90 replies to this topic

[SocialFlaws]

autorev, on Jun 06 2012 - 14:21, said:

Having argued that the short 88 should be buffed on the basis of a different conversion of penetration figures, to argue that the same should not be done for the long 88 is to make a complete mockery of your own argument.  If you want it buffed for gameplay reasons, stick to gameplay reasons.  If you're saying that Wargaming doesn't always keep their rationales clean and that therefore they should adopt your viewpoint which also does not keep its rationales clean, well, that argument is more than a little unconvincing.

Did you not see the part where I said balance reasons? I guess you chose to ignore that part, huh.

Anyway, WG picks and chooses. You'll see them say balance reasons one patch and historical accuracy another patch. The short 88 has both going for it. The long 88 is fine as it is, so if it has an incorrect pen value, adjusting it would throw off balance. Whereas, the short 88 is not fine and is most definitely modeled incorrectly, so adjusting its pen value would actually provide a balance.

[FaustianQ]

autorev, on Jun 06 2012 - 13:05, said:

Okay, look.  Here's the problem.  Your argument essentially centers on a conversion from German penetration stats to other countries' penetration stats.  You and/or other people who feel that the 88mm L/56 is underrepresented in this game want a 25%-30% increase in penetration to somewhere between 160 and 170.  But what does this mean?  If the L/56 has a penetration of 160, that implies that the L/71, rated at 203 penetration, ought to have a penetration of 250.  There is absolutely no chance that they will let a tier 7 vehicle mount a 250 penetration gun, meaning you'll be stuck with the 88mm L/56; in practical terms, what you are asking for is a NERF to the Tiger's maximum penetration (from 203 to somewhere between 160 and 170).  The Panzer IV would have to go back down to the L/48 and be left with roughly the same penetration as before.  All the tier 6 mediums would use the 75mm L/70 or 88mm L/56, but they'd almost certainly get ROF nerfed.  This is honestly not that good of a deal for them, since they perform quite well already under the existing playstyle.

It'd help the Jagdpanzer IV, though.

That might be the case if you're understanding of ballistics was simple and linear, or if youcould actually delude yourself into thinking all of the guns ingame have accurate penetration levels under a single unified system - they don't, as no single system will give you matching numbers. Penetration is roughly correct in most cases and in some cases uses entirely fiat numbers.

For instance, the penetration against a 30° slope by the 88mm KwK36 @ 100m is 120mm, which using even the most rudimentary math, gives you 138mm. 132mm comes into play when you suddenly make Russian testing methods 5% stricter (when they weren't), and assume that German APCBC behaves like a HEAT warhead. WarGaming used the absolute WORST conversion method to get the worst possible numbers for the 88mm L/56, and it's obvious this is not a "mistake" as most other guns are converted properly.

Actual conversion gives you  (1.2667(120/88)^.0655)*120 = 155mm penetration @ 100m, which is historically correct and helps improve gameplay balance as well (JP4, VK3002DB, VK3001P, VK3001H, VK3601H use it as top weapon, VK4502A uses it stock, Tiger H and Jagdpanther use it midgrind).

Worse is the L/70 travesty - 138mm @ 100m ingame, yet 138mm @ 100m @ 30° IRL. They completely ignore the fact it was against a sloped plate, they don't even bother to convert it. The same applies for the 75mm L/43 and L/48 as well, both should have comparable performance to the American 76mm guns, yet are inferior to 57mm guns (wat), the 50mm L/60 had considerably superior performance to the 50mm L/42, and the 128mm guns are robbed of performance by using low velocity penetration ratings for the ingame high velocity shells, instead of their actual 260 to 281mm penetration performance ratings.

Face it, WG doesn't actually care about historical accuracy, just finding the correct justification to achieve whatever sort of balance they want, and will use whatever methods , however incorrect or underhanded, to get the results that they want. I am okay with this, except when it doesn't even create balance, just robs the game of it.

[Potoroo]

autorev, on Jun 06 2012 - 13:05, said:

Your argument essentially centers on a conversion from German penetration stats to other countries' penetration stats.

Actually, that's more like WG's argument, which is explained in the wiki:

• German penetration data - 30 degree penetration data (the most common) is converted into 0 degree German penetration data.
  
• 0 degree German penetration data is converted into Soviet 0 degree data.
  
• the outcome is usually quite close to 30 degree German penetration data.

What WG refuse to acknowledge is that the Germans used harder steel in their test targets than the Soviets did, which explains why the Soviets were able to achieve a higher guaranteed penetration.  If the relative hardness of the targets was factored in the 88's pen would certainly go up from what it is now.

[Zergling]

autorev, on Jun 06 2012 - 13:05, said:

Okay, look.  Here's the problem.  Your argument essentially centers on a conversion from German penetration stats to other countries' penetration stats.  You and/or other people who feel that the 88mm L/56 is underrepresented in this game want a 25%-30% increase in penetration to somewhere between 160 and 170.  But what does this mean?  If the L/56 has a penetration of 160, that implies that the L/71, rated at 203 penetration, ought to have a penetration of 250.  There is absolutely no chance that they will let a tier 7 vehicle mount a 250 penetration gun, meaning you'll be stuck with the 88mm L/56; in practical terms, what you are asking for is a NERF to the Tiger's maximum penetration (from 203 to somewhere between 160 and 170).  The Panzer IV would have to go back down to the L/48 and be left with roughly the same penetration as before.  All the tier 6 mediums would use the 75mm L/70 or 88mm L/56, but they'd almost certainly get ROF nerfed.  This is honestly not that good of a deal for them, since they perform quite well already under the existing playstyle.

It'd help the Jagdpanzer IV, though.

My argument is centered on the flawed conversion of German penetration stats, but is backed up by a large amount of research on the topic, in addition to basic knowledge of physics and kinetic energy.


160-170mm is too much penetration for the 88mm L/56; I'd say 150-160mm is a better range, with 155mm as a comprimise.

The 88mm L/71 is actually one of the least undervalued German guns; it only needs a boost of 10-15% to be historically accurate.
About 220-230mm in other words. This is comparable to the French 100mm SA 47 with 232mm penetration; with 7.4, that gun will be available on a tier 7 TD (and that TD has significantly better armor than the Tiger I), so it wouldn't really be unbalanced for tier 7.

The 75mm L/70 badly needs to be increased to at least 170mm to be at all accurate, maybe higher. My pen range estimates for that gun is 170-190mm.
It'd need to be dropped from the Panzer IV and Stug III for sure with that kind of penetration, but together with the 88mm L/56 buff, that would fix the entire 'penetration gap' problem with the German tree and make the JagdPanzer IV a viable TD.


The 75mm L/48 I give a range of either 120-130mm with its historical 750 m/s muzzle velocity, or 130-140mm with ingame (and German penetration test) 790 m/s MV.
130mm seems reasonably balanced for a 750 m/s MV, and the penetration loss for the Panzer IV and Stug III is fairly small.
Accuracy would drop too, but both nerfs can be balanced by a rate of fire buff.
138-140mm penetration is possible too, but 790 m/s MV isn't accurate historically; that MV produced too much recoil in enclosed vehicle compartments to be practical.

The 75mm L/43 had only slightly less penetration than the L/48 historically, as its MV was only 740 m/s... I'd say 115-125mm, 120mm as compromise value.
This would buff the Panzer III/IV a fair bit, but that tank is a bit on the weak side at current, so no harm there.


One big problem is Marder II guns:

75mm L/46 PaK 40 penetration range for that gun is 130-140mm with its historical 790 m/s MV; it should have the same penetration as the 75mm L/48 if that gun has a 790 m/s MV, or about 10mm more if it has 750 m/s MV.
140mm is a reasonably accurate value.

76mm PaK 36r penetration range is slightly less than the PaK 40, about 120-130 (similar to the 75mm L/48 with 750 m/s MV actually).
I'd give the PaK 36r 130mm, and the PaK 40 140mm... but that makes the Marder II even more insanely overpowered. Only solution that I can think of is dropping the PaK 40 from the Marder II (keep it for the Marder III), but that's still a 12mm penetration buff for the Marder II's top gun.
TBH, the Marder II could use a nerf anyway... a pen buff would be a good excuse to give it some.


About the only German gun to receive accurate (or slightly greater than accurate) penetration is the 105mm K.18 on the JagdPanther; my estimates give it 180-200mm penetration, and it has 200mm ingame.

[autorev]

FaustianQ, on Jun 06 2012 - 17:34, said:

That might be the case if you're understanding of ballistics was simple and linear, or if youcould actually delude yourself into thinking all of the guns ingame have accurate penetration levels under a single unified system - they don't, as no single system will give you matching numbers. Penetration is roughly correct in most cases and in some cases uses entirely fiat numbers.

For instance, the penetration against a 30° slope by the 88mm KwK36 @ 100m is 120mm, which using even the most rudimentary math, gives you 138mm. 132mm comes into play when you suddenly make Russian testing methods 5% stricter (when they weren't), and assume that German APCBC behaves like a HEAT warhead. WarGaming used the absolute WORST conversion method to get the worst possible numbers for the 88mm L/56, and it's obvious this is not a "mistake" as most other guns are converted properly.

Actual conversion gives you  (1.2667(120/88)^.0655)*120 = 155mm penetration @ 100m, which is historically correct and helps improve gameplay balance as well (JP4, VK3002DB, VK3001P, VK3001H, VK3601H use it as top weapon, VK4502A uses it stock, Tiger H and Jagdpanther use it midgrind).

Worse is the L/70 travesty - 138mm @ 100m ingame, yet 138mm @ 100m @ 30° IRL. They completely ignore the fact it was against a sloped plate, they don't even bother to convert it. The same applies for the 75mm L/43 and L/48 as well, both should have comparable performance to the American 76mm guns, yet are inferior to 57mm guns (wat), the 50mm L/60 had considerably superior performance to the 50mm L/42, and the 128mm guns are robbed of performance by using low velocity penetration ratings for the ingame high velocity shells, instead of their actual 260 to 281mm penetration performance ratings.

Face it, WG doesn't actually care about historical accuracy, just finding the correct justification to achieve whatever sort of balance they want, and will use whatever methods , however incorrect or underhanded, to get the results that they want. I am okay with this, except when it doesn't even create balance, just robs the game of it.

My recollection is that the Germans themselves quoted the 200ish penetration number for the 88mm L/71, along with the 120mm figure for the 88mm L/56, so what you're telling me here is that the German penetration tests are not consistent with each other.  Moreover, the fact of Wargaming's 8 degree normalization confuses the issue considerably.  Assuming the strike angle is 30 degrees in-game, the 88mm L/56 only needs 129 penetration to achieve the Germans' test result.  If you're following this line of argument you're putting yourself in the situation of having to prove every single conversion on a case by case basis--and you're just not going to convince them, because even when you're right, the whole procedure is exhausting.  My point (which I have repeated again and again and again) is that you should stick to game balance arguments, because that will be much more likely to get you what you want.

[FaustianQ]

autorev, on Jun 06 2012 - 21:04, said:

My recollection is that the Germans themselves quoted the 200ish penetration number for the 88mm L/71, along with the 120mm figure for the 88mm L/56, so what you're telling me here is that the German penetration tests are not consistent with each other.  Moreover, the fact of Wargaming's 8 degree normalization confuses the issue considerably.  Assuming the strike angle is 30 degrees in-game, the 88mm L/56 only needs 129 penetration to achieve the Germans' test result.  If you're following this line of argument you're putting yourself in the situation of having to prove every single conversion on a case by case basis--and you're just not going to convince them, because even when you're right, the whole procedure is exhausting.  My point (which I have repeated again and again and again) is that you should stick to game balance arguments, because that will be much more likely to get you what you want.

All guns follow the same criteria as outlined in WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery. Unless of course you wish to accuse the British of forging numbers as well, the 20pdr achieved 196mm/30° @ 500m, similar to the Germans claim of 185mm/30° @ 500m for the 88 L/71, with both guns having similar energies and calibers.

Second, the "8° normalization" is not only a fictitious and fanciful aspect of the game, but no guns penetration takes it into account, otherwise the 76mm M1A1 should be penetrating ~110mm, not 128mm, or the 122mm D-25T should pen a mere ~150mm.

And the procedure is not exhausting, several people, I included, and especially Zergling, have gone over and corrected the penetration tables of WoT. The fact they have not listened does not make them right, it means they do not care to be right.

And the whole German penetration debate IS based on gameplay concerns and balance! Jesus, if the 88 L/56 had 200mm penetration, I'd still bring up that it's ahistorical, not that it isn't imbalanced! The justification is two fold and will remain two fold. The historical data gives justification for improved balance, and is the basis upon which almost all weapons in game are balanced by - historical performance first, nerfs as needed to fit second.

Edited by FaustianQ, Jun 06 2012 - 23:30.

[MajorOffensive]

FaustianQ, on Jun 06 2012 - 22:21, said:

All guns follow the same criteria as outlined in WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery. Unless of course you wish to accuse the British of forging numbers as well, the 20pdr achieved 196mm/30° @ 500m, similar to the Germans claim of 185mm/30° @ 500m for the 88 L/71, with both guns having similar energies and calibers.

Second, the "8° normalization" is not only a fictitious and fanciful aspect of the game, but no guns penetration takes it into account, otherwise the 76mm M1A1 should be penetrating ~110mm, not 128mm, or the 122mm D-25T should pen a mere ~150mm.

And the procedure is not exhausting, several people, I included, and especially Zergling, have gone over and corrected the penetration tables of WoT. The fact they have not listened does not make them right, it means they do not care to be right.

And the whole German penetration debate IS based on gameplay concerns and balance! Jesus, if the 88 L/56 had 200mm penetration, I'd still bring up that it's ahistorical, not that it isn't imbalanced! The justification is two fold and will remains two fold. The historical data gives justification for improved balance, and is the basis upon which almost all weapons in game are balanced by - historical performance first, nerfs as need to fit second.

Except where it is convenient.  The devs want it balanced a certain way and nothing is going to change that.  I don't see them ever overhauling their penetration values.  If for no other reason than that it may require completely rebalancing some tanks.  It would change too much.  I would like to see a single/multiplayer game that is more of a casual simulator.  Would do well as an open MMO with scheduled open battles or something.  Battlegroups could spawn in together or individually.  Or something.  Less focus on HP, more focus on tactics, range, and firepower.

[husband]

srmalloy, on Jun 05 2012 - 04:01, said:

They stand for 'Voll Ketten' -- 'full track', as opposed to 'HK', or 'Halb Ketten' -- 'half track'. A VK project number was given to each fully-tracked vehicle design, and an HK project number was given to each halftrack design

srmalloy, on Jun 05 2012 - 04:01, said:

They stand for 'Voll Ketten' -- 'full track', as opposed to 'HK', or 'Halb Ketten' -- 'half track'. A VK project number was given to each fully-tracked vehicle design, and an HK project number was given to each halftrack design

Thanks!

[lostwingman]

husband, on Jun 07 2012 - 00:17, said:

Thanks!

Umm...I hope you know he's wrong and this is the guy who got it right....

BluefoxP, on Jun 05 2012 - 04:08, said:

its real meaing is - "VK" Versuchskonstruktion or Experimental Construction / Prototype, used by most prototype tanks.

another thing, wasn't the M46E1 just a one off prototype for the M47 or was there more to it?

Don't know wtf that other guy was talking about...

[BluefoxP]

lostwingman, on Jun 07 2012 - 02:02, said:

Umm...I hope you know he's wrong and this is the guy who got it right....



Don't know wtf that other guy was talking about...

he was talking about Full Tracked and Haft Tracked but that is not what VK meant.

Edited by BluefoxP, Jun 07 2012 - 05:42.

[HelloKitty]

What an amazing article!
I fully endorse and highly recommend everyone read this writer's wonderful work of art.