Australia
I've been arguing for this since the game released, yet still nothing has been done nor has there been much notice taken of this, which I regard as one of the most glaring issues in CoH2 today.
Currently rear armour is too strong. This is particularly prevalent amongst heavy call in tanks.
One of the few ways it should be possible for an inferior tank to destroy a larger heavier tank is to flank it. But the superior effort, micro and skill required to pull this off goes entirely unrewarded. Often, be it a Panzer IV or T-34 or Sherman, getting around the flank is rewarded by nothing more than a few bounces, whilst the rest of the enemy's support destroys those tanks with ease. The happens all the time, be it if it is an ISU, IS, Elefant or Tiger series.
Let's look at a classic example: The T-34/76 vs Tiger.
The Tiger's rear armour is 180
The T-34's penetration is 120
I'm not exactly familiar with the way penetration is work out, but those odds don't look good. (+/- 25% chance to pen I guess...) In the time that is required for a T-34 to flank effectively, it is easy for the Tiger to turn and knock it out (particularly given the state of CoH2's pathfinding). The problem here is that the skill required to flank a Tiger simply isn't rewarded. A player's (at times heroic) attempts to flank a Tiger go unrewarded and useless and almost invariably would result in the loss of a T-34 for next to no gain.
I've noticed similar situations where Panzer IVs have flanked an IS only to find their shots bounce off enough for the IS-2, slow and heavy as it is, to knock out even 2 flanking panzer IVs, this shouldn't happen, that IS-2 should be dead.
The situation worsens in the case of Heavy Tank Destroyers.
Take the classic case of an outflanking Pz4 taking on an ISU-152. The Panzer IV in this situation has not only had to try to flank the enemy's support (be it cons, AT guns etc) but also has to be mindful of the ISU's 75 (iirc) range, not to say the sheer power of the ISU's gun.
The statistics are more favourable here (120 pen v 155 rear armour) but the fact remains that that a significant amount of the Panzer IV's will be bouncing off and the effort that is required to flank simply goes to waste. An even worse situation follows with units such as the T-34 versus the elefant or Jagdtiger, both of which have even harder front armour. The Sherman obviously falls in the same category.
So what's to be done? It's clear that for all sides medium tanks, flanking goes unrewarded. Whilst it does provide a better chance of penetration, the amount of shots that will bounce are still offensively high (offensive to the player's skill in pulling off the flank).
So what needs to be done?
Simple.
Lower the rear armour of all tanks across the board.
Certainly below the penetration of non-doctrinal medium tanks. With the skill involved in flanking, RNG should not come into play at all. A personal recommendation from me would be roughly 90 for all heavier tanks. ISU, Tiger, all of them. Make it almost a guaranteed penetration for flanking. That's why you flank.
This change should make flanking more rewarding whilst at the same time not damaging heavy armour too much in other categories. The damage done to them when those shots do penetrate are fine. What isn't okay is when planning and skill are unrewarded. Granted, it's a nerf for heavy tanks, but what were you doing showing your tanks rear to the enemy in the first place?
Reward player skill, not player stupidity.
[disclaimer: I apologise if my stats are incorrect, but long games trying to flank still make my views valid.
, you're a bad boy.... Anyway, if it's in the game, no one can be blamed for using it. It's hard to stay on top, and you have to do what you have to do in order to achieve it.
0
Macgivor
MarcoRossolini
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
