lots of guns in this game tend to over perform or under perform due to penetration calculator gaijin uses which doesn’t match historical ballistic performances of guns allowing them to pen things they shouldn’t which is unrealistic
obviously most documents for top tier tanks are classified so they can keep running the old math
but for low like WW2 and early cold war we should be on real penetration graphs
so I’m putting a poll here to see what you guys think if we should stop using the charrles demare calculator and use historical documents for WW2 and early cold war
This below is just personal opinion and conclusions from what i’ve seen talked about on the forum and the WT wiki.
I think the biggest hindrance Gaijin has is different nations having different standards of what counts as having penetrated (or perforated) a certain amount of armor. So the exact same round tested and documented by two different nations might have very different conclusions and results written down in the documents just purely based on them testing by different standards. For example (making up numbers and standards just as made up points to show what i mean) if nation 1 counts penetration if the round even pops out the other side even slightly whilst nation 2 only counts it as having penetrated if at least 1/4 of the round still exits the armor on the other side and while nation 3 only counts it as penetration if the round also has the capacity to further penetrate Xmm of steel after the armor.
The calculator they now have is likely Gaijins attempt at having their own standardisation that lands somewhere in the middle of the two extreme ends of historical documentation and is based on measurable provable factors of the projectile such as speed, dimensions, weight, composition, etc. . Which is also likely why you see both underperformance and overperformance in different rounds compared to documentation.
I don’t personally think there is a much better way that wouldn’t also lead to A LOT of issues with the player base and a lot of extra work for Gaijin.
I agree because yes, the standardisation is probably more fair than trying to unravel and fairly compare shell types and performance.
but I disagree because I think there is a lot of performance that the current system doesnt account for / things they dont model. For example I dont think Depleted Uranium rounds really have much of advantage over Tungsten/Tungsten alloy rounds, which has quite an impact on the post pen damage on some rounds and things like Perforation of ERA isnt even modeled (ERA performance is whole other can of worms though)
So I think the system needs refinement. With several shells clearly needing buffs, especially as there is more to it than just pure pen. But it does help keep the playing field reasonably level. (though Id prefer if they went back to using reload rate as a balancing measure)
As a general statement i do agree, but i think just making the current system slightly more complex would be good enough.
Something they could do as a general thing that would buff the rounds that should be buffed without it introducing to much of a workload is to add material composition multipliers in the same way they have armor type multipliers. So a steel rod get one multiplier while a tungsten rod gets another and Uranium gets a third and so on. Not based on density alone though, but also taking into consideration things like adiabatic shear.
Yep, I agree completely, that seems like the logical first step
The next would be things like the DU incindiary / spall effects being better modeled (I beleive at least, im a bit out of my depth here, iirc, DU is suppose to be quite potent in the post pen department) at the moment I think spall is just directly related to the mass of the shell and nothing else (again, im a bit out of my depth with how this is actually handled in-game)
I think it’s also based on residual penetration left after going through the armor, take a APCR shell and shoot it at a tank in protection analysis and then change the distance till it juuust barely goes through and compare the spall amount.