What about snares?

First of all, I understand perfectly that COH2 is meant to be an arcade strategy game, it means it hasnt to be too complicated neither "realistic".
I just wanted to share a couple of thoughs, wheter they are balanced or not, we can discuss if it is needed some tweaking. I find snares in the game somewhat misleading and very unfavourable to armor, I mean, the fact that you shoot a pzfaust through the front of a tank and it gets "engine damage" sounds pretty meh to me.
Could the game engine differentiate between back armor snares and frontal armor ones? If so, only back armor snare abilities should do engine damage, meanwhile frontal armor snare could either shock the crew, or break the main gun. This way flanking with infantry to snare a tank gets more challenging and also "more accurate" to an actual tank ambush. Making armor a bit more durable against infantry seems interesting too.

Other idea i once had is for the penal squad, and their PRTS rifles. To change their snare satchel homing bomb nuke to a tread/wheel shot. It is known for tank crews that treads are quite fragile, they are a weak point in any tank, so using their rifles to actually damage the treads is sensible. It could have longer range to compensate the lack of the big explotion of the satchel, but both abilities could be used altogheter, firs break the treads, then later blow it to smithereens. Tread shots would require an aiming animation and could potentially immobilize the targeted vehicle.

Maybe adding a snare to UKF using their PIATS, with and ambush ability like the one in vCOH or simply by hitting rear armor. Maybe reduce their range to balance their new capability to snare a tank.

Even tank shots that hit the rear armor could have an RNG cmponent that indicates to inflict engine damage.

First of all, I understand perfectly that COH2 is meant to be an arcade strategy game, it means it hasnt to be too complicated neither "realistic".
I just wanted to share a couple of thoughs, wheter they are balanced or not, we can discuss if it is needed some tweaking. I find snares in the game somewhat misleading and very unfavourable to armor, I mean, the fact that you shoot a pzfaust through the front of a tank and it gets "engine damage" sounds pretty meh to me.
Could the game engine differentiate between back armor snares and frontal armor ones? If so, only back armor snare abilities should do engine damage, meanwhile frontal armor snare could either shock the crew, or break the main gun. This way flanking with infantry to snare a tank gets more challenging and also "more accurate" to an actual tank ambush. Making armor a bit more durable against infantry seems interesting too.

i wouldnt want to spend a 25 muni panzerfaust snare just to get a crew shocked or a gun damaged on a T-70... that would kill ostheer...

Other idea i once had is for the penal squad, and their PRTS rifles. To change their snare satchel homing bomb nuke to a tread/wheel shot. It is known for tank crews that treads are quite fragile, they are a weak point in any tank, so using their rifles to actually damage the treads is sensible. It could have longer range to compensate the lack of the big explotion of the satchel, but both abilities could be used altogheter, firs break the treads, then later blow it to smithereens. Tread shots would require an aiming animation and could potentially immobilize the targeted vehicle.

PTRS are really bad anti tank weapons... satchel nukes are their only saving grace... id rather keep the satchel nukes over getting tread damaged

Maybe adding a snare to UKF using their PIATS, with and ambush ability like the one in vCOH or simply by hitting rear armor. Maybe reduce their range to balance their new capability to snare a tank.

Even tank shots that hit the rear armor could have an RNG cmponent that indicates to inflict engine damage.

this one is a must... i even won against a churchill an AVRE and 2 AT guns with 3 panzer 4s simply because they had absolutely no snare to catch my P4s... after that match i concluded that UKF really badly needs a buff

i wouldnt want to spend a 25 muni panzerfaust snare just to get a crew shocked or a gun damaged on a T-70... that would kill ostheer...

PTRS are really bad anti tank weapons... satchel nukes are their only saving grace... id rather keep the satchel nukes over getting tread damaged

Could you take a moment a read all the sentence before spitting out BS? Its about giving POSSITIVE FEEDBACK, if you want to troll or flame then im calling a moderator...

I've said, it would make the game harder or more challenging, in favour of new strategies or tactics, since nuking a vehicle with a homing satchel nuke bomb or destroying a tank hitting its frontal armor its dumb. Also pointing out the muni cost could change. T70 are fast, but still would get either damaged, or worse shocked to get hit by a PaK. Im just asking you to be nice and stop bitching.

Its about giving POSSITIVE FEEDBACK, if you want to troll or flame then im calling a moderator...

Your ideas are bad.

If you can't take criticism, don't post on forums, make yourself a blog, post there and disable comments, so you'll have your safe space.

It would not make any harder or more challenging, especially since you have not provided a singular gameplay enhancing or balance reason why it should be. You don't even understand why current solutions are in place - penal satchel for example, it exists SPECIFICALLY because of PTRS aim time before shots.

It would not bring any new stats or tactics, it would simply make armor superior in all circumstances.

Oh and since you seem to like what happened IRL, irl pfaust penetrating front or side of tank didn't disabled the engine-it disabled the tank by killing the crew.

Could you take a moment a read all the sentence before spitting out BS? Its about giving POSSITIVE FEEDBACK, if you want to troll or flame then im calling a moderator...

I've said, it would make the game harder or more challenging, in favour of new strategies or tactics, since nuking a vehicle with a homing satchel nuke bomb or destroying a tank hitting its frontal armor its dumb. Also pointing out the muni cost could change. T70 are fast, but still would get either damaged, or worse shocked to get hit by a PaK. Im just asking you to be nice and stop bitching.

i did read your entire sentence... i get why your suggesting the topic... flanking with units to get engine snares instead of crew shocked or gun damage sounds like an interesting idea... unfortunately it would right away break the balance of the game as stuff like grenadier panzerfausts shot by very squishy grenadiers is gonna be tough... this coupled with the lack of light tanks would make OST extremely unattractive...

cons-OORAH/AT penal + hotpotato should be less affected bcz of the T-70 the M3 car and the hotpotato being able of nuking an tank to smithereens either way...

same goes for volks + luchs + ambushrak... but they wont be as well off as the soviets...

overall if these changes are implemented id expect the soviets OKW to be far stronger than wehrmacht overall... penal PTRS can still ram + hotpotato a panther... but wehr will be helpless vs a T-70

Your ideas are bad.

well, thanks for your feedback.

If you can't take criticism, don't post on forums, make yourself a blog, post there and disable comments, so you'll have your safe space.

You dont have a lot of friends, do you?

It would not make any harder or more challenging, especially since you have not provided a singular gameplay enhancing or balance reason why it should be.

well, im starting here, right now, but you dont seem to care. Do i need to be named katitof to be heard?

Oh and since you seem to like what happened IRL, irl pfaust penetrating front or side of tank didn't disabled the engine-it disabled the tank by killing the crew.

Totally agreed, you forgot to mention that any infantry running in front of a tank should get suppressed to death.

The reason that snare exist become apparent in Coh 1 where vehicles could push AT infantry and prevent them from firing until they could crush them to death. Believe me you dont want to go there.

This might become more apparent with the new patch when Valentines and M10s start crushing infantry.

While your ideas sound interesting (in theory), I don't think that they would be good for the game/balance. These things are like this for a reason.

Its fair to say that katitof pointed out something i missed, changing snares doesnt enhance or balance anything. As the phrase goes: "If its not broken, then dont fix it"

Even though i wanted to share my ideas, i wanted to participate on the forums for a while and this was my first attempt.

..As the phrase goes: "If its not broken, then dont fix it"
...

And I have to respond that with: "if you can easily improve something improve it". Simply that is not case here.

I agree with you but sadly this is how things are, the game is geared towards the more competitive E-sports scene which I also believe lead to Dawn of War 3's fall instead of being geared towards the more casual and more numerous historically aware fanbase that just wants a simple immersive WW2 RTS game to play instead of StarCraft 2 set in WW2.

The reason that snare exist become apparent in Coh 1 where vehicles could push AT infantry and prevent them from firing until they could crush them to death. Believe me you dont want to go there.

This might become more apparent with the new patch when Valentines and M10s start crushing infantry.

Wait, why the hell are m10s getting their crush back?

Wait, why the hell are m10s getting their crush back?

They can't get back something they have never lost.

They can't get back something they have never lost.

Well I recall their crushing ability was severely nerfed because somehow Axis troops loved to hug its treads

Only with blitz like abilities.

M10 and othe UKF lost it's crushing capabilities. IIRC it should be equal to P4

Only with blitz like abilities.

M10 and othe UKF lost it's crushing capabilities. IIRC it should be equal to P4

That is inaccurate "Valentine" still has a rotation of 38 which was the problematic value with the M10. Things get even worse since the unit goes up to 8.4 speed, 45.6 rotation, target size 16.2 with veterancy and that is without even using war speed, while it can call in barrages while it is roaming around enemy units.

That is inaccurate "Valentine" still has a rotation of 38 which was the problematic value with the M10. Things get even worse since the unit goes up to 8.4 speed, 45.6 rotation, target size 16.2 with veterancy and that is without even using war speed, while it can call in barrages while it is roaming around enemy units.

Are you seriously bitching about the valentine? Like seriously man... wtf?

Are you seriously bitching about the valentine? Like seriously man... wtf?

PLS try to use less offensive language.

And no I am no, I am simply pointing out that Valentine is currently one of the best "crushers" in the game.

I suggest you try the unit yourself and draw you own conclusions.