Do you see this as needing fixed or just a limitation of the game engine?
1 Like
Limitations of the game engine. I’ve had my IPM1 take a Dm23 round to the turret cheek at 500 meters and been penned straight through to the ammo which detonated the ammo and killed the crew.
Used it for a Tiktok
Or this shot which just occurred because a Boxer popped the back of my head in my IPM1.
A DM12 HEAT round somehow killed my crew because of overpressure mechanics, when in reality the detonation of the ammunition would drive the penetration of the molten jet AWAY from the crew.
1 Like
Tbh, you could just ‘fix’ This by having a sanity check on the calculation. Certain round at a certain angle hits the ufp, autobounce if under a certain weight. (3bm42 partial pens for reference) Heavier round in same situation pens.
2 Likes
That would be a nice thing to bring up as a suggestion to the developers, Mecha.
Like I said, I’m not trying to be unreasonable.
Also, my apologies for laughing at you. But I just didn’t want people to think that LO was foolproof through the Dagon engine. The entirety of composite screens and their actions on kinetic penetrators versus chemical penetrators is a system that’s often so complex that most engines would struggle to even come close to interacting at speed.
Multiply that with 16 players on each team and you’re asking for a game that would play in permanent 5fps, I reckon.
I wonder if Gajin could just artificially inflate the armor where it wouldn’t pen?
1 Like
That’s the Steel Beasts route. PRO PE overestimates the armor RHA thickness just so they won’t have to handle all the LO calcs when in testing.
Isn’t that at the core of the issue; where armor is modeled to directly use “actual known values”, where Shells are run though a “performance calculator” which often understates performance vs real data to varying degrees.
So there is a discrepancy there which contributes to the issue.
2 Likes
Acceleration? M1 Abrams.
Top speed? M1 Abrams.
Reverse speed? M1 Abrams.
Neutral turn? M1 Abrams.
Backward turn? Leopard 2A4.
Forward turn? M1 Abrams.
Name me a single 10.7 MBT that doesn’t suffer major/lethal damage with centre mass shots.
Just like any other MBT at 10.7.
We just had a tournament where the M1A1 was one of the absolute most popular vehicles, dispite the T-80BVM also being available.
All the most competent/pro players say the same thing, at that level armour becomes irrelevant because they players are skilled enough to consistently hit weakspots.
Mobility + reload rate = meta.
2 Likes
Why are you using an 11.3 M1A1 with a 120mm to compare to a 10.7 M1 Abrams with a 105mm and the M774 round?
Edit: Second question, why the hell do casual players need to “be pro” in order to have fun in general gaming?
Answer: They shouldn’t.
With that false equivalence out of the way, I’ll again remind you that the maps of top tier are getting larger to deal with the mobility you mentioned beforehand.
The armor of the base M1 Abrams is not in the same league as its opponents. Thus, cherry picking armor weak spots means nothing when you’re versing 16 players and their ammunition is reliably more powerful and more spalling than your own.
You can’t expect to cover 16 angles at once.
Thus, the M833 round would provide parity, the same as the IPM1, which is 11.3 and sees 12.0 reliably. Without the M900, that 11.3 IPM1 would not be nearly as fun to drive.
8 Likes
I agree the Abrams did well in that tournament BUT those weren’t the average joes they were highly skilled players which is why they performed very well
3 Likes
Acceleration at different speeds matter.
Leopard 2A4 tends to accelerate better at <25km/h speeds than the M1 Abrams.
<25km/h are the speeds that vehicles tend to stay around when they’re fighting, unless they are rotating to a different position (around 20km/h - 45km/h), or travelling.
Top speed difference is such a negligible amount (6% increase), which most of the time may not ever be reached (unless going in a staight light for quite a bit of time).
Reverse speed makes a bit more sense (23% increase from Leopard 2A4 to Abrams), especially when the top reverse speeds can easily be achieved with both these vehicles.
You’re right, but it’s not as consistent as with the M1 Abrams.
The T-80’s centre weakspot is much smaller than the M1 Abrams’.
The Challenger 2 and the Ariete have much worse problems than the last two I’ve mentioned, but these issues are not always shown.
And are less of an issue when hull-down than the Abrams’.
I’m pretty sure you can wiggle your tank around with almost any 10.7 MBT (other than maybe the Ariete) and have a better chance at surviving a shot than an Abrams.
The turret ring will always be a weakspot, whereas the UFP of the leopard may ricochet, the T-80’s / Challenger’s drivers port may be too much of an angle to be worth shooting at, etc.
The M1A1 is different to the M1 Abrams. It does not trade off armour and the gun for the 5s reload.
It only trades the armour (albeit it’s on par with something like the Type 90 in a lot of cases).
This is why I am not complaining about the M1A1, and not really the other top tier abrams.
Then why is there such a prevalance of Strv 122s / Leopard 2A7s?
And wouldn’t the Type 10 / Type 90 / TKX better suit this ‘meta’?
5 Likes
Not an expert here, as I don’t have the Type 10 unlocked, but they’re actually missing quite a bit of mobility. The gear ratios Gaijin uses puts their acceleration far below the Type 90s, to the point where some players actually prefer the Type 90 to the Type 10 simply because they can’t shift positions fast enough.
Type 10 gives many more advantages over the Type 90, such as much better reverse speed, much better round, and better armour. So I wouldn’t see why slightly better acceleration would make people want to switch to the Type 90, despite the ‘mobility + reload rate meta’ that Necrons is suggesting.
1 Like
That’s already covered with both Type 10s and Leclercs. The gear ratios are special.
I still prefer Type 10, TKX and TKX(P) because their firepower is incredible and the very thin composite arrays they have are thick enough they get abnormal bounces on most of the highest tier rounds.
Doesn’t change that all those laugh at 774 penetration abilities.
2 Likes
The 774 Abrams can’t see the Type 10 or the Leclercs. I’m not sure how this is relevant to the conversation.
1 Like
Because my thread is the suggestion of adding M833 to give M1 Abrams better punching power at 10.7, same as the IPM1 and M900 against 12.0 Type 10s, Leclercs and 11.3 Type 90s.
1 Like
Again, all I have is fellow players who play Japan telling me these things. It’s not a 100% of the time thing, just in certain situations they prefer the Type 90 because it is more mobile. To break down their reasoning
- the better reverse speed isn’t that effective since it takes longer to reach it due to poor acceleration
- much better round, but you can make the JM33 work if you know how to aim.
- the better amour still gets penned by pretty much everything it can see, rendering it a moot upgrade except at crazy angles
I’m very surprised he never mentioned the abysmal optics the Type 90 gets.
Yeah same tbh. I can’t stand the Fuji’s 8-12x 1st gens. Then again, he’s a player who thinks that thermals aren’t all that in WT due to poor implementation, and uses them mostly to spot.
1 Like
Sure, you can make it work, but that doesn’t sound very appealing lol. I think a lot of people can make crappy rounds work, but I think most people would rather be able pen stuff more easily…
Much better mobility is almost always worth it over better armour, but I’m not too sure about that with the Type 10 and Type 90. I wouldn’t think twice shooting a Type 90 with 125mm 3BM60, but I’d be a bit more careful with Type 10s.