Jump to content


Ammo changes proposition

ammo shell ap apcr heat he penetration change

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

MrZezol14 #1 Posted 28 December 2019 - 11:11 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15351 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

So, WG in the supertest are tryich out ammo changes. And while I think that's a great idea, cause right now the 'skill' is efectively to press 2 if you cannot penetrate an enemy, I think we could go deeper with ammo changes and drop the current 'standard' and 'special' ammo types to include real classes of ammunition (the are in the game right now, but the differences are not sufficient for players to care what they are shooting at enemy).

 

My idea is to divide ammunition into 4 main classes (AP, APCR, HEAT, HE) and maybe some nation-specific ammo classes and let any tank use all 4 of them, so it's up to the player to decide what type of ammo is the best for given circumstances. I also include exemplary stats for each shell class based on current Russian 122mm BL-9 gun (on the IS-3), not considering the supertest changes to HP, but that's just a matter of changing the numbers

 

DMG- damage

PEN- penetration

V- velocity (speed)

DvM- damage vs. modules

N- normalization angle

PD- penetration dropoff over distance

 

1. Armor-piercing shell (AP)- standard, well rounded shell. It'd be working just like current shells in WoT, with regular module damage and normal chance to kill a crew member.

DMG: 390,

PEN: 225,

V: 1000

DvM: 165

N: 5

PD: 12,5% for every 100m travelled (50% after 400m)

 

2. Sub-caliber shell (APDS and APCR; while they are not the same shell in reality- APCR being in theory not a sub-caliber shell- to simplify things in-game I would just make them work the same, since if we wanted to keep real specs of both types, APDS would effectively be better version of APCR). It would be the type of shell that works best over large distances, having increased penetration and shell velocity, lower penetration dropoff over distance, but also lower damage, damage vs modules, chance to kill a crew member and a little lower normalization angle. To balance it out, those would be more efficient against spaced armor (losing less penetration after they go through the spaced protection).

DMG: 330,

PEN: 265,

V: 1400

DvM: 125

N: 4

PD: 5% for every 100m travelled (20% after 400m)

 

3. High-explosivfe anti-tank (HEAT). Shell intended for 'close-quarters combat'. Lower dmg than AP, but higher than APCR, very high penetration with no dropoff over distance and greatly increased chance to kill a crew member. On the opposite side- very low shel velocity (a little unnatural restriction, but I feel like it's needed to balance the shell type, so it's bad for engaging a moving target over long distance). Also, they would have increased ricochet angle (but not as high as it is now- I'd say 80 degrees [it's 85 now isn't it?]), but no effective normalization. On top of that, those would be completely ineffective against spaced armor (losing like 90% penetration after going thorough the spaced protection), little lower module damage and inability to detrack and damage the tank with one shot (since the tracks are counted as spaced armor).

DMG: 350,

PEN: 280,

V: 500

DvM: 150

N: 0

PD: 0%

 

4. High- explosive shell (HE): no greater changes- slow shell, with low penetration, but great damage values, capable of dealing small amounts of damage without penetrating the target. It would have increased module damage and chance to kill a crew member (only if penetrates). It would ricochet only on very angled armor (let's say above 85 degrees).

DMG: 530,

PEN: 68,

V: 800

DvM: 190

N: 0

PD: 2,5% for every 100m travelled (10% after 400m)

 

The changes are meant to achieve two goals:

-make players think about the type of shell they are firing.

-avoid the current situation, when a gun has two types of the same shell, one being better with no apparent reason (like Swedish high-tier TDs that have two APCR shells, one having higher penetration- why?)

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

PS: yes, it would make the game harder for new players, but I think that simplifying the game is a bad idea. New players need better training program, not this current Boot Camp joke.



1ucky #2 Posted 28 December 2019 - 11:19 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 89475 battles
  • 1,699
  • [THRIL] THRIL
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

Wrong timing bro.

WG seems to already have an idea of how they wanna implement new ammo 2020.

Let's see how that works first, and if it's bad we can change it from there on.



Spurtung #3 Posted 29 December 2019 - 12:38 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 76209 battles
  • 7,182
  • [WG_PT] WG_PT
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
Guy's so late to the party they're already sweeping the floors for a bar mitzvah the following day...





Also tagged with ammo, shell, ap, apcr, heat, he, penetration, change

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users