People are like:
“Gaijin, all shells except aphe suck, look how good aphe is and how bad other shells are”
Also people:
“No, we don’t want a rebalance and more historic aphe shells that won’t be meta anymore, we don’t want to use other shells”
I would imagine with complete aphe rework, many vehicles would move up/down br and other shells would get their spot under the sun. But players are afraid of anything that is not a buff to their own meta playstyle.
Not sure what ure talking about, but the APHE adjustmens wouldnt have made APHE much less deadly, maybe even more. As of right now APHE makes a sphere of dmg, with the change the shells would have done more dmg to the “sides” and less to the “front and back” but overall around the same
If i may insert a perspective. These changes some people are boasting how these changes are “accurate”, first bear in mind the fact that you are picking and choosing the most robust aircraft represented in the list, ignoring the extremely numerous number of equally tanky (in game now) aircraft that share none of the real structural attributes that made it MORE sound (NOT as tanky as in game). For instance, documents often state that an average of 1.7 hits on a Canberra type aircraft would be the amount needed to take one down. And meanwhile its seen as a single hit by an FFAR would be seen as sufficient as taking down a Soviet bomber, which at the time and age of the rocket armed interdictors would be exclusively the Tu-4, copy of the Superfortress. The Superfortress is seen as possibly the most structurally durable plane that exists in game. And even it was deemed as being able to be downed by a single 70mm warhead. And yet in game it can tank more than 5 direct hits to the wing, tail, aft fusalage and directly on the engine. These are undisputedly not emblematic of the situation in game. Even a Ju-88, a Schnellbomber, lightly built to be as fast as possible with a bomb load can take multitudes of direct hits of 75mm. And in game it and the B-17 can both survive a direct hit by an AIR-54 Phoenix. I don’t care about meta or that “oh bombers needed a buff” (i agree in general). But each aircraft should be historically accurate to itself and not to its type. Especially damage models. And the appeal of ahistorical aspects already in game isn’t a good argument, i can already see that as an argument. I want the game to be immersive as possible, no matter how far they want to take it in the other direction. Yes I don’t want ahistoric vehicles, ammunition, munitions or performance, no matter if it would FEEL better for some. Yes I don’t want ahistorical teams in the games for a given time period. And yes I don’t want ahistoric maps or lineups (referencing cold war vehicles in with WW2 era lineups). And yes, I don’t want this extremely inaccurate damage model. Just because all these are currently in the game doesn’t mean that i have to accept it or that i cannot complain about their inclusion.
It was shown specifically on cupola shots that with “spherical” damage killed all crew members of some tanks, and with more realistic approach - left driver and radio guy untouched as there were less fragments flying backwards.
Other shells would get their spot under the sun, if said shells were reworked and implemented correctly, see; HESH, HE and APCR (especially post pen) as good examples.
Even if they would get a massive buff - they will still be outshined by fantasy elf-like aphe we have right now.
jea thats ture i remember that, but still, that wasnt “meta” changing much different.
What they have done now is buffing simply all AP but not adjusting APHE, making it even more “effective”
And whith that the SPAA started to kill EVERY single tank from now on with APHE
Oh, you had to tell that to these “skilled” youtubers and their auditories, who cried that this will make certain tanks unkillable (not like these tanks then would move up a BR anyway). And in general will be bad for the game because “The game is about one-shotting enemies, if I have to send two shots its unplayable”
I tried :D
Also I wonder did devs make a dynamic angle pattern based on shell’s speed after the penetration of the armor plate. Like, if the plate is thin, then the shell will have more speed and even less fragments would “fly backwards”, but those that fled forwards would be more deadly. And vice-versa, if the plate is thick, nearly at the edge of penetration, then the shell will be much slower and angles would be more spherical.
Careful with this. Someone who isn’t a moderator will police you and say that “wHaT yOu ThInK iS “rIGhT” dOeSnT mEaN yOu’Re RiGhT”
We are supposed to base our arguments on how we feel about the situation on a personal level.
But i personally feel that this is the way to go;
And sadly i wanted this too for years;
But it was destroyed by the addition of copy-pasted vehicles for opposing nations.
Not that i know of no, you would instandly see this when you “barely” penetrate smt. But to my eye it dont. Mabye i make a video later and count frames before and after penetration to make sure.
Despite this gets a little bit off-topic the quote above might be the root cause for our dissent. Which “other” game are you referring to?
Wrong. The pre-established momentum of the shell would have largely frontloaded all the spread. What you said would be true if the shell was activated while still, but as the shell moves forward the explosion moves with it. It worked as a supplement to the spalling that would happen, and the british chose not to opt for it because they considered the spalling sufficient enough to not need to add a suppliment to it.
Just to confirm, u really wanted to reply to me? :D
I’m glad you said this. Because bombers have been longgggg longggggggg over due for some love.
It has been a long time coming for bombers to be useful again.
This i believe is possible to reconcile with those like lend-lease to nations like Italy, Germany, and Japan, to have a separate tier for vehicles that correspond to early Cold War vehicles even for WW2 era vehicles, depending on when the operating company used it. But it is frustrating.
I agree. But this is way past the mark. The way to amend the situation in an accurate balanced way lies far past the shallow simpleminded implementation they have given us. A change is very much needed from this as it is not something that cannot be healthy for gameplay.
Cries in his Italian m24 when staring down the barrel of an IS-3, watching T-54’s appear in the horizon. While someone yells through the radio “JUST FLANK IT BRO”
You have started to go down a road that i think will require a lot more crayons than you can carry. And even with a trailer full of them, im personally quite sure you will not convince people to agree with you that there’s anything wrong with the current damage model.