Rear Armour needs to be nerfed - Across the board

Jump back to quoted post8 Aug 2014, 15:29 PMMilkaCow

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious. Flanking is not rewarded? Most of the tanks have half the rear armor compared to their frontal armor, so you have almost always a 100% chance to penetrate. There are a few exceptions in both directions.
The heavy assault guns / tank destroyers tend to have far more frontal armor compared to their rear armor, examples would be:
Jagdtiger: 525 front, 150 rear (29%)
Panther: 290 / 110 (38%)
Elefant: 400 / 150 (38%)
...
There are like I said also exceptions in the other direction, units that have more than 50% of their frontal armor as rear armor. Those ones are they heavy tanks:
King Tiger: 425 / 225 (53%)
Tiger: 300 / 180 (60%)
IS-2: 375 / 205 (55)

Why is that? Because these tanks are extremely slow and easy to flank, but also need to be directly in the center of the action. The support guns listed previously need to stay at range and their armor reinforces that role - flanking is super efficient vs those since it's hard to do and creates an interesting gameplay where a player needs to protect those. Flanking against something like a Tiger on the other hand is far easier to do - it can't stay on range and it is not really mobile (less mobile than IS-2 unless it's blitzing, FYI). So I'm fine with the concept and I honestly don't think that rear armor would change that much. If you fight a heavy tank and you can flank in most cases you drive right behind him to block his escape route. Even with side+rear armor that would make those tanks too susceptible to flanks and too punishing, so the design in the end would stay similar I guess.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 17:05 PMDullahan

Flanking is rewarded. Increased damage and chance of penetration is factually true.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 17:16 PMMuxsus

There is no increased damage on rear armor shots.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 18:07 PMDullahan

Looks like I'm confusing games again.

Is there an increased crit chance?

Jump back to quoted post8 Aug 2014, 14:22 PMastro_zombie

In my opinion, the single biggest design failure in this game was not adding real "side armor." For those of you who do not know, the tank is cut in half, the front half, including sides, gets "front armor", the back half, again including sides, gets "rear." That is why they will probably not nerf rear armor, because it's also the faux "side" armor and the consequences of doing it are large. I said it in beta, they have their excuses for not implementing it, none of which swayed my opinion.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 18:10 PMVuther

Pretty sure there ain't, just better pen vs. armour ratios.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 19:13 PMAustralian Magic

I agree that medium should have 100% chance to penetrate ass of any heavy tank, but.... It's impossible to implement (I mean, it is possible but CoH2 is far behind WW2 games even from 2005 in that matter )
Side armor
Wanna 100% chance to penetrae rear? Then rear must be ONLY rear, not half of the tank. But the same way, sides and front cannot be front armor.
That's why there should be front armor, side armor with value of current rear, and truly shitty rear armor.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 21:54 PMelchino7

IIRC, engine damage/destroy deathcrit only applies if hitting rear armor.

Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2015, 17:05 PMDullahan

Flanking is rewarded. Increased damage and chance of penetration is factually true. (Also the benefit of cutting off your opponents retreat.)

Suicide runs to get behind a Tiger with supporting units is not.

There's all this talk about "I put in X amount of micro and my opponent didn't have to micro so hard, therefore I should have an advantage!" on these forums. You need to divorce input from tactics.