This change will probably make APHE more realistic, so i understand why you would want it in Sim battles, but not the whole game is meant to be ultra-realistic.
Just because something is realistic, doesn’t mean it’s good for the gameplay. And this change clearly isn’t.
It makes it harder to kill vehicles that show their vulnerable parts, it makes shots overally less reliable and creates problems that will later on take months to fix if they will even be fixed at all.
Why introduce something that will only break the game in ways that will make lower tiers unplayable for the few upcoming months until they fix the BRs that will be all over the place?
And even after they fix BRs, some vehicles will be in the state of permanent imbalance, either too weak or too strong as only thing keeping them from being busted are weakspots (Tiger Porsche, Sherman Jumbo, KV-1 variants)
sigh
Jesus christ im going to have to explain this.
A significant amount of the weakspots will be eliminated by this, or will do less damage when shot. Because of this they will be significantly harder to both pen and kill, and thus will be moved up to a point where their armor is irrelevant.
As to your second point, I can forsee those same WW2 heavies being moved up further because of this. They are simply too hard to kill with conventional rounds without the weakspots, and will be forced further and further up until they reach full APDS/HEAT-FS territory. If you want heavies to be good, encourage buffing of other ammunition’s damage, not nerfing of APHEs.
Sure, but I was talking about all the opinions like this:
“Why introduce something that will only break the game in ways that will make lower tiers unplayable for the few upcoming months until they fix the BRs that will be all over the place?”
That basically amount to telling the devs’ to do nothing that changes this game up, ever again.
Indeed. Of course some changes may need further additional refining to polish down and fully adapt said changes, but that’s not a bad thing.
Instead of thinking that things may be better after said changes, some users jump straight into the conclussion that “everything would be destroyed and would never ever be addressed ever again”, and that’s out of the equation and wrong.
If we went by that logic, the game would still be the same as in 2014.
Not removing or changing the internal overpressure mechanic makes these changes fairly pointless, its a slight nerf is some situations, slight buff in others, puts a bit more ownace on people to aim better, but if your shell has more than 170g tnt none of it matters, and sometimes you will even be externally overpressured by aphe shells that should never do so. This isnt a reason to not implement the changes, but if you actually want to do the realism thing and make it fun, changing the internal overpressure too would be a good move.
I have thought about it being better afterwards, but I seriously doubt it will be. If there is a flaw in my logic you are free to point it out- I want you to, in case I have missed something. I dont give a flying fuck about realism for this, because perfect realism isnt balanced.
This would have massive effects on long-reload guns like the soviet 122s, and would make them extremely bad. A reminder that the requirements for killing a tank ingame are vastly different from IRL- you have to knock out all of the crew or destroy the ammo.
I am primarily talking about those that acknowledge that the dynamics between some tanks would change, but that then proceed to state that the game would be “left on absolute chaos” instead of also acknowledging that these changes would likely be followed by BR changes (and ideally decompression) to adapt these changes as well.
Additionally you’ve added shell shatter to apds while Aphe doesn’t suffer it at all. Realistically aphe was very prone to shell shatter or failure to detonate. This is the reason the British used solid shot instead of aphe so early in the war.
If your improving the damage model to be more accurate then I would hope you also add the accuracy of shell shatter or failure.
See, that’s the issue; many people are building their stances not on the topic at hand; but on hypothetical assumptions of potential aftermaths based on terribly pessimistic speculations.