Main page

RAWR_epic_FAIL, on 26 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

I had the opposite problem, I passed by a PanzerIV because it looked like it was dead, a moment later I was taking fire

MuleMobile, on 26 March 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

As fun as this may sound and all, personally I find this to be highly unrealistic and is one of the features clearly in nneed of revision.

Only thing in need of revision is Mule's eye sight

Also there is a distinct lack of smoke now. Think Mule might have tweaked with that a little.
Smoke is quite helpful in spotting both dead and alive tanks. Smoking wrecks and bushes kinda stick out.

We should consider setting the smoke levels to a more noticeable level.

Still, difference between a dead and live tank is still very noticeable. from a fair distance anyway

ZorinWarfield, on 26 March 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Why is it unrealistic?

It isn't realistic at all that a disabled tank would be completely rusted instantly, and smoking.
Sometimes a tank is set on fire, but most disabled tanks in the battlefield would simply have a disabled turret, broken engine/gearbox, detracked treads, and otherwise look perfectly fine.

The wrecks are fine in the mod. Them being a bit harder to distinguish from alive tanks brings a fair bit of fun in the gameplay.

MuleMobile, on 26 March 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

You gave the answer yourself.

Tanks in our battles are not disabled by a broken engine or a stuck turret, they are destroyed. Having been shot to pieces and all, which is what I want to see.

I can agree on not using the crash skins, but fire, smoke and crash model should stay 100% stock.

One thing we could vote on imho but maybe wait until another one or two events so we have enough people that took part.

ZorinWarfield, on 26 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Not taking any side I must say I don't understand your course of argumentation. Destroying tanks is very unefficient way of fighting, when you look at warfare strategically, especially if you take German late war strategic situation into account. Even if you're not using tank for fighting you can always salvage metal, ammo and fuel. The two latter are simply gone after explosion and easy to haul hull becomes a pile of metal debris - after you collect it from all around.

I know that tank combat in WoT mechanics, with HP stuff, is totally unreallistic and most of the time tanks were knocked out by single hit that destroyed engine, traverse mechanism, gun or just kicked crew uncouscious/dead. But the effect can be still simulated - knocked out tank. Actually destroying a tank takes a lot of tank knowledge, building up position, so you can hit ammo rack without additional protection, and one lucky shot that if not successfull gives your position to the enemy and does not deal any actual combat damage to enemy tank above doing a mess inside, with all neatly stored shells now tossed all over the place. Such mo is not effective and it jeopardises your own crew's safety.

So basically it's not efficient from either tactical or strategical point of view. So why you want to force it? As I said, I don't wan't to take side in this post, just to understand your reasoning, which I am failing to do, I admit.

serpenta, on 26 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

That is all fine and dandy, but hardly worth mentioning as most consequences, which would be an indication for the enemy to having been succesful, are not represented in game. There are no crews bailing out of the tank or flames/smoke coming out of hatches etc.

Additionally, what about the HE effects of blwoing off entire turrets etc. It doesn't have to be a direct ammo hit, which, to be fair, was a rather common result due to the very nature of ammo storage, which WG keeps to a minimum for gameplay reasons, as the entire inside of most tanks was lined with shells anyway.

So basically all our reasoning should be drawn upon the canvas called WoT and what is possible to replicate within that confinement.

Therefor we need all the indications we can give to the players that a tank is knocked-out/destroyed, because we lack the ones that were there in reality.

ZorinWarfield, on 26 March 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Now I see your point, thanks. What is now I think it's good compromise. The tracks are still loose after kill and body is thorn up. As for the smoke, it could be gray (if possible) instead of black. Black means engine fire, grey just excessive temperature that is nothing unusual after penetration that messes up inside of a tank.

As for RL, shame it can be done so that kill effect is generated upon event. But still knocked off turret (I mean with chassis barely touched) is not easy to achieve, even assuming HE penetration and inner explosion. I know that crews (esp. Soviet) were often loading more ammo that they were meant to, just in case. Again, still it's not that easy to set it off with AP it needs direct hit in powder load of one of the shells, we HE it gets penetration. Easiest to achieve would be with ACPR, but I don't think they were very popular. So all I am saying is, most of the time you would see knocked out tanks not destroyed (though one can argue on differing one and the other). That is why I opt for making them look like knocked. I am not against finding a "friendly" way of making wrecks distinct though.

Seeing this wonderful discussion i think i could throw in a few conciderations of my own.

In WoT you cannot simulate a tank being damaged "as an abandoned wreck" after it gets destroyed, i.e. it won't ever get more destroyed than it is, concidering that you can endlessly fire at a tank you misidentified and you won't notice until after 10 shots you think "Gee, i'm running low on ammo". That indeed combined with the fact most tanks were disabled in 1-2 hits shows for me it makes sense to have the tanks actually knocked out in WoT, concidering they take upwards to 5+ hits sometimes. My idea is you would get the same damage to a tank but to a different end, (IRL 1-2 disable, +3-4 to get a proper ammo rack and fire going, in WoT simply because of the HP system). To me it makes sense.

Though offc there's always the argument that confusion is better and adds some kind of "fog of war" into the battle of not knowing what's what where etcetera, though offc the spotting system seems to do most of that for us at this point. I can see this argument both ways but the complete absence of any indication a tank is knocked out apart from some warped metal makes little sense concidering the ammount of hits required to achieve this status upon an enemy tank.

Yea but you're both looking at it from simply the shooter's point of view. If you kill a tank in WoT, you get an explosion and green text telling you you killed someone. If that isn't enough indicator that you just killed a tank and keep firing at a tank that doesn't shoot back, you deserve to waste all your ammo.

The point of this mod is to trick people who come across a wreck into double checking if a tank is a wreck or not, which is very realistic, plus a lot of people and I find it fun, so I don't see the problem.

Yes it's unrealistic that a tank that took 6 shells looks pristine, but that's not the point, the mod isn't for the benefit of the person who did the killing, it's for the people who come across a wreck.

Ascender, on 27 March 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I take this point, that you cannot further deteriorate tank since it's been destroyed. But if you can do cool calculation and assesment, I'll say it's not that easy to fire upon wreck. Plus, in RL ranges you couldn't tell if you even hit tank with AP or not until some smoke would pop out or the crew would bail. In WoT you have this gears flying all over - very annoing indeed - after tank being killed and sudden change of shape.

As for the shot count part. If you're using it as an argument, you must take burden of explanation of RL basis for the fact that tank is killed with 5 shots and not with 2, because (at least to my logic) you can't build historically accurate/realistic feature upon fictional one. And if something is fictional than you must compansate for it when trying to make things more realistic if you want to leave fictional feature intact, to which we are obviously forced.

For me it's not making any sense and I reject such game mechanics element as unrealistic and, what's more important, without factual cover. And so I take it as being only gameplay compromise forced feature and I am assuming that those 5 shots simulates 3-4 missed/ricochets and 1-2 hit. I am assuming this because ballistics are automated and ranges are shrunk and - knowing human (casual gamer) nature - it would get very frustrating if most precise gun would have 0.5 focus @100m to simulate proper tank warfare on 0.25 sq.km maps forced by archaic game engine. So for me problem is more complex and I am assuming that devs came to compromise with gaming reality rather than did whatever they wanted to do (though taking their last physics humbug in Q&A into consideration I'm not so sure of their educational integrity anymore).

serpenta, on 27 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Yup, that's how I see it. We're still restricted to playing with HP pools and shell damage, but because you don't see the HP bar shrinking as you shoot, it just feels more realistic all around.

The people who were/are against the skin changes to begin with will rage but..
come on, that looks awesome

We shouldn't overdo the historical part. Same goes with scenarios imho. Without having some sort of freedom to create a lineup it is impossible to make suggestions for an event without detailed books or other sources for battles.

MuleMobile, on 27 March 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Mule you did a good job I like the effects, and I think it's enough.

SchwerePanzer, on 27 March 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Well, I don't really care, I just want to experience the game in this mod, with historical setups(weapons, parts) etc. and with the interface like a tank simulator game.