With realistic damage, the difference between an AP and an APHE would be that the APHE would make a slightly larger cone of damage, whereas the AP with the slightly smaller cone would travel more meters inside the tanks since, by not exploding, the bullet It has not fragmented as much. This would make them somewhat similar bullets but at the same time having visible differences in the damage. Apart from this, of course the damage of the other bullets would have to be corrected: Tungsten carbide bullets with fragmentation practically the same as the AP, tungsten alloy bullets with somewhat less fragmentation than carbide ones, HEAT and HEAT-FS with damage depending on the remaining penetration after piercing the tank (if there is at least 100mm of penetration left over when piercing, it would have spalling somewhat less than one AP, increasing the damage if the excess penetration increases or decreasing the damage as the excess penetration decreases.
Of course along with this should come changes to the Br of almost all tanks, and in some cases the restriction of initial tank APCRs to a few shots.
With this APHE and AP would have barely any difference, and AP would 90% of the time have higher pen.
Also ammo limitations are dumb, shouldnt exist (except om gep, since that has a proper reason)
Yours ends up with a lot of rounds that are very, very similar, wheras with mine you get:
- Actual round variety, makes there substantial upsides and downsides to both APHE, AP, APCR, HEAT, and APDS.
From a game design perspective I find your idea abhorrent- most of the rounds in function will be nearly idential. I dont want AP and APHE to almost be the same, I want them to be clearly different sidegrades to each other.
Both the 75mm and the 76mm and the American 90mm barrel have AP and APHE ammunition, and in those three cases the APHE pierces more. The fact that the AP pierces more than the APHE in many cases is due more to the barrel than to what be AP or APHE.
This would be somewhat realistic, since in WW2 tanks on all sides used small amounts of APCR because it was an expensive metal.In any case, this would mean that those same small tanks would not be able to use APCR as much, and would have to reserve them for specific objectives.
From experience the current variety of ammunition is based on that, if you can use APHE because it is by far the ammunition that kills the most, if you are limited to using only AP you are at a disadvantage, if you can use HEAT the game will decide whether you kill or not regardless of wherever you shoot, if you use APCR it is because you are crazy, if you use APDS and APDS-FS you will do reasonable damage although sometimes the game will decide that your bullet does not make any fragments. This would be how the game’s damage model is right now, and honestly it’s a real piece of garbage. What’s the point of having a variety of bullets when in the end you can only try to use APHE.
Both the 75mm and the 76mm and the American 90mm barrel have AP and APHE ammunition, and in those three cases the APHE pierces more. The fact that the AP pierces more than the APHE in many cases is due more to the barrel than to what be AP or APHE.
I have zero qualms with slightly altering penetration on rounds on some guns.
This would be somewhat realistic, since in WW2 tanks on all sides used small amounts of APCR because it was an expensive metal.In any case, this would mean that those same small tanks would not be able to use APCR as much, and would have to reserve them for specific objectives.
Alright… clearly we should be enforcing historical loadouts for tanks??? The only reason why stuff like the Gepard has limited APDS is because it had a separate reserve belt for it only.
From experience the current variety of ammunition is based on that, if you can use APHE because it is by far the ammunition that kills the most, if you are limited to using only AP you are at a disadvantage, if you can use HEAT the game will decide whether you kill or not regardless of wherever you shoot, if you use APCR it is because you are crazy, if you use APDS and APDS-FS you will do reasonable damage although sometimes the game will decide that your bullet does not make any fragments. This would be how the game’s damage model is right now, and honestly it’s a real piece of garbage. What’s the point of having a variety of bullets when in the end you can only try to use APHE.
It is not really what it is, because a lot of the rounds upsides do not outweigh their downsides, if they even have any upsides. With my idea they have balanced upsides and downsides, making there a good reason to choose each round.
you realize that 200g of tnt is still more than a stick grenade right ? i dont think that the crew would do fine with getting one of those through a hatch…
You really want the same treatment like germany??? ok.
What about Sherman barrels cant depress because the rearview mirror collision model is like 2 times bigger and block the gun.
Or what about add a useless NV device for tanks cant see night battles and only is there for block the gun and make your tank more easy spot fot the enemies.
Maybe too you want remove all light and fast tanks between 3.7 and 6.7 and stay hidden behind premiun pay wall.
And of course move up in BR without any buff and retaining his prevoius nerfs.
They are not more bad than the other nations. Before Gaijn just destroy all sniping positions and create brutal holes in Germany TT his win ratios were more less similar to the other nations.
None of those issues are specific to Germany.
And none of this issues cant be find in US tanks so stop complain.
Well that’s not true, also this is my thread to complain about issues specific to the tanks I like, so I’ll keep complaining.
Tell me what USA tanks suffer the issues i described above???
Of course, US tanks dont have 100% win ratio so they SUFFER!!!
The Super Pershing has the springs on top to balance the gun. They are considered internal components and allow the crew to be overpressured.
Tanks like the M26 have the idler wheel bulges on the lower front plate. Despite being outside of the hull, those bulges are represented as weak spots in the lower plate armor.
The M1A2 SEP 2 is required to mount TUSK, which is dead weight and the CROWs system is an HE magnet.
The performance of APBC is heavily nerfed, despite it being the primary AP round from WWII until the M60.
The are weak spots not stupid double sized hitboxes can block your gun.
Outside Germany this type of problem cant be founded.
Meanwhile US have acces to probably the second best APHE in the game only after the fantasy russian shells.
Again you camplain becuase you are too fanatic for play another antions, but germany is trash from 1.0 to 8.0 right now.
“If you don’t have the exact issues I’m talking about, your tanks don’t have any issues” is certainly a take.
You mean the T30 event tank that few people have? Thats laughable when Germany gets stock and free APHE and some of the best the BR for BR. Not to mention also receiving multiple APHE variants, which is the exact point I made in this thread.
You are comparing weak spots with intentional nerfs. So no, no are the same.
US tank have free and stock stabilizers and cal 50 can be used by commander when this machineguns are in the back of the turret. But Gaijin hate USA!!!
Thats happend when you only play one nation.
In most of the cases you only use one type because the perform between shells is minimal and after unlock the new shell with better pen you discard the old one but in your biased brain this is a huge adventage!!!
No, I’m comparing intentionally fabricated weak spots to the hit boxes you’re complaining about.
Some US tanks have stabilizers. Thats not even remotely the same issue though and you know it. German tanks aren’t lacking stabilizers they historically had.
I don’t play only one nation. I primarily play US tanks but I have most of the German tree unlocked and some of the Russian tree. Germany still has the best guns BR for BR.
Starting with the only round you need is a huge advantage. Not having to pay for it is a huge advantage.
The day the US 90mm gun is accurate and historical is the day pigs fly, and also the day HVAP doesnt suck.
Make no mistake, Gaijin does model the diameter and weight of tungsten carbide cores in APCR rounds.
The APCR calculator just sucks that much.
Who uses APCR??? Masochists?
The issue is Gaijin also uses the carrier weight and gives it too much influence in penetration.