Jump to content


Alternative sloped armor calculation system.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Poll: Your opinion on the topic? (19 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Would you prefer this system to the one we currently have?

  1. Yes, I like it more. (1 vote [5.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  2. No, it's fine as it is. (18 votes [94.74%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 94.74%

Vote Hide poll

Peasant_wot #1 Posted 05 August 2019 - 10:31 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

As we all know, currently the behavior of sloped armor is controlled by two mechanics: normalization and overmatch. If the angle of the incoming shot is bigger than 69° the shell automatically bounces, unless its caliber is over 3 times bigger than the nominal thickness of the armor.

War Thunder uses a different system: the effective thickness of the sloped armor gradually changes with both obliquity and the attacking shell's caliber. There is no definite "auto bounce" angle, it just becomes harder and harder to penetrate sloped armor and somewhere around 70° the effective thickness just becomes too much.

But still you can't just bounce 90mm shells by side-scraping with your Panzer IV, because the effective thickness of the sloped plate gradually becomes smaller as the caliber of the attacking shell gets bigger(and the other way around ofc). 

For example, the Hetzer's 60mm/60° would have effective thickness of 146mm against 57mm guns, 129mm against 75mm and only 120mm against 85mm.

I've made a simple calculator showing a concrete example of how this works. You just need to enter the nominal thickness of the armor and it gives you the effective thickness vs T/D and obliquity. Link to Google Sheet. Edit: Updated.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 


Edited by Peasant_wot, 06 August 2019 - 07:17 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #2 Posted 05 August 2019 - 10:37 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,611
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016
Great work but can i look at the calculator because it says "You need permission"! :)

Peasant_wot #3 Posted 05 August 2019 - 10:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 05 August 2019 - 10:37 PM, said:

Great work but can i look at the calculator because it says "You need permission"! :)

 

My bad. It should work now. 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #4 Posted 06 August 2019 - 12:14 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 4,611
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

@Peasant_wot

 

How would that work with the +2 MM in WOT?

 

Also, which tanks will benefit the most if WOT used these calculations instead of the current mechanics?


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 06 August 2019 - 12:18 AM.


Peasant_wot #5 Posted 06 August 2019 - 12:53 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 06 August 2019 - 12:14 AM, said:

How would that work with the +2 MM in WOT?

 

Also, which tanks will benefit the most if WOT used these calculations instead of the current mechanics?

 

Come on, you should be answer that question yourself, by playing with the thickness values and comparing the results with WoTinspector data.

Without fixed auto bounce angle you would no longer be able to side scrape OP guns, like German 88mm and such with your Sherman. On the other hand, it would make tanks relying on sloped armour somewhat more resistant against guns of equal or smaller caliber. For example T-34 UFP would become immune highly resistant with angling and distance to Matilda's top gun. The 17pdr would loose quite a lot of effectiveness against Panther UFP but still be a formidable threat. As the Tiger II's 88 against T-44. But overall, things wouldn't change much. 

As for MM, hard to say. If the vehicles remain in their current tiers, you would probably have a bit more difficult time in full uptier while an easier life when you are top tier. 

The tech tree would probably require an extensive re-balancing to maintain the current "fine tuned balance" /s 


Edited by Peasant_wot, 06 August 2019 - 12:55 AM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #6 Posted 06 August 2019 - 04:27 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33544 battles
  • 4,071
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
Not seeing what benefit this is meant to bring over the current implementation we have in place, so no.

Space_Vato #7 Posted 06 August 2019 - 07:45 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2896 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    02-08-2019

It's a good idea (not). Server hampsters are working @ 110% already

Oh wait.... current calculations:

 

Spoiler

 



Nishi_Kinuyo #8 Posted 06 August 2019 - 09:08 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 8810 battles
  • 6,046
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Nice try, but you're forgetting the current double overmatch rules.

And in the example you give with the PzKpfwIV:

Your side armour is only 30mm raw, which really isn't much and really not something to rely on when sidescraping higher tiers/bigger guns.

Not to mention that it has a hull cheek of sorts making it even harder to angle properly.

As for the calculations, we'll grab a 90mm gun firing AP since it doesn't triple overmatch (needs 91mm for that):

Standard normalisation is 5°, which is multiplied by 1,4 multiplied by (shell calibre divided by nominal thickness).

5° × 1,4 × (90/30) = 21° of normalisation it gets.



Peasant_wot #9 Posted 06 August 2019 - 09:48 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

Now that I think about it, it might be a good idea to keep auto-bounce angle system. Yes it's not very realistic but it's become a staple mechanic of this game and I think everyone will admit that its fun and also gives you some chance when fighting against superior guns. 

 

To make the differences more clear I've made this one that shows the relative difference of performance between the new and the current system. As you can see there is a clear border: the armor less than 0,7-0,8 calibers would be weaker when sloped and the thicker would become stronger.

 

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 06 August 2019 - 09:08 AM, said:

Nice try, but you're forgetting the current double overmatch rules.

And in the example you give with the PzKpfwIV:

Your side armour is only 30mm raw, which really isn't much and really not something to rely on when sidescraping higher tiers/bigger guns.

Not to mention that it has a hull cheek of sorts making it even harder to angle properly.

As for the calculations, we'll grab a 90mm gun firing AP since it doesn't triple overmatch (needs 91mm for that):

Standard normalisation is 5°, which is multiplied by 1,4 multiplied by (shell calibre divided by nominal thickness).

5° × 1,4 × (90/30) = 21° of normalisation it gets.

 

I see. Its more intricate than just straight up "-5°" normalization. Then with this system in place, AND auto-bounce mechanic the angled armor would get strictly buffed across all obliquities and T/D ratios.

 

Spoiler

 

Btw, it seems that the WoT inspector doesnt take into account the double-overmatch mechanic. This should actually be 68mm:

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Peasant_wot, 06 August 2019 - 11:27 AM.


spamhamstar #10 Posted 06 August 2019 - 10:23 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 64313 battles
  • 2,319
  • [LLAY] LLAY
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012
Seems like a lot of work for WG, basically having to rebalance everything for a change you admit yourself "wouldn't change much".

Peasant_wot #11 Posted 06 August 2019 - 10:53 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View Postspamhamstar, on 06 August 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

Seems like a lot of work for WG, basically having to rebalance everything for a change you admit yourself "wouldn't change much".

 

I have no delusions that this thread will go anywhere but a thought experiment. The WG have put a lot of money into the development of this game and will not change anything as long as it "working as intended" and keeping getting them those sweets numbers in their bank account.

 

Well, I was wrong, as you can see in the previous post. The way it is now, this system would have two major consequences: it will make all tanks with any armor worth of notice (so anything that is not LT or a glass canon TD) less reliant on their HP to survive and require more weak spot sniping from equal or lower tier opponents. Whether its a good thing or not its up to you to decide.

 



kubawt112 #12 Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 588
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

So, cool idea and all, but I sort of expect a proposal thread to provide some basis for discussion. Heck, why is it even needed? Does it fit into the meta? Is it even viable, given that WoT teams contain more 'tier spread' than WT?

 

My best guess would be that this would be an awesome addition if weakspots were still a thing, but falls apart when stuff like MG ports and whatnot aren't modelled - not to mention that the maps are wa-ay more linear than WT and that WoT's heavy tanks aren't anywhere remotely the same as WT's "heavy tanks" (as in role or whatnot).



Nishi_Kinuyo #13 Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:50 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 8810 battles
  • 6,046
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostPeasant_wot, on 06 August 2019 - 09:48 AM, said:

Btw, it seems that the WoT inspector doesnt take into account the double-overmatch mechanic. This should actually be 68mm:

 

Spoiler

 

Maybe it helps if you check a tank/armour plate that you'd actually double overmatch.

T-34-85's UFP is 45mm raw, your gun's calibre is 75mm.

75mm/2=37.5mm, which is less than the 45mm of the armour you're hitting so no overmatch of any sort happens.

To double overmatch the T-34-85's UFP you'd need a calibre of at least 91mm.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 06 August 2019 - 11:52 AM.


Peasant_wot #14 Posted 06 August 2019 - 12:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 06 August 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

Maybe it helps if you check a tank/armour plate that you'd actually double overmatch.

T-34-85's UFP is 45mm raw, your gun's calibre is 75mm.

75mm/2=37.5mm, which is less than the 45mm of the armour you're hitting so no overmatch of any sort happens.

To double overmatch the T-34-85's UFP you'd need a calibre of at least 91mm.

 

Jesus christ. Well, i guess we've found another reason why the new system is better: it's less bloated (check the top post for explanation).


Edited by Peasant_wot, 06 August 2019 - 12:29 PM.


24doom24 #15 Posted 06 August 2019 - 01:02 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8164 battles
  • 317
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostPeasant_wot, on 06 August 2019 - 11:26 AM, said:

 

Jesus christ. Well, i guess we've found another reason why the new system is better: it's less bloated (check the top post for explanation).

There is nothing complicated or bloated about what he said lmao. Looks like after a certain armour value it becomes straight up impenetrable.



XPuntar #16 Posted 06 August 2019 - 03:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14529 battles
  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    08-19-2012

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 06 August 2019 - 04:27 AM, said:

Not seeing what benefit this is meant to bring over the current implementation we have in place, so no.

 

Are you even aware that current implemetaion of normalization is actually implemented in a wrong way?

 

...

 

Even at sharp angles normalization actually reduce armor of any tank! Even if a armor slope is hit at 85 degrees normalization would actually reduce that to 80 degrees! And that  actually work ofc up to 89 degrees!

 

Normalization in the game should be dynamic NOT FIXED! From around 70 degrees normalization should be negative, due to shell curvature and armor interaction, because of the angle of attack!

 



Peasant_wot #17 Posted 06 August 2019 - 03:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostXPuntar, on 06 August 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Are you even aware that current implemetaion of normalization is actually implemented in a wrong way?

Even at sharp angles normalization actually reduce armor of any tank! Even if a armor slope is hit at 85 degrees normalization would actually reduce that to 80 degrees! And that  actually work ofc up to 89 degrees!

Normalization in the game should be dynamic NOT FIXED! From around 70 degrees normalization should be negative, due to shell curvature and armor interaction, because of the angle of attack!

 

And your tank crew can survive inside the tank dozens of penetrating hits so what? Should WG "fix" that too? This is not about whats "right" and whats "wrong", it's about the best compromise between fun and realism.

 



StinkyStonky #18 Posted 06 August 2019 - 04:26 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 33331 battles
  • 2,785
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

What's the problem you are trying to solve ?

 

You seem to imply that the auto bounce angle is a problem (it isn't)

and you suggest an alternative without explaining what the benefit would be (none - it would just be different not better)

you also don't give any consideration to the effects on server load or the effects on game play.

 

There are much, MUCH bigger issues than changing whether a 69 deg impact should bounce or a 71 deg impact should penetrate.  As long as it's the same for all players and tanks it doesn't matter.



Nishi_Kinuyo #19 Posted 06 August 2019 - 04:33 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 8810 battles
  • 6,046
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostPeasant_wot, on 06 August 2019 - 12:26 PM, said:

 

Jesus christ. Well, i guess we've found another reason why the new system is better: it's less bloated (check the top post for explanation).

Tbh, I doubt it is less bloated, not to mention harder to remember on the go.



Peasant_wot #20 Posted 06 August 2019 - 05:08 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1049 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    07-20-2019

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 06 August 2019 - 04:33 PM, said:

Tbh, I doubt it is less bloated, not to mention harder to remember on the go.

 

It just seems that way because you're used to the one we had for years. Having a penetration formula that one can remember on the go, in my opinion, is far less critical than how it affects the gameplay.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users