Sounds like a good change imo, though needs testing especially with big calibers.
Nerfing APHE won’t make solid shot better.
4 Likes
We’re all talking about the nerfs coming to the APHE but what about the buffs? The implementation of the slug will make it in some scenarios much better than previous APHE.
You might actually be able to consistently ammo rack a KT from the turret face since the slug can continue on and hit the ammo instead of being absorbed by the crew.
Fuel tanks won’t fully absorb APHE anymore since a stronger inner cone and the slug can penetrate through.
Maybe shooting through the engine block may create a secondary spalling that’ll damage the crew.
3 Likes
Correcting APHE is a good decision regardless though.
Keeping APHE OP cause we think or prove standard AP is underperforming is not the answer.
3 Likes
Honestly the amount of bleating in favour of the game never changing and just continued stagnation in this thread makes me think you should save these “votes” for things like economics. If it’s more realistic in the devs’ view, you should just do it. BRs will adjust, new metas will be found, people will cope.
6 Likes
I agree. The developers have a vision of the game’s mechanics; War Thunder is meant to be the middle ground between arcade and simulation, combining elements of both styles.
Simulation in the sense that physics, damage models and mechanics are highly detailed; arcade gameplay in the sense that you can use any vehicle in 3rd person with a mouse and a keyboard.
If the modelling of a shell type can be changed towards a better, more realistic iteration that corresponds to the game’s vision further, then it should just be done, irregardless of whether some players are too afraid of change because they think they would not perform so well if it were to be implemented.
2 Likes
Without at least partially simulaing bigger fragments bouncing around the interior, it won’t bring realistic results either way.
it will not. and again, better to improve them, not nerf others.
3 Likes
interesting, will the amount of moanings on russian bias rise after these changes? because after them, you won’t be able to do THIS.
1 Like
That also should be taken care of, but im afraid it would fry the hamster.
1 Like
In my opinion balance should (to as big of an extent as possible) be done with BR changes. Not with A-historical ammo/armor/speed/etc or non-accurate physics.
Guys, I see that many of you rise “realistic” aspect here.
Please remember, that we’re constantly looking into ways of making the game as realistic as possible, but at the end of the day War Thunder is a video game (computer game for PCMR :) and we can do it only to a point. Realism cannot suck fun from the game.
19 Likes
There is a point where realism must be sacrificed for balance, and imo this is where it is.
People that complain about heavy tanks being bad will only see them moved up further where they are entirely irrelevant, due to not being able to reliably kill them with weakspots.
Damage generally has to be more then IRL for everything, for one simple reason- tanks are hellishly harder to kill ingame then irl. Irl a penetration, an engine loss, really any major damage would result in the tank being abandoned, but that isnt fun.
We need a balance of ammunition and proper balance and roles for tanks, and if we must sacrifice realism, so be it.
Indeed! That is also why I brought up the gameplay considerations from my point of view;
In many cases, realism sucks fun out of the game; but in many other cases, it is lack of realism that sucks said fun out of the game.
2 Likes
I like your sentiment, but Gaijin have been know to implement changes they think are accurate/realistic only to be shown wrong later. So at least giving players an opportunity to voice opinions is a good thing, but players having full authority on implementation is also wrong. There should be votes but ultimately the decision should be the devs.
T H I S
Thank you.
'Cept it wont. Heavy tanks without their weakspots wont be balanced and will be moved up into a place that makes their armor irrelevant.
1 Like
Whole point of this thread is to discuss this change before we implement it (and give you ability to voice your opinion and suggestions). It really matters for Game Designers to get your PoV.
Edit.
Even if 100 Snails play the game, it will be still much less, than number of you discussing in this very topic for the last 2h. More PoV - more ideas and arguments that can be discussed when (if) they implement it.
6 Likes
You are completely missing the point…
Im not claiming that everything needs to be realistic ingame, but APHE is an exception among shells that it is unrealistic
AP? Realistic
APDS? Realisitic
HEAT? Realistic
HESH? Underperforming
APHE? Overperforms a LOT
Why is APHE allowed to be the exception? Why are all the other shells held to a realisitic standard and APHE isnt?
10 Likes
In many occassions, realism and balance are indeed the opposite sides of a point; however, in this case, they go together.
The issue now is that certain shells are a one-hit kill guarantee, while many others are irrelevant by comparison. The gap in capabilities and performance between these is too large; and leaving aside the warranted fixes some kinds of shells (APCR, etc) may need, the solution is not to artificially buff these.
APHE shouldn’t turn into a thermonuclear bomb when they enter the interior of a tank, that is the opposite of balance, precisely.
Heavy Tanks will continue to have weakspots, just realistic ones; and they already are forced to face many vehicles that makes their armor irrelevant; mid-late WW2 Heavies facing HEATFS and ATGMs, Super-Heavies facing stabilised APFSDS MBTs…