Jump to content


Ballistics data used in damage modeling


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

skhend25 #1 Posted Jun 09 2019 - 16:20

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1169 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    03-16-2019
I would love to see the ballistics behind the theory, that an entire tank could destroyed from consistently hitting the very front edge of the track and wheel assembly...

RMxR #2 Posted Jun 09 2019 - 16:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 45582 battles
  • 376
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View Postskhend25, on Jun 09 2019 - 09:20, said:

I would love to see the ballistics behind the theory, that an entire tank could destroyed from consistently hitting the very front edge of the track and wheel assembly...

 

WoT is an arcade game dude

 

 

 



Waarheid #3 Posted Jun 09 2019 - 16:48

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 15294 battles
  • 566
  • Member since:
    09-30-2017
I would like to see the maintainance data behind the theory that a broken track can be repaired with the push of a button. 

GeorgePreddy #4 Posted Jun 09 2019 - 18:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 14680 battles
  • 12,765
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

I would love to see the player with only 600 battles who has even a modicum of true understanding of the game and its mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



skhend25 #5 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 20:50

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1169 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    03-16-2019

Which still doesn't answer the question... Trying to Insult people rarely enlarges the player base. 

 

I am really interested to know how the game works. 

 

I have read, gamed and studied WWII for over 40 years, in all that time I never read where multiple hits to say the commanders cupola or the tip of the tracks actually destroyed the tank. It might kill the commander or immobilize it, but not destroy it. So if the coding is: if it hits anywhere it does a base X amount of damage in the calculations, and the actual important points on a tank does X*Y that is fine with me... seems a bit simplistic given the quality of game code out today for damage modeling, but if that is how it is designed then that is how its designed.



diego999 #6 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 20:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 35139 battles
  • 5,172
  • [ACA-T] ACA-T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
They already answered you: it's a game. Not a WW2 simulator.

FrozenKemp #7 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 23:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 51800 battles
  • 9,351
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postskhend25, on Jun 22 2019 - 14:50, said:

I am really interested to know how the game works. 

 

There is some information about damage here: http://wiki.wargamin...amage_Mechanics



cavalry11 #8 Posted Jun 22 2019 - 23:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 48594 battles
  • 461
  • [11BAT] 11BAT
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
Nobody ever answered his question.

diego999 #9 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 00:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 35139 battles
  • 5,172
  • [ACA-T] ACA-T
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Postcavalry11, on Jun 22 2019 - 19:49, said:

Nobody ever answered his question.

 

We did. This is a game. There's no ballistics. Shells aren't objects with mass, they're dots. Tanks have hitpoints, gun barrels are ethereal and you can revive dead crewmembers, fix tracks in a split second and look down over the battlefield from a satellite view. All these mechanics are there to ensure you have fun while playing A GAME.

 

If you want a realistic simulator, you're playing the wrong GAME.

 

Did I mention wot is A GAME?



skhend25 #10 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 04:14

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1169 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    03-16-2019

Obvious its a game and not a simulator... or else light tanks couldn't fly around on the battlefield like X-wings, where the crazy stunts would cause mechanical breakdowns and the game would be less fun. Especially for the teenager set who cannot survive without constant action in a game.  But if WG used no actual real life technical data in their vehicle or damage modeling then how did they derive the differences in hit points, damage etc. say between a Pz IIc, IIj, Pz38(T)? In a program as complicated as his with as many different "tanks" lets call them, if there is no historical statistical basis they really couldn't put a game together than anyone would like to play. It would be so bad 90% would quit after a week, and obviously while a lot of people looking for more of a simulator do leave it seems there is enough "historicalness" to keep a good number of players.

 

Is there a design notes section on the forum? I would love to see anything on what their conceptual framework was for this game. I find this question more fascinating as people chime in... particularly since the answer so far seems to be: nobody knows.



Pupsrus13 #11 Posted Jun 23 2019 - 13:14

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 6545 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

If you want a more "historically accurate" tank game, go play War Thunder.

 

Then complain on THEIR forums about how you were oneshot by being shot in the cupola and the spall fragmentation murdered your entire crew, set your engine on fire, and then detonated your ammo rack.

 

I'll keep my hitpoints, consumables, and slot machine damage calculations, thanks.



skhend25 #12 Posted Jun 25 2019 - 00:02

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1169 battles
  • 18
  • Member since:
    03-16-2019

Both have their good points and bad, good code and really poor code WoT and WT... I prefer WoT arcade mode to WT arcade mode, but the WT realistic mode is great.... right up to the point where you wait forever to get in a game because its too hard for the acne set so they don't play.

 

don't think anyone else has even tried a game like these, or if they did they failed pretty quickly.

 

So this is what we're all stuck with, so we'll just grumble and grind and try to make the best of it.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users