's not usefull against tanks for much else than enginedamage. Besides, it cannot be used inside of buildings. Unlike the shrek.

But I think a more important problem is that tanks are too good building crushers. Infantry and support units, that should be the natural main combatants in city warfare, have a really rough going even taking shelter in large stone buildings.

I'm not familiar with the strength of the various buildings in COH2, but I assume that the wooden buildings found on most maps have very low survivalbility against tanks.

So if tank shell damage to buildings was reduced, perhaps the 'tanks win city battles' problem could be reduced without it really influencing the battles in the majority of rural maps?

It would actually be nice to see some fights end by other means than tanks, wouldn't it?

i get what you're trying to say, and i aggree with you mostly, but some tanks like the su-76 and the stugs dont need a building damage nerf. these tanks are designed to crush trough heavy obstacles

keep in mind that during the war the soviets didn't have many different kind of AT weapons like the germans had, but they had a lot more guns. one of the reasons why the soviets won the war is because they had built more AT guns and artillery than any other country. if relic make AT guns more affordable it would make up for the lack of ATs the soviet has. also, in city maps you can make pretty good use of the line of sight feature.

No? You exactly can't.

The best chance of the Zis atm is exactly if it can have LOS for its entire range. That way it can get 2-3 shots off before it is bypassed.

That is typically not the case in City 17 where tanks will - evidently - aproach in a zig zag between buildings. In short, you mostly get one shot off as the tanks turn a corner. After that it's game over for that Zis.

I think that AT guns could get damage bonus at point-blank range (less than 10 meters), So they will be more effective vs tanks charging directly in front of ATG's barrel And such bonus could be very useful in urban areas, where we can ambush armor (imagine PAK creeping behind edge of the building) with ATG by using true sight :-).

since when are tanks in the game "a problem?"

Use the truesight system in coh2 to bait enemy tanks onto your mines, det charges, ambushes, faust/atnade squads and they will be sitting ducks.

Tanks need infantry to support them, including checking blind spots on city maps.

Relic is not going to rebalance the game because your general impression of the east front is that everything was a nice big open corn field. For every Kursk there was a stalingrad/berlin/vladiovostok

since when are tanks in the game "a problem?"

Use the truesight system in coh2 to bait enemy tanks onto your mines, det charges, ambushes, faust/atnade squads and they will be sitting ducks.

Tanks need infantry to support them, including checking blind spots on city maps.

Relic is not going to rebalance the game because your general impression of the east front is that everything was a nice big open corn field. For every Kursk there was a stalingrad/berlin/vladiovostok

Your post leaves me in doubt if you are serious or just trying to defend something about the german side.

But assuming you actually mean what you ask: tanks are not a problem as such. Only on the city maps.

Tanks should be at a disadvantage in cities, but they are not in this game. And the point is, that the deterrent that infantry was against tanks in cities, is not present in COH2. Well, at least not on the soviet side. You can't deny that.

Your post leaves me in doubt if you are serious or just trying to defend something about the german side.

But assuming you actually mean what you ask: tanks are not a problem as such. Only on the city maps.

Tanks should be at a disadvantage in cities, but they are not in this game. And the point is, that the deterrent that infantry was against tanks in cities, is not present in COH2. Well, at least not on the soviet side. You can't deny that.

tanks ARE at a disadvantage in cities because infantry can use blind spots and cover/buildings to close in on them. You'd rather be running across an open field at a ostwind/p4/is2?

You are confusing potential balance issues regarding soviet AT options on infantry with unrelated issues including map balance, historical arguments, and your gameplay tactics.

Changes made for "city maps" will affect units in all modes, including 1v1 competitive games. What is unbalanced in a 3v3 might work great in a 1v1, and vice versa.

The way to approach the desire to see increased soviet AT options is not to say "I think this is what it was IRL so this is how it should be in game"

Relic should have expanded on vehicle sight, vision for vehicle should be much more limited like only 90 degrees in front of them (not 360 as is now). That would force the use of combined arms with infantry as support.