Jump to content


[0.8.8] Tank Camouflage Tables

camo camouflage spotting

  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

Tibalt #41 Posted Aug 04 2012 - 20:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 48689 battles
  • 1,391
  • [PYRMD] PYRMD
  • Member since:
    03-24-2012
without camo a lot of the tds would be rather pointless. They already give away armor and mobility. Why else play one when the guns aren't all that different from heavies? Dpm is comparable between tds/med./heavies in many cases. How hard is it really to shoot the bush that is shooting you?

USMCG_Range #42 Posted Aug 04 2012 - 20:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8738 battles
  • 296
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
wow im scared for you for im sure wargaming will be sending people to your house,,, last time this was done the people got IP banned and accounts closed....just shows the real MAGIC in this game, of harry potter w/tanks lol

Eschaton #43 Posted Aug 04 2012 - 21:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2335 battles
  • 1,283
  • Member since:
    05-13-2012

Verilogus, on Aug 03 2012 - 18:56, said:

An unexpected statement form someone with your stats.
Ultimately the camo difference amounts to no more than 10% which is at best 40 meters, soviet low accuracy does not get compensated for with such a small camo difference. And their heavy tanks have less camo than American ones.
Or are you just trolling?

Lets show the math, shall we?

A 704 in motion has a camo mod of -7.5%

http://wiki.worldoft..._camofactor.png

Disregard all other variables except for camoSkill which I will assume is 100% and we have the following:

camoFactor = 0.075 * ( 0.00375 * 100 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.075 * (0.375 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.075 * 0.875 = 0.065628

Now for it's stationary value of 17%

camoFactor = 0.17 * (0.00375 * 100 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.17 * (0.375 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.17 * 0.875 = 0.14875

For giggles, lets do the UE 57 with it's Romulan cloaking device.

camoFactor = 0.275 * (0.00375 * 100 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.275 * (0.375 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.275 * 0.875 = .240625


Lets plug them into here

http://wiki.worldoft...ottingRange.png

Let us stipulate a view range of 400m.

1st case: 400 - (350 * 0.065628) = 400 - 22.9698 = 377m
2nd case: 400 - (350 * 0.14875) = 400 - 52.0625 = 348m
3rd case: 400 - (350 * 0.240625) = 400 - 84.21875 = 316m


Yep. The camo difference is relatively small in the end. There is less than a 20% difference in spotting ranges between the UE 57 with 100% camo and the GW Tiger with no camo skill at all.

Veril #44 Posted Aug 04 2012 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

Eschaton, on Aug 04 2012 - 21:55, said:

Lets show the math, shall we?

A 704 in motion has a camo mod of -7.5%

http://wiki.worldoft..._camofactor.png

Disregard all other variables except for camoSkill which I will assume is 100% and we have the following:

camoFactor = 0.075 * ( 0.00375 * 100 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.075 * (0.375 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.075 * 0.875 = 0.065628

Now for it's stationary value of 17%

camoFactor = 0.17 * (0.00375 * 100 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.17 * (0.375 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.17 * 0.875 = 0.14875

For giggles, lets do the UE 57 with it's Romulan cloaking device.

camoFactor = 0.275 * (0.00375 * 100 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.275 * (0.375 + 0.5)
camoFactor = 0.275 * 0.875 = .240625


Lets plug them into here

http://wiki.worldoft...ottingRange.png

Let us stipulate a view range of 400m.

1st case: 400 - (350 * 0.065628) = 400 - 22.9698 = 377m
2nd case: 400 - (350 * 0.14875) = 400 - 52.0625 = 348m
3rd case: 400 - (350 * 0.240625) = 400 - 84.21875 = 316m


Yep. The camo difference is relatively small in the end. There is less than a 20% difference in spotting ranges between the UE 57 with 100% camo and the GW Tiger with no camo skill at all.

Or you could just do 10% of 400 = 40.
Btw, a lot of that math was redundant when comparing factors. And I would not really trust that wiki formula, experience suggests it`s crap.

MagicSquid #45 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 01:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13394 battles
  • 633
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
https://dl.dropbox.c...ussian Bias.jpg

rinying #46 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 01:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 11427 battles
  • 5,746
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
wait, so a t-50-2 has the SAME camo value as a chaffee? ..... i need to readopt a new tactic....

Eschaton #47 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 01:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 2335 battles
  • 1,283
  • Member since:
    05-13-2012

Verilogus, on Aug 04 2012 - 22:35, said:

Or you could just do 10% of 400 = 40.
Btw, a lot of that math was redundant when comparing factors. And I would not really trust that wiki formula, experience suggests it`s crap.
I was bored.

therowman #48 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 01:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9938 battles
  • 5,663
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

Verilogus, on Aug 04 2012 - 19:39, said:

Size doesn't really matter much, take for example the MS1 that has worse camo than the much larger 704. They just made up the camo system from nothing, which is not to say its bad just unrealistic but then many things are.

Things like the ms-1 is due to the fact that low tier tanks have horrible vision.

If they didn't give low tier bad camo, none of the tier 1's would see each other till 50 meters due to being so small, bad view ranges and being light tanks.

hoom #49 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 03:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20740 battles
  • 6,479
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010
Small tanks get better cammo. (except apparently low tier lights)
TDs get a cammo bonus.
Just about everything has very little cammo when shooting.

Tanks that disappear in the open:
  • This occurs because you are not actually spotting the tank. There is a closer tank which was doing the spotting that was killed moved so that it is no longer spotting -> tank disappears.
  • I see it more often with German tanks than Russian.

In the mid-tiers my Russian tanks are very frequently being shot at while in cover by German tanks who I can't see because they have better view range than me.

KiwiMark67 #50 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 04:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 51285 battles
  • 5,060
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011
T-50 & T-50-2 have the same camo value as the ELC?
The ELC has been ripped off!
I compared my T-50-2 with my ELC, even if you removed the turret from the 50-2 then it would still be taller than the ELC.  Surely that super low profile should make the ELC even harder to see than almost every TD - I would have thought that 25 stationary & 25 moving would be more realistic for its profile.  The camo when firing seems fine to me, that 90mm cannon would drastically reduce the camo value.

Snib #51 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 11:45

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

Verilogus, on Aug 04 2012 - 22:35, said:

And I would not really trust that wiki formula, experience suggests it`s crap.
Or maybe you're just full of the same. :)

(you guys are using it incorrectly though)

GearaDoga #52 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 12:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 8517 battles
  • 2,611
  • [WIH] WIH
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

therowman, on Aug 04 2012 - 03:18, said:

Im sorry, but most are MUCH smaller.

Even still, the Soviet tanks suffer no penalties due to their tiny size and they reap the benefits of a significantly better camo score.  Meanwhile the German tanks earn no benefits from their larger-than-reality size, and suffer all the penalties!

therowman #53 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 12:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9938 battles
  • 5,663
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

GearaDoga, on Aug 05 2012 - 12:06, said:

Even still, the Soviet tanks suffer no penalties due to their tiny size and they reap the benefits of a significantly better camo score.  Meanwhile the German tanks earn no benefits from their larger-than-reality size, and suffer all the penalties!

Uhm Yes they do.

Have you ever try to aim down with a russian gun. Russian tanks have no gun depression due to thier smaller sizes. The low profile turret makes it where the gun breach can't elevate far so the can't depress downward.

I think the worst is -3 degree's which on the tank is barly noticeable.

hoom #54 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 13:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 20740 battles
  • 6,479
  • Member since:
    10-01-2010
Ever try shooting over a wall in a town in a low profile Russian tank?
You can't. You have to break the wall & generally take a hit, then sit there aiming forever, often taking a 2nd hit from your foe before getting one shot.

Now lets look at the Tier8 Heavy tanks:
Name			  Stationary,%			In Motion,%			  When Firing,%
ИС-3					8					   1,5					 1,72
КВ-4					4					   4					   0,87  
КВ-5					2,5					 0,5					 0,57
ИС-6					8					   1,75					1,53
PzKpfw VIB Tiger II	 4,5					 1					   0,95
K4502(P) Ausf. A	   4,5					 1					   0,95
Lowe					4,5					 1					   0,95
Т32					 7,5					 2,5					 1,46
Т34					 6					   1					   1,15
6A2E1				  3,5					 1					   0,7
AMX 50 100			  6					   5,5					 1,59
Well hey, look at that Russian bias! :Smile_smile:

IS3 is physically smallest in tier and gets the best cammo.
KV5 & KV4 are physically large and consequently get right down among the worst static & shooting cammo for their tier.
Only oddity there is the in motion cammo of the KV4 which obviously should be less but don't be under any delusions that KV4 will be sneaking anywhere.

Edited by hoom, Aug 05 2012 - 14:01.


holakc #55 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 15:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33634 battles
  • 1,237
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

Snib, on Aug 05 2012 - 11:45, said:



(you guys are using it incorrectly though)

can you explain how to use the formula then?

please :)

Medicman11 #56 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 15:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 44266 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    03-02-2011
Does the size of the gun have no effect on its camo when firing?

Veril #57 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

Medicman11, on Aug 05 2012 - 15:10, said:

Does the size of the gun have no effect on its camo when firing?

That is why the tables include the name of the mounted gun...

Medicman11 #58 Posted Aug 05 2012 - 22:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 44266 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    03-02-2011

Verilogus, on Aug 05 2012 - 21:10, said:

That is why the tables include the name of the mounted gun...

but wouldnt the bigger gun have a worse rating then? ie. BL10 VS. 12.8 shouldnt the BL10 have close to the same rating as the e100s 15cm?
or am i reading this thing wrong

Edited by Medicman11, Aug 05 2012 - 22:26.


Veril #59 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 02:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 18915 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

Medicman11, on Aug 05 2012 - 22:23, said:

but wouldnt the bigger gun have a worse rating then? ie. BL10 VS. 12.8 shouldnt the BL10 have close to the same rating as the e100s 15cm?
or am i reading this thing wrong

Don't read into the gun-camo connection much, the gun names are there just for the "when firing" camo rating. Why would WG follow the logical approach of making firing camo relative to gun size? They don't have a track record for realism.

Edited by Verilogus, Aug 06 2012 - 02:17.


Draculthemad #60 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 04:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17761 battles
  • 562
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011
The russian camo bonus is their "thing" other than generally being small.

As others have pointed out, they do suffer some weaknesses in contrast:

They have weaker view range.
Their guns have worse aim time, and generally the least accuracy of the three.
They have worse gun depression.
They also have less ammo stowage.

This last often gets overlooked, its also why they have ammo stores squirrelled away all over the tank sometimes.

The total kill potential of russian tanks is sharply limited. I have had a couple of lucky 11 kill matches in german tanks, with ammo left over. I dont think that could happen on a russian tank, as id have simply run out of ammo entirely before getting there.





Also tagged with camo, camouflage, spotting

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users