Jump to content


War Thunder Ground Forces vs World of Tanks penetration values for L/60

buff the L/60

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

Astalano #1 Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:34 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24412 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

I've been trying War Thunder tonks and been having fun, but one odd thing I noticed about the Panzer III's L/60 gun is the awesome penetration in War Thunder versus the paltry 67mm of penetration in World of Tanks.

 

Okay, so the L/60 gun in WTGF with PzGr 39:

 

Point blank: 92mm

 

100 meters (m): 87mm

 

500m: 75mm

 

1000m: 65mm

 

The L/60 gun in this game is sorely lacking for some reason. Why is this? Where does Wargaming get its penetration values from? Is Gaijin lying or is Wargaming or are both wrong?

 

Let's take another gun, the L/43 with PzGr 39:

 

Here WG are closer to the mark and seem to have picked a value between 100 and 500 metres with the in-game pen of 103mm.

 

In WTGF:

 

Point blank: 112mm

 

100mm: 110mm

 

500m: 98mm

 

1000m: 82mm

 

 

How about the L/48? In WOT it has 110mm of penetration.

 

In WTGF it's roughly the same, with 117mm at point blank. WG isn't far off the mark.

 

 

So, with other guns Wargaming seem to agree with Gaijin for the most part. They even gave the L/56 slightly more penetration that it had originally according to Gaijin (130mm point blank).

 

However, why is the L/60 so woefully deficient? Why the random 67 mm of penetration and why the random picking of penetration values? With some tanks it's the best possible pen (point blank) while with others it's between 100 and 500 meters in terms of penetration. 

 

With most of the german guns in War Thunder Tonks I'm happy, but I'm extremely surprised at just how effective this L/60 is when it's proven to be nothing more than a peashooter in WoT. I even one-shotted a KV1 from the front with the L/60 with regular ammo from 200 meters!

 

What's even more strange is how much more generous WG is with the L/42 (60mm of pen in game, more than it had historically above 100m) while completely nerfing the L/60 into submission at the same time.

 

Moreover, it's not like the L/60 being buffed would change anything. Many tanks on tier IV have high penetration (including the Pz IV D! with 103mm), so why the inadequate and unhistorical pen for the L/60?



GhostintheTenk #2 Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 1,915
  • Member since:
    05-06-2014

You play this game long enough to know that there is a simple rule:

 

balance > realism/historical accuracy


Edited by GhostintheTenk, 18 May 2014 - 01:18 PM.


NervosCuNervii #3 Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21833 battles
  • 534
  • [D57T] D57T
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013
I wouldn't compare WoT with WT:GF.
WoT has some years since it went public while GF is still in BETA. Things will change in GF as the balancing is an ongoing process.

Another thing is that in order to be able to put a tank in any given tier, it needs to get balanced for that tier. This is why WG nerfs that and buffs that.
Also, the gun penetrations aren't the only things adapted by WG for WoT.

P.S. WoT and WT:GF are arcade games and not simulators. History only dictates what vehicles were real or projects at the time with the rest being adapted for the game.

Astalano #4 Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:51 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24412 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

View PostGhostintheTenk, on 17 May 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

You play this game long enough to know that there is a simply rule:

 

balance > realism/historical accuracy

 

My point is that the L/60 could be given historical penetration and still work great on its tier. As it is now you have to fire APCR to make it work, which is a shame if the historical penetration is already adequate yet Wargaming uses exaggerated low penetration instead.



AngryApple #5 Posted 17 May 2014 - 11:03 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7495 battles
  • 1,575
  • Member since:
    07-08-2011

View PostGhostintheTenk, on 17 May 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

You play this game long enough to know that there is a simply rule:

 

balance > realism/historical accuracy


pretty much every tank with the L/60 as the top gun is bad to below average: pz38na, Vk2001d and DW2 all suck badly, while the pzIII is ok, but still wouldnt be OP with ~85ish pen.



Steiner011 #6 Posted 18 May 2014 - 12:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38982 battles
  • 1,397
  • [SCRUB] SCRUB
  • Member since:
    10-09-2012

View PostAstalano, on 17 May 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

 

My point is that the L/60 could be given historical penetration 

 

I`m sure that you really, REALLY dont want to WG go full historical, you wont`t like it.



Balc0ra #7 Posted 18 May 2014 - 12:32 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66549 battles
  • 16,589
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
WT GF is built up in a completely different way. They have a "crit" based system and not a HP system like WOT. So for them and the tier system they have. That worked both in terms of game balance and such.

Aim_Drol #8 Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:34 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22733 battles
  • 1,852
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011
Are you really trying to compare apples and oranges?

Praefectus #9 Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:35 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6128 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    03-20-2011
You're also forgetting that Gaijin balance by tier placement - WG balance by fannying around with values until all tanks on a tier are theoretically 'equal'.

sword_of_Damocles #10 Posted 18 May 2014 - 08:38 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 60421 battles
  • 5,304
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostGhostintheTenk, on 17 May 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

You play this game long enough to know that there is a simply rule:

 

balance > realism/historical accuracy

 

And you allready know,that WOT isn't balanced and has nothing to do with historical accuracy.Even,lacks common sense

:hiding:



Ceeb #11 Posted 18 May 2014 - 09:25 AM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 30465 battles
  • 5,298
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostGhostintheTenk, on 17 May 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

You play this game long enough to know that there is a simply rule:

 

balance > realism/historical accuracy

 

Lol, I counter sir. KV1S, Hellcat, FV304 

 

Not balanced at all 

 



MisterAsylum #12 Posted 18 May 2014 - 10:01 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8830 battles
  • 1,569
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

View PostGhostintheTenk, on 18 May 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:

You play this game long enough to know that there is a simply rule:

 

balance > realism/historical accuracy

'Za motherland > balance > realism/historical accuracy > germany

 

Fixd' it for you.



Deathangelo #13 Posted 18 May 2014 - 11:54 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 6668 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-01-2010

View Postborbelydavid360, on 18 May 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

'Za motherland > balance > realism/historical accuracy > germany

 

Fixd' it for you.

Monetization>Za motherland > balance > realism/historical accuracy > germany

 

reFixd' :hiding:



dlcatalin #14 Posted 18 May 2014 - 12:25 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 50571 battles
  • 637
  • [ETHER] ETHER
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

View PostAstalano, on 17 May 2014 - 10:34 PM, said:

I've been trying War Thunder tonks and been having fun, but one odd thing I noticed about the Panzer III's L/60 gun is the awesome penetration in War Thunder versus the paltry 67mm of penetration in World of Tanks.

 

Okay, so the L/60 gun in WTGF with PzGr 39:

 

Point blank: 92mm

 

100 meters (m): 87mm

 

500m: 75mm

 

1000m: 65mm

 

The L/60 gun in this game is sorely lacking for some reason. Why is this? Where does Wargaming get its penetration values from? Is Gaijin lying or is Wargaming or are both wrong?

 

Let's take another gun, the L/43 with PzGr 39:

 

Here WG are closer to the mark and seem to have picked a value between 100 and 500 metres with the in-game pen of 103mm.

 

In WTGF:

 

Point blank: 112mm

 

100mm: 110mm

 

500m: 98mm

 

1000m: 82mm

 

 

How about the L/48? In WOT it has 110mm of penetration.

 

In WTGF it's roughly the same, with 117mm at point blank. WG isn't far off the mark.

 

 

So, with other guns Wargaming seem to agree with Gaijin for the most part. They even gave the L/56 slightly more penetration that it had originally according to Gaijin (130mm point blank).

 

However, why is the L/60 so woefully deficient? Why the random 67 mm of penetration and why the random picking of penetration values? With some tanks it's the best possible pen (point blank) while with others it's between 100 and 500 meters in terms of penetration. 

 

With most of the german guns in War Thunder Tonks I'm happy, but I'm extremely surprised at just how effective this L/60 is when it's proven to be nothing more than a peashooter in WoT. I even one-shotted a KV1 from the front with the L/60 with regular ammo from 200 meters!

 

What's even more strange is how much more generous WG is with the L/42 (60mm of pen in game, more than it had historically above 100m) while completely nerfing the L/60 into submission at the same time.

 

Moreover, it's not like the L/60 being buffed would change anything. Many tanks on tier IV have high penetration (including the Pz IV D! with 103mm), so why the inadequate and unhistorical pen for the L/60?

 

WOT = fantasy !



GhostintheTenk #15 Posted 18 May 2014 - 01:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50 battles
  • 1,915
  • Member since:
    05-06-2014

View Postsword_of_Damocles, on 18 May 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

 

And you allready know,that WOT isn't balanced and has nothing to do with historical accuracy.Even,lacks common sense

:hiding:

Ok...  you guys have a point ofc.

"and has nothing to do with historical accuracy"... that was basically what I wanted to say. :blinky:

 

@ dlcatalin: Dude... please stop quoting full length opening posts all the time. Especially if you only add a oneliner.



Athanati_Este #16 Posted 18 May 2014 - 02:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 40456 battles
  • 717
  • [K4E] K4E
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012
sorry, no.

Astalano #17 Posted 18 May 2014 - 03:19 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24412 battles
  • 335
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

View Postdarkomsq, on 18 May 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

sorry, no.

 

No what?



MechaSheep #18 Posted 18 May 2014 - 03:23 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19367 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

Typically WOT uses the german reported values which were 30 degree pen values, fx the 136pen of the short 88

 

In WTGF they use the pen values at 0 degrees.

 

WOT has a 4:1 ratio between ingame range and real world range, to scale it down, while WTGF doesnt.
So when comparing pen values at ranges, you need to take that into account as well


Edited by Mechasmeep, 18 May 2014 - 03:27 PM.


Ohaithar #19 Posted 18 May 2014 - 05:02 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 407 battles
  • 1,918
  • Member since:
    01-15-2014
I don't really see the harm in increasing the penetration. I wonder why others are against it though.

Rozbrus #20 Posted 19 May 2014 - 09:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9496 battles
  • 720
  • Member since:
    05-26-2011
Easy answer. It is a german gun on a german tank. You really expect it to behave historicaly correct in a game made by WG?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users