And do what?
Same as Tiger H1, will perform closer to Tiger E after the change.
MG port area will still hurt it a lot, the tip of the round will hit the ammo behind it and then possibly the fuel tank as well, the cupola not killing the turret crew could move it to 7.0 or even 7.3, we’d have to test to see how significant it is
MG port shot, the round will hit the gunner and the commander behind it, side shrapnel will potentially kill driver too, still one-shotting the tank as the loader is the only one left alive. Could potentially hit a fuel tank as well depending on angle
turret neck would still kill the turret crew, driver port will kill driver, likely MG and 2 turret crew as well
3 crew members, can one-shot with solid shot if you know where to aim. We’d be able to see exactly what would happen with these in a test enviroment, and the BMP is already facing a lot of HEAT/SABOT anyway.
Already awkward to one-shot, not much would change there. You also see a lot of .50s around that BR, which they’re vulnerable to.
IS-1 can be penned in the LFP, turret cheeks are 100mm, shooting to the right of the gun will kill commander+gunner. IS-2 might be awkward depending on volumetric as that side of the turret face has an additional plate, we’d have to test it and see how much would change.
Gaijin could increase the BR of the vehicles that have weakspots like this alongside the change, based on testing results, so there’s not much imbalance. Some of the less obvious effects would become obvious if there’s a test environment that lets us see exactly how the new fragmentation will interact with existing armour and damage models. If things become (significantly) better in-game it’ll reflect in their efficiency and they’ll have their BRs changed.
The new system wouldnt take the heat, the power of the shock that doesnt dmg. Player wants to be added making more dmg but they also want a New mechanic that makes less dmg. Search the error
As i already said, they can do some br rework, fix volumetric shell system, ghost shell, add new tank to minor tree and else
STOP THE STEAL!
(I’m gonna get myself banned again, aren’t I?)
11 Likes
I find the Tiger Ausf. H1 example a little funny, the Tiger Ausf. E already exists which already has a massively reduced cupola weak spot so the only difference between the 2 would be 50 horsepower and like 1 d/s of turret traverse speed. What stops the Ausf. H1 from being 6.0 like the Ausf. E?
From the share page:
Play for free with friends in the most realistic online game.
From the About section:
War Thunder is the most comprehensive free-to-play, cross-platform, MMO military game.
War Thunder was always meant to depict vehicles and their capabilities as faithful and authentic replicas of their real life counterparts:
This was always War Thunder’s goal, the developers’ vision and the reason why it is successful among the majority of its players, who joined precisely under this premise. This is not WoT.
2 Likes
But instead we’ll get a mechanic that will just buff even more the unrealistic shell damage type. a “no” majority means we’ll keep aphe as it is, but with more secondary spall from penetrating armor and retaining the trajectory of the warhead after the explosion. As if aphe wasn’t op enough already, now it’ll be ready to just overkill tanks.
2 Likes
Because that wasn’t the vote. The options presented were either a) make APHE much better than it is now with a significant counter-nerf for balance, or b) balance buff with nerf.
Everyone who voted No, whether they understood it or not, has now voted for the significant APHE buff that’s coming, which seems actually a net negative for gameplay. I don’t know anyone who wanted to increase the OSK potential of APHE before this week.
In this case realism and gameplay actually pulled in the same direction, Yes. But the question was so badly put that people couldn’t see that.
4 Likes
Ok but even with a “yes” that would be added. “No” voters arent the cause of this very change
My main issues is that the changes don’t make solid shot/APDS better, and that Gaijin won’t balance stuff well, leading to months of imbalance at lower BRs.
I also don’t like how Gaijin didn’t say there was a test in the actual post, and only in the poll. It has lead to lots of confusion.
1 Like
Its so Explains.
Now i understand why British Government refuse to use APHE. And says about it: “the efficiency is not higher than the usual AP”.
In other words, APHE just increase cone of shards. Not super oneshot explosion.
So it would have no impact, okay.
If you can pen the Panther cupola then you can also pen the mantlet, killing commander + gunner, and you can pen the turret corners (not sure what the effect would be without being able to test). See my previous comments about the Tiger.
APHE is getting a big buff regardless of whether or not we have a test environment for the more realistic fragmentation, so I don’t really see this as being too relevant, sorry.
1 Like
Except it is much stronger than the Tiger E armor wise if the cupola is gone.
And for all other tanks i also know their weakspots. But in reality removing any reliable way to kill an enemy is a huge buff to survivability of a tank.
And decreasing spread of spall itself is another buff on top of that.
I don’t trust Gajin to adjust BRs after the change properly, i am fine with current consensus
Where did you hear that from? Why would it be getting buffed?
The real APHE re-work that Gaijin was talking about 🤣
They actually switched to it because the fuse was incredibly unreliable and refused to work most of the time.
APHE does considerably more damage even in real life, but it’s prone to failures and crew will bail out a tank after a penetrating shot most of the time anyway, even if it doesn’t get killed
How?
Because APHE is 100% getting a buff:
People managed to twist the vote to oppose correcting the currently overperforming behaviour.
Meanwhile, this correction that further improves it will make it through.
People who wanted APHE to remain OP will be happy once they learn that APHE will only become EVEN BETTER just because they oppose realism and actual balance.
3 Likes