IvanUbijoRusa

Hull break is bs and should be removed

Well GJ always comes up with very bad solutions when they are forced to balance something :dntknw: maybe in some years they will fix it but i would not hope for it, look for example at the spawn protection solution that failed so miserably that they even removed it again 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's the same thing as crew lock and many other similar game mechanics ... extremely lazy attempt to find least effort solution to very complex problem

  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same with the new added mechanic that put you upside down when a bomb explodes, who in Gaijin decided this would be funny ?

 

We dont care if its real or not, its not fun to be upside down waiting for  an enemy to kill you

 

Terrible.

medal medal

Share this post


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

Literally just removing hull break from APFSDS would fix 99% of the issues.

 

Restrict it to HEAT/HE only and you got the easiest fix in the world.

No it's not a solution either, you fire and APFSDS trough the thin armour of a light vehicle, it should take it out of combat.

The solution is do add armour modules that if hit should cause a hull break.

Anyway, considering how OP is the ADATS, I don't mind that hitting it anywhere should cause a hull break.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's odd that helis don't have hullbreak but tanks have, either remove it or give helis hullbreak, or better make shells more realistic, an APFSDS passing by a crew member 2 centimeters away, not taking any damage (the beam is kinda hot and hurts) , heat shells should create a heat beam hurting near by crew members (not talking about the normal beam we have in game)

There is also "too thin of armor" in real life, that's why they "still" use Heat-MP , a solution would be to be able to change the ammo without shooting, aka taking the round out of the breach, and taking it back to the ready rack, yes it would take more time, but you wouldn't give your position away. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

From time to time a 300kg AP 283mm shell go all the way on the hull of a small PT boat without doing anything to it, when working correctly the PT boat MUST hull break, sometimes it does not work and the heavy cruiser get torpedo, because the heavy cruiser have to reload 20 seconds in order to load HE instead of AP. 

 

Sure hull break mechanic is not perfect but can not be removed altogether.

 

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheWild [email protected] said:

I agree, the amount of times i get hit in the turret by a small caliber gun and getting hull break is stupid. Any type of HE shell(HE,HEAT,HEATFS, APHE) from high caliber gun should hull break only.

HE, HEAT, HEAT-FS yes, but not APHE

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2020 at 14:36, Silent_Witch said:

HE, HEAT, HEAT-FS yes, but not APHE

So you fire a 122MM APHE round trough a BMP and it shouldn't hull break it. It kinda makes sense, right ?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Despeao said:

So you fire a 122MM APHE round trough a BMP and it shouldn't hull break it. It kinda makes sense, right ?

depend where the APHE hit, critical parts like engine or gun breech which is firmly secured on the hull, energy could easily transfer to hull and rip it apart, then it should

all the way through the chassis, it should

external mount MG? side armour that only make a hole due to over penetration and not severe structural damage, then it should not

same go for any kinetic round which does not have the velocity turning the penetration into hydrodynamic response

Edited by Silent_Witch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Silent_Witch said:

side armour that only make a hole due to over penetration and not severe structural damage

Do you seriously think that a 122mm round trough the side of a tank would not cause structural damage ?

medal medal

Share this post


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

Do you seriously think that a 122mm round trough the side of a tank would not cause structural damage ?

depend where you hit, a crew hatch or hit an MG port, it is not going to be big issue

if some where vital like the a tons of weight was supporting on that point then yes, then where do we draw the line, what size of calibre would affect such structural damage

if it is simply for game balance then all type of round should be included, no matter chemical or kinetic, filled or solid

 

Edited by Silent_Witch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they should remove the sub caliber shells the possibility of doing hullbreak. That ammo was made to hit and pen very armored stuff doing minimal damage outside(compared a full regular caliber for same gun) but a lot of fragmentation because the speed of the shell+the armor penetrated shrapnels.
If u hit an armored vehicle with a subcaliber
shouldn't be a huge problem for him unless the hit enter from the front killing several crew members XD or penetrations from the transmission or engine where they can do fragmentations inside the vehicle or big damage. Because is dumb to see how u hit the point of the gun barrel with a 3kg shell with no explosive and "hullbreak" or a wheel in the soft parts and the same result...a hit in a wheel shouldnt be critical too if the vehicle have 3 or more extra wheels who keep rolling with no problem. But if u have a damaged wheel and running with 3 and again another critical hit in another wheel,ok,u are done u "cant" go with 2 and thats it "hullbreak":good:
Even a direct hit with an explosive shell in a wheel if the explosive
isn't too much damage to leave u with 1 or 2 wheels left or damage inside the hull too so that hit shouldnt be hullbreak :dntknw:

This is like youtube videos of T72s shooting with AP against buildings where is some infantry hidin.U can see the "small" impact holes and the low damage made because the walls are made of too soft materials and the subcaliber is just doing overpenetration and they needed several hits for every wall. Doing only "critical damage" to the estructure once they hit a pillar

I play a lot of light vehicles and i can understand a full caliber from 75mm or more can kill me with 1 hit even with no detonation because the hole in the hull  is going to be huge like 10-30cms...but a subcaliber shell like sabots or APFSDS against a poor armored vehicle  should be like a 5 cms +/- and pretty much no fragmentations if they dont hit something hard like the engine or trasmission before the crew compartment.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/07/2020 at 12:26, *ThunderBolt__29 said:

We dont care if its real or not, its not fun to be upside down waiting for  an enemy to kill you

 

The problem is it's one of WT's selling points (even though I don't know what they are selling, it's not the game). Realism that is and sadly Gaijin seems hellbent on adhering to that point. To the point that the game and it's community suffers.

 

Maybe I am mistaken, but aren't video games supposed to be...fun? Not Life-Sims? That's what people play "The Sims" for and somehow even that game seems more fun then a game trying to be a real-life Sim.

Edited by CaptDaragoth
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, remove it and enjoy the extreme clubbing by Ru251, M18, Flak Bus and VFW.;)

  • Confused 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

You can easily spot those who never experienced the pre-hullbreak era calling for it to just be wholesale removed and nothing else.

It is certainly needed, but I think a  proper rework on hull break is needed too. If it stay for balancing purpose, all type of shell should have the capability of hull break but on vital equipment and chassis only. I.e. gun breech, turret. Not wheel, track or external mount MG

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.