Jump to content


Issue with ramming calculation

#physics #ramming #issue #recalculate

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

tekoszi #1 Posted 14 July 2019 - 12:18 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7246 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

Hello Tankers,

 

I want to share my opinion about ramming dmg calculation and why some times it make no sense.

I began to play light tanks lately and i discovered one thing. When you ramm your enemy which has much better armor and its much heavier, you got more dmg depending on speed etc. thats alright.

But why it works the same when you do it for ex. from 170' angle? U are losing like 5 current speed and you are still dying. I thing speed loss value should be added into calculation. 

 

I hope someone from WG will see this and think about it. Tankers  kindly share your thoughts 

 

Regards,

Tekoszi



onderschepper #2 Posted 14 July 2019 - 12:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2122 battles
  • 529
  • [BOF] BOF
  • Member since:
    05-17-2019

If you want to be an effective Rammer then you need Spall Liner (Equipment) and Controlled Impact (Driver Skill).

 

That being said, a LT ramming a HT is akin to a car hitting a concrete pillar. :D



Nishi_Kinuyo #3 Posted 14 July 2019 - 02:46 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8607 battles
  • 5,915
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Informational video:



NekoPuffer_PPP #4 Posted 14 July 2019 - 04:30 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 33389 battles
  • 3,722
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View Postonderschepper, on 14 July 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

That being said, a LT ramming a HT is akin to a car hitting a concrete pillar. :D

 

Wait for it...

 



Dorander #5 Posted 14 July 2019 - 07:39 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21014 battles
  • 5,355
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

In my experience grazing a tank at a 170 degree angle doesn't cost a lot of hitpoints at all. Of course the faster you go, the higher the loss will be, even if you just graze. Works that way in real life too, slowly scrape your car against something you get a little scratch, scrape something at 100 km/h and you get a really big scratch.

 

Are you playing normal lights btw or are you playing wheelies? 'cause when it comes to ramming damage, wheelies are made of lego and tie-rips, even a light graze costs hitpoints fast.



Balc0ra #6 Posted 14 July 2019 - 11:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 70974 battles
  • 19,625
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Keep in might spall liners and crew skills can affect it too if your target has it. As in you take more damage, he less. The most vital aspect is not just the speed and weight. But the armor thickness at the point of impact. It's why the 50B is such a good rammer. Due to the thick armor line vs the rest of the hull that is the contact point on a head-on ram. 

Nishi_Kinuyo #7 Posted 14 July 2019 - 11:04 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 8607 battles
  • 5,915
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostDorander, on 14 July 2019 - 07:39 PM, said:

In my experience grazing a tank at a 170 degree angle doesn't cost a lot of hitpoints at all. Of course the faster you go, the higher the loss will be, even if you just graze. Works that way in real life too, slowly scrape your car against something you get a little scratch, scrape something at 100 km/h and you get a really big scratch.

 

Are you playing normal lights btw or are you playing wheelies? 'cause when it comes to ramming damage, wheelies are made of lego and tie-rips, even a light graze costs hitpoints fast.

Doesn't help that the wheelies are some of the lightest vehicles in the game.

The EBRs being in the 14.5-17 ton range, the other two more along the lines of 8 tons.

So if one were to collide with say... an O-Ho, the wheelie would take like 90% of the damage.

No matter how much armour you shove onto a light tank, you'll smash yourself to bits if you hit something weighing 8 times as much.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users