Stona

Updated Combined Simulator Battles

7 hours ago, IceDeath said:

My problem is that people like you want to TRY turn this into some kind of historic\sim game, but this just cannot happen, no way with the way game is built and I dont understand why you cant see that. 

Just look past your wishes and "oh how cool it will be", imagine all current player base with the same problems (inability to even now play SB because it is too hard to ID a tank without marker), random battles type of game play etc. It should be very clear that you cannot build a real sim out of this game, at the very least because there can be no sim without infantry.

What I propose on the other hand is taking the current mode called SB and making it more playable for people, enough people play it already and enjoy, I dont care how it is called, I just care that I really like how it plays and the potential with few simple adjustments are event greater, all we need to do is drop this whole historic\simulator pretense that will never work in this game any way and go full on game play focus.  

 

All this historical\simulator wishes is like trying to make Americas Army into full on simulator (if you know what that game was\is, for the sake of argument lets focus on old AA:O of 2.x versions), just because that shooter had bigger maps, all the stances and ADS does not mean it was ever close to sim or that it is possible to turn it into sim.

A bit better know example Project Reality from BF, had some nice features, a different game play with some complex mechanics, not a sim and could never become one. 

I really wish Gaijin would already just change the names of the modes like they did some time ago, get rid of Realistic and Simulator names and change it to something else, something that will stop people from getting wrong ideas about the game. 

 

I disagree pretty much completely (unsurprisingly).

 

Perceived level of skill of the player base (or lack thereof) shall have no bearing on the game design. Games are to be made by the devs as they seem fit and us players are there to deal with it. In-game tutorials or something along these lines would be nice to have, of course but that's about it.

 

Sim cant be a sim without infantry? You lost me there... What about all those WW2 games of the ancient past like Jane's WW2 Fighters, Aces High, Il-2 serie etc - were those not a sim? Of course you can't have THE perfect sim, just doesn't mean you give up on the goal completely and start messing around with the gameplay randomly, does it?

 

All that being said there is no right or wrong in this discussion and all is a matter of personal preference. From the business point of view I'd say it'd make more sense for Gaijin to impact wider audience tastes by also having a more sim part to their game as well but perhaps there is more to consider or it's just too costly and hence we're seeing the game turning more arcadish even in "sim".

 

That is also sort of "fine" (as in Gaijin's right) of course, it's just that there is no communication as to if things are going to continue like this or what. Simply some sort of a detailed manifesto about what they have in store for the game for the future would be most appreciated. Just so people could perhaps plan their long term real money investments into the game accordingly.

 

Oh and on the account of not enough people playing the Soviets, I could think of just one possible attempt at a solution and that would be a flatrate multiplier to all the rewards for the players of the underplayed side to possibly encourage people to field this side's vehicles more.

  • Upvote 6
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, laachta said:

we're seeing the game turning more arcadish even in "sim".

 

Where you see that... Explain. I can't remember a single arcadish direction change in past years. Could you please tell me what the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you always wanted to repair for 50 min instead of 40 sec and that bothers you?

 

In my opinion sim is getting better and better, it's just a very slow process.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, _Nirvash said:

 

Where you see that... Explain. I can't remember a single arcadish direction change in past years. Could you please tell me what the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you always wanted to repair for 50 min instead of 40 sec and that bothers you?

 

In my opinion sim is getting better and better, it's just a very slow process.

 

I'm sorry but what? Decent big gf map turned pretty much non-existant or ruined in gf, crew replacement mechanics being thrown at us over and over one way or other, external engine sounds...

 

It is true that it's not always so black and white and there are good changes now and then (like the new event lineups) as well and hunternz is genuinly trying to help but over all my sentiment is that as a whole the game has been drifting away from sim for quite some time and still is. Having said that I'd be more than happy if the future proves me wrong.

  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laachta said:

 

I disagree pretty much completely (unsurprisingly).

 

Perceived level of skill of the player base (or lack thereof) shall have no bearing on the game design. Games are to be made by the devs as they seem fit and us players are there to deal with it. In-game tutorials or something along these lines would be nice to have, of course but that's about it.

 

Sim cant be a sim without infantry? You lost me there... What about all those WW2 games of the ancient past like Jane's WW2 Fighters, Aces High, Il-2 serie etc - were those not a sim? Of course you can't have THE perfect sim, just doesn't mean you give up on the goal completely and start messing around with the gameplay randomly, does it?

 

All that being said there is no right or wrong in this discussion and all is a matter of personal preference. From the business point of view I'd say it'd make more sense for Gaijin to impact wider audience tastes by also having a more sim part to their game as well but perhaps there is more to consider or it's just too costly and hence we're seeing the game turning more arcadish even in "sim".

 

That is also sort of "fine" (as in Gaijin's right) of course, it's just that there is no communication as to if things are going to continue like this or what. Simply some sort of a detailed manifesto about what they have in store for the game for the future would be most appreciated. Just so people could perhaps plan their long term real money investments into the game accordingly.

 

Oh and on the account of not enough people playing the Soviets, I could think of just one possible attempt at a solution and that would be a flatrate multiplier to all the rewards for the players of the underplayed side to possibly encourage people to field this side's vehicles more.

Here is the problem, you dont want sim, you want something kinda with pretense AGAIN, there is just no way of making a TANK sim without infantry because in real life (that is what sim is about, simulating conditions as close to RL as possible) infantry and tanks are 2 things that always go together, there is no way to respect a short barrel 75 on early Pz. IVs because it is not a tank killer, it was superb infantry support vehicle with great HE shell, and you know that during war how good of a HE shell tank had was SOOOOOOO important, same reason why people loved 75 on Sherman so much, because meeting Panther was pretty rare while having to clear out MG nests, AT guns, Halftruck, lightly armored scouts etc etc etc, all that was what tanks engaged THE MOST and in the begging the much better HE shell of 75 made it much more preferable to have rather than 76 armed Sherman. This is just a small example of 1 small detail and you can find HUNDREDS more of such details.

No what you want is also not a sim (btw from what I have seen, IL-2 tanks are also not a sim, at least no where near right now, may be later, and Aces High I was unable to find any kind of video evidence of why would anyone call that game a sim) but pretty much the same as WT SB GF but a bit more hardcore, but here is the thing, but just for a sec imagine that you get YOUR game just like you wanted it, and then people come to the forums and start demanding MORE SIM, playing using keyboard is a CHEAT, lets make everybody buy some kind of special kit with steering levers, but you will be allowed to play with that kit only tanks that had such system, for some British tanks and if memory serves Tiger also had a kind of a steering wheel, so in order to play those kind of tanks you have to buy another kit with a steering wheel and so on. There is always someone who will demand MORE SIM.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, IceDeath said:

Here is the problem, you dont want sim, you want something kinda with pretense AGAIN, there is just no way of making a TANK sim without infantry because in real life (that is what sim is about, simulating conditions as close to RL as possible) infantry and tanks are 2 things that always go together, there is no way to respect a short barrel 75 on early Pz. IVs because it is not a tank killer, it was superb infantry support vehicle with great HE shell, and you know that during war how good of a HE shell tank had was SOOOOOOO important, same reason why people loved 75 on Sherman so much, because meeting Panther was pretty rare while having to clear out MG nests, AT guns, Halftruck, lightly armored scouts etc etc etc, all that was what tanks engaged THE MOST and in the begging the much better HE shell of 75 made it much more preferable to have rather than 76 armed Sherman. This is just a small example of 1 small detail and you can find HUNDREDS more of such details.

 

That's BS... it depends what Kind of Simulator you want... a Simulator portraying an actual battle, actually doesn't Need realistic tank controls only realsitic tank behaviour to recreate a battle accurately.

 

A vehicle Simulator (like flight sims, as they were created to Train to fly a machine) only Needs to recreate the machine accurately. Most driving and flight Sims are like that.

For example even DCS is fairly inaccurate when it Comes to anything other than aircraft. Infantry isn't simulated... well there is infantry but not to a extend you'd call simulated. IL-2:1946 same Story... hell X-Plane is licensed for Pilot trining... but doesn't have passengers. It really depends

 

The purpose of a Simulator is to portray a vehicle close to the real Thing (in DCS to the extend that you actually learn how to start a ww2 aircraft). That's why SB AF is considered a soft sim by most...

 

Actually Simulators sometimes leave out important things.

 

Here is a gravity Simulator:

http://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html

 

is gravity the only force working on an object? no... is it still a Simulator? yes.

 

 

So for a tank on tank combat Simulation or a tank vehicle Simulation no infantry is needed.

A entire battlefield Simulator Needs infantry... but you then no longer Need to create the work-enviroment of single People in the battle, so you can get rid of Cockpits controls etc... as the vehicles only Need to behave realisticly.

 

What you are describing is a Simulator simulating a tank in a realistic battle Scenario... but that doesn't mean the other things aren't Simulators. Otherwise that gravity Simulation wouldn't be a Simulation... but it is.

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Milsims "aren't sim enough" to many people - that's not a justification to not improve the game in a direction that better serves to distinguish it from a regular arcade shooter.  And it's certainly not a justification to make it even more arcadey.  Hell, in IL-2, multiplayer, players get to select their aircraft and spawn at airfields much closer to each other than what would be commonplace during the war.  People can fly solo rather than in formation.  People, in single player, can warp time and space in order to not spend 40 minutes flying to the combat zone doing nothing.  People can throw their aircraft around in a fashion that would be practically impossible with short sticks that don't resist the player's inputs when the control surfaces are put under pressure.  People can use the mouse or a hat switch to look around instead of purchasing TrackIRs and/or padlock enemy aircraft if they find such things awkward.

 

That still doesn't disqualify IL-2 from being described as a 'flight sim'.  To argue otherwise is bordering on a Nirvana fallacy.

 

Besides, most people I've seen in SB aren't even demanding anything like a milsim; I, like many others, accept that the game (including the air SB portion) should be considered a 'soft sim' if anything, but I also think most of us would love to see the game trend more towards an immersive feel with reduced arcade gameplay mechanics and more historical accuracy. 

 

If you've got the game that you want, which you constantly refer to as "a shooter", well that's fine.  People are still going to argue for a more realistic, immersive feel for SB.  The game already has two shooter modes, after all.  Constantly arguing this point strikes me as a fruitless endeavour, especially considering it'd be time and effort better spent to come up with solutions.

 

Half the reason I don't bother posting so much here anymore is because every bloody thread here devolves into ridiculous and damn-near neverending circular arguments.  I don't think that's helping anyone, especially now that it seems like SB is actually getting at least a little attention.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laachta said:

I'm sorry but what? Decent big gf map turned pretty much non-existant or ruined in gf, 

 

There are plenty of big maps on sim battles. From what I see, previous patches contained nothing but big maps (El Alamein, Tunisa, Volo, Port) I don't what's your point. The Fields of Normandy is also a good addition for those who don't want to drive T95 for 30 mins to only realize, that they wont do a thing in this battle. 

 

You are just blindfolded, or I don't know how to call it.

 

2 hours ago, laachta said:

crew replacement mechanics being thrown at us over and over one way or other

 

In my opinion it is good addition in state it is now, so you have to go back to your base and recrew. There is nothing wrong in it.

 

2 hours ago, laachta said:

external engine sounds...

 

I don't really know what you have in mind here. What's wrong about them? 

 

2 hours ago, laachta said:

the game has been drifting away from sim for quite some time and still is.

 

Well, maybe in your opinion.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IceDeath said:

Here is the problem, you dont want sim, you want something kinda with pretense AGAIN, there is just no way of making a TANK sim without infantry because in real life (that is what sim is about, simulating conditions as close to RL as possible) infantry and tanks are 2 things that always go together, there is no way to respect a short barrel 75 on early Pz. IVs because it is not a tank killer, it was superb infantry support vehicle with great HE shell, and you know that during war how good of a HE shell tank had was SOOOOOOO important, same reason why people loved 75 on Sherman so much, because meeting Panther was pretty rare while having to clear out MG nests, AT guns, Halftruck, lightly armored scouts etc etc etc, all that was what tanks engaged THE MOST and in the begging the much better HE shell of 75 made it much more preferable to have rather than 76 armed Sherman. This is just a small example of 1 small detail and you can find HUNDREDS more of such details.

No what you want is also not a sim (btw from what I have seen, IL-2 tanks are also not a sim, at least no where near right now, may be later, and Aces High I was unable to find any kind of video evidence of why would anyone call that game a sim) but pretty much the same as WT SB GF but a bit more hardcore, but here is the thing, but just for a sec imagine that you get YOUR game just like you wanted it, and then people come to the forums and start demanding MORE SIM, playing using keyboard is a CHEAT, lets make everybody buy some kind of special kit with steering levers, but you will be allowed to play with that kit only tanks that had such system, for some British tanks and if memory serves Tiger also had a kind of a steering wheel, so in order to play those kind of tanks you have to buy another kit with a steering wheel and so on. There is always someone who will demand MORE SIM.

 

Well, we seem to be starting to go in circles (I fail to see any new arguments brought up in this last comment of yours) so I'm going to leave it at that that we just want something else from the game.

 

While some sort of a (semi)historical immersion (with both map layouts and match ups playing important part here) is of utmost importance for many, it is clearly not for you (and many others too). There is nothing wrong with that on either side, just a matter of different tastes and preferences. And honestly, with the way things have been going for quite some time I don't really expect to ever have the game the way I'd want to, more like the opposite so I'm just sticking around for the small pieces of the game left out to still resemble some immersion (currently pretty much only CAS or AA missions in those gf events with the odd dog fight now and then). Should your idea of completely ahistorical allies get implemented, that would most certainly be the end of it for me too. Which I kinda expect to happen one way or the other at some point anyway so hey...

 

So yeah, that's pretty much it from me. :) Good day and see you around on the battle field (for now anyway)!

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, _Nirvash said:

 

In my opinion it is good addition in state it is now, so you have to go back to your base and recrew. There is nothing wrong in it.

 

Tanks rarely did that... they might have been reentered to Service after they got knocked out and were recovered from the battlefield... bun in most cases a penetrating hit meant that the entire Crew bailed out.

 

same with the in battle repairs... completely arcadish.

 

Tank controls as well... completely arcadish

 

the reintroduction of the HUD -> arcade

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, _Nirvash said:

I don't really know what you have in mind here. What's wrong about them? 

With your own engine running you pretty much wouldn't be able to hear tanks from the outside... or planes for that matter. In war thunder you know if a tank is in the area by Hearing them... -> arcade

 

 

Like Reaps said, every step removing the Arcade from sim helps.

The Kind of Simulation IceDeath proposed can't happen if we don't have the vehicles simulated first... but if we want that we somehow don't actually want SIM... (while we technically would have a Simulator but not a Battle Simulator... it would still be a vehicle simulator).

 

The SB GF we have now simulates nothing... well it does simulate fighter aircraft... in ground Forces Sim the only Thing that is "sim" are the aircraft... says it all

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, _Nirvash said:

 

There are plenty of big maps on sim battles. From what I see, previous patches contained nothing but big maps (El Alamein, Tunisa, Volo, Port) I don't what's your point. The Fields of Normandy is also a good addition for those who don't want to drive T95 for 30 mins to only realize, that they wont do a thing in this battle. 

 

You are just blindfolded, or I don't know how to call it.

 

 

In my opinion it is good addition in state it is now, so you have to go back to your base and recrew. There is nothing wrong in it.

 

 

I don't really know what you have in mind here. What's wrong about them? 

 

 

Well, maybe in your opinion.

 

While some of the maps you mention are decently sized, some parts of them look a tad too arcadish/"mazish". The really good ones (imho) like mozdok, normandy and poland got ruined royally recently.

 

Engine sounds concern aircraft part of the game only - you can hear other planes engines from far out over your own. Completely arcady/non-sim.

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

same with the in battle repairs... completely arcadish.

 

Tank controls as well... completely arcadish

 

the reintroduction of the HUD -> arcade

 

Oh, Well. You would be playing this game... alone. If not these "arcadish" things.

 

 

26 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

With your own engine running you pretty much wouldn't be able to hear tanks from the outside... or planes for that matter. In war thunder you know if a tank is in the area by Hearing them... -> arcade

 

Not entirely true, while playing tanks you mostly hear your own engine. It is when you stop, you can hear enemy tanks clearly (or when they start to move) (excluding Maus).

 

There are many things devs could do to improve sim experience, e.g. I would like to see a commander goin out of coupola when you use binoculars. Interior of a tanks etc, but I don't think it is going to happen at all.

 

I like the game it is now and I don't care about "Simulator" trademark. I welcome every new interesting feature. I like this mode, because it has interesting and entertaining gameplay.

 

The main problem is that this game will never be simulator as you would like it to be, you have to come back on the ground. Enjoy it as it is and is going to be, or change the game.

 

19 minutes ago, laachta said:

The really good ones (imho) like mozdok, normandy and poland got ruined royally recently.

 

What are you talking about. Big version of Normandy is still the same and it is played quite often. Poland with Break mode is the biggest Poland ever. Mozdok in the big version is still played on sim, but very rarely and I agree with that, it's just really bad map tbh.

 

19 minutes ago, laachta said:

Engine sounds concern aircraft part of the game only - you can hear other planes engines from far out over your own. Completely arcady/non-sim.

 

Yep, it is a bit broken if you say about planes. 

 

 

Edited by _Nirvash
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, _Nirvash said:

 

Oh, Well. You would be playing this game... alone. If not these "arcadish" things.

 

 

 BoM doesn't have them... you get your engine shot up , it becomes a turret.

 

And People Play it. By your logic DCS would be abandoned as well... same goes for every serious flight sim.

 

But if you speak for everyone, why are the "more sim" suggestions more popular that the "arcade" Suggestion.

 

 

Also laachta said SB GF becomes more and more arcadish, and as you seem to admit: he is right.

 

 

It's actually a entirely different demographic, that Plays SIM... you can't expect These People to also Play arcadish stuff like RB/AB.

 

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

Also laachta said SB GF becomes more and more arcadish, and as you seem to admit: he is right.

 

I didn't say that I agree with him? I said the opposite.

 

Most of ppl from sim plays another modes. If you check their stats, you'll see.

 

36 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

But if you speak for everyone, why are the "more sim" suggestions more popular that the "arcade" Suggestion.

 

There is nothing like more popular, you can't say that. There are only couple of players from sim looking at this forum. The thing with medkits, was bad and the community refused to accept this sollution, because they wanted only crew replacement like today, not medkits.

 

I'm always looking forward for sim-like additions, but in the end the gameplay is what matters and for example I would not like to see 100% historical vehicle setup, cus it breaks the gameplay. There are some special historical events organized by gaijin for that.

 

36 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

And People Play it. By your logic DCS would be abandoned as well... same goes for every serious flight sim.

 

 

DCS is a different game than WT and WT will never be like DCS. DCS gets it's playerbase by having hard stuff there, WT does not.

Edited by _Nirvash
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, _Nirvash said:

 

I didn't say that I agree with him? I said the opposite.

 

I know, but you minor Statements where all like: arcade changes are good.

 

1 minute ago, _Nirvash said:

 

Most of ppl from sim plays another modes. If you check their stats, you'll see.

 

 

Yes my Argument exactly... making SB GF a Sim would broaden the playerbase. None of These Players are Simmers...

 

Same with SB AF, most Sim Players Play nothing else. That is a good Thing.

 

1 minute ago, _Nirvash said:

There is nothing like more popular, you can't say that. There are only couple of players from sim looking at this forum. The thing with medkits, was bad and the community refused to accept this sollution, because they wanted only crew replacement like today, not medkits.

 

I'm always looking forward for sim-like additions, but in the end the gameplay is what matters and for example I would not like to see 100% historical vehicle setup, cus it breaks the gameplay. There are some special historical events organized by gaijin for that.

 

It matters to you, some expected something like a tank experience... they didn't get it. So they complain... rightfully so.

 

1 minute ago, _Nirvash said:

 

 

DCS is a different game than WT and WT will never be like DCS. DCS gets it's playerbase by having hard stuff there, WT does not.

 

That's bull, DCS doesn't get People because it's hard... it get's Players by being authentic and immersive. Same reason People Play SB AF.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

That's bull, DCS doesn't get People because it's hard... it get's Players by being authentic and immersive. Same reason People Play SB AF.

 

I like War Thunder because it's sim mode feels authentic and immersive BUT it starts with me on the runway with the engine ready-to-go. DCS looks terrifying because of the start-up procedure and the tower/ground crew calls - it's almost like having to study for an exam before taking off. Once in the air, they seem roughly equivalent in terms of immersiveness (though I've heard DCS is much more authentic). I really like the current Sim-level of War Thunder which I guess makes me a fan of Sim-lite - I wouldn't really want to change anything (except perhaps having more of the bigger maps in GF, oh...and bombers obviously).

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

 

That's bull, DCS doesn't get People because it's hard... it get's Players by being authentic and immersive. Same reason People Play SB AF.

 

Yea, I had that in mind, didn't know how to say it. I'm not so good in english :D. Sorry, wanted to say something like - hardcore

Edited by _Nirvash
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

 

That's bull, DCS doesn't get People because it's hard... it get's Players by being authentic and immersive. Same reason People Play SB AF.

 

Yea, I had that in mind, didn't know how to say it. I'm not so good in english :D. Sorry

 

2 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

I know, but you minor Statements where all like: arcade changes are good.

 

No, It's just your way of understanding my words. I didn't say that. I have ment changes which do not affect gameplay negatively.

Edited by _Nirvash
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys get back on topic please? 

 

Have you realized that allies in the last match-up spammed T44? The issue with that tank is that it cannot be penetrated. Even with 180mm penetration the turret almost always just absorbs the shell. It does not even bounce. Shot dozens today using Panther G 75mm Apcr and normal Pzgr. 90% absorbs and bounces. 

 

The T44 (which has never seen the war) must be removed from the line-up until its damage model issues are found and fixed. Out of 3 hours of playing today, Germans lost every single match, no exception. 

 

It is unbalanced and historically inaccurate. Please check the numbers / statistics from rank 4 line-up from Thursday to Friday. 

Edited by Fenris_wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, _Nirvash said:

What are you talking about. Big version of Normandy is still the same and it is played quite often. Poland with Break mode is the biggest Poland ever. Mozdok in the big version is still played on sim, but very rarely and I agree with that, it's just really bad map tbh.

 

 

 

I haven't seen big poland in ages (since 1.59). Same with normandy. Eastern europe you get the big version only in battle mode. Same with mozdok. All talking about the sb events. Unless there was some awesome patch I completely missed in the meantime I'm going to call this part of your post plainly wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong and I readily apologize. It is true that I don't really play gf any longer, only fly in those sim events regularly.

 

Nothing personal - you're certainly a very respectable player considering both your in-game performance and conduct I've ever seen on the forum so far.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fenris_wolf said:

Exactly. Even hitting center right it just absorbs the shell in most cases. It doesn't bounce. 

 

Any idea why that might happen?

 

http://gifmaker.cc/PlayGIFAnimation.php?folder=2016080509KiVFOcS5kU1EmhUvO4eMzK&file=output_zz5VgW.gif

 

As you see on this gif, there is a turret armor layer, behind gun mantlet. Armor of these two plates is 240mm. This is your answer. You have to aim closer to the gun.

 

When you have problems with pen some turrets, it's probably of such armor layers.

 

You have to think by yourself about the reasons of such things, otherwise u'll rather not improve.

Edited by _Nirvash
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

emm no, there is 150ish mm in the turret on the side with wierdass angle. mantlet is 130ish mm.

meaning: mantlet can be pened from 1000m easy.

IceDeath just noticed that there is indeed 240mm of armor, but in tinyass area.

Edited by Althix
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, _Nirvash said:

 

Where you see that... Explain. I can't remember a single arcadish direction change in past years. Could you please tell me what the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you always wanted to repair for 50 min instead of 40 sec and that bothers you?

 

In my opinion sim is getting better and better, it's just a very slow process.

ATGM's on tiny maps.  Flying jets in the skydome.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.