Why is spalling absorbed in to the back wall of a tank? Why doesn’t it ricochet around?
Because that’s way too advanced for this game to even attempt to calculate. Who knows, in good old Gaijin fashion, it might even magically heal the crew!
2 Likes
Why would it be too complicated to calculate? You can already calculate ricochets from smaller rapid firing projectiles.
Probably because it would mean nations that run APDS would get a major buff and that isnt allowed.
4 Likes
Heavy tanks facing APDS? They might as well bring some tissue paper because they’re about to catch a “shell” of a cold! And as for the British and Swedish APDS, well, they’re doing their best impression of a sickly cough. “Achoo-ching!” 🤧💣😂
It isnt really that complicated… I mean the tech to do that is decades old and Volumetric (which gaijin claims this game is fully capable of) is much much harder to pull off. its like comparing the requirements for the GPU between Stronghold 2 and Cyperpunk 2077.
Better answer: Why bother? It would cause a massive wave of disruptive BR changes that would ruin people’s lineups and just cause drama and annoy everyone, for no particularly important upside.
Mate… We have fake volumetric because “muh realism”
we have “realistic penetration calculation” because muh realism.
But realistic spalling and interiour damage is to much?
Remove Volumetric and add this and you save tons of resources you can use to fix decade old bugs.
Realistic spalling is needed. Your argument “but my lineups” is utterly worthless and should never and will never be of any importance
Mate… We have fake volumetric because “muh realism”
But the real reason is it’s ALSO more fun. Shells actually pen in plausible places that you can plan out and strategize around intuitively, and heavy tanks have a reasonable role to play in the game instead of being wasted content.
we have “realistic penetration calculation” because muh realism.
That one’s not more or less fun, but it is way way less of a headache for Gaijin endlessly debating conflicting source material ad nauseum, which is explicitly why they said they added it. Logistics of dealing with complainers, not realism. It’s actually pretty much officially LESS realistic, as they are intentionally abandoning real life accounts for a simple, party line solution.
But realistic spalling and interiour damage is to much?
Unlike the above, it adds nothing of value to be worth the disruption.
HAHAHAHAHA
no they do not Volumetric is not even fully implemented. Hence why I claled it “fakle volumetric” nothing is predictable it is pure RNG and bugged to hell. I have not had asingle game where it did not fuck up ever since they introduced it.
I would not mind true volumetric,. but what we have is not it. (Just an FYI internal spalling and fragmentation is part of what “true volumetric” should be)
So actually making more than a singular type of shell useable is “nothing worth of value”
Sure mate. Go on and grow up a bit.
1 Like
bugged to hell
I’ve never seen evidence of literally a single instance of a volumetric “bug” once. And I have read/examined probably dozens of threads claiming to have them. It always makes perfectly fine sense when you actually check it in armor analyzer. Every time.
I would not mind true volumetric
What is “true volumetric”? And why don’t you think we have it already?
hahahaha
Yes, clearly incredibly unpopular and ruined everyone’s fun
So actually making more than a singular type of shell useable is “nothing worth of value”
Solid shot and APDS would not become one bit more useable than they already are, because if they did, the vehicles would have to go up in BR by exactly the amount that compensated for the buff.
If you struggle in British tanks, the reason is because the average British player’s skill is higher than yours, and the tanks have been BR’ed in response to that. Not the shell. And a buffed shell won’t matter, because it will still just be BR’ed again based on the high average skill of their drivers like before, and still be hard for an average player to use.
Irregularly shaped bits losing more energy from bouncing around… and not including those bits that have already hit something else…
WTF would you bother?
Shells use to bounce inside a tank originally the. They simplified the post pen mechanics and that would explain shrapnel also not bouncing. I’d love to see my British apds bounce around d I side a tank like it should.
Sharp hot metal hitting crew members is a very large problem IRL that’s why spall liners were implemented in modern MBTs
In short, you may go from a situation where something like an APDS shell penning the target but doing 0 damage because it hit nothing vital to a APDS shell penning the target, and throwing a large amount of shrapnel around, injurying maybe even killing the crew. It would mean APDS would have some of the “hit the target anywhere and still get the kill” power that APHE has. For nations with ONLY APDS, this would be a massive buff
1 Like
because then USA ammunition would destroy the best tanks ever made in the universe
Spalling happens with any tank’s round this would increase the lethality of penning shots from any solid based projectile, the only full buff would be Britain at early BRs since their major thing is penetrating but not doing much damage
For nations with ONLY APDS, this would be a massive buff
Which would then need to be immediately canceled out by a directly proportional, opposite BR nerf.
Because these nations are already balanced around similar battle efficiency to make even matches, so any massive buff MUST be paired with an equally massive and opposite nerf. It’s Newton’s third law of game design.
So why does anyone care?
Let me guess… you mainly play soviets?
What nations I play has nothing to do with any point I made. Do you have an actual argument about the topic, or just some really lame attempt at an “ad hominem”?