Jump to content


Nothing realistic about this game.

losing broken rigged

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

1ST_AD_Abrams #21 Posted Aug 20 2019 - 06:40

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3258 battles
  • 56
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

Note:  This is my idea or possible reasons for some realism not being correct.  It doesn't have the backing of WG or anything beyond in game experiences.  So please limit any comments to the limited review/comments/examples I will talk about below.

 

 

The realistic part I think is a hybrid approach.  It tries to portray realistic stats/data on each tank but to make sure the game also wasn't frustrating made it very difficult for just 1 shot to destroy any tank.  Yes with luck you can sometimes 1 shot another tank, but those are of the light or td class.  If they had gone with the 1 shot kill possibility they probably figured no one would want to play the LT or TD's.  So to satisfy the desire of players to be able to fight longer, arcadish like damage was introduced into the realistic formula to give us what we have today.

 

Remember tanks have three main areas that are part of its design.  Firepower, Protection and Mobility.  It is a constant attempt to balance all three.  If you focused on one then the other two suffered.  If you tried to do a balance approach that the tank would not be really a great tank and could even be inferior (this is all WW2 commenting).

 

So TD's got great firepower and mobility but at the cost of having thin armor that most heavy or high velocity/caliber rounds could penetrate them.  A TD never wanted to expose its sides or rear and avoid head to head combat in terms of short range firing between them and a tank with a powerful gun as their armor was usually only about 1 inch thick in the front.  To add more armor would reduce mobility, which was very important for TD's.

 

LT's were also sometimes called armored cars.  The had little in the way of firepower.  They were used more in support of infantry or to locate the movement of the enemy.  The heavily depended on mobility at the cost of a weak if not useless gun and extremely thin armor, in order to keep its high speed mobility.

 

Tanks like the Tiger during the Battle for Kursk could be knocked out by very heavy anti-tank guns.  However the practice used in some cases by the russians (as they tanks were out-ranged by superior guns on tigers and other tanks upgraded to the famous 88 Flak Gun) was that they drove straight at the tigers and rammed them.  This knocked the German tank out usually by destroying the gun and parts involved in moving the tank.  However this also disabled the Russian Tank (in most cases a T34).  For the Russians, they didn't worry about losing a tank that way as they knew once they were back to their lines they could always jump into a new tank and keep fighting while the Germans had no real reserves and most if not all of their tanks were up on the front lines.

 

During an engagement in France between TD of the US Army and Panther tanks from Germany, the Panthers made the critical mistake of allow their side armor to be seen/aimed at, in which the tank destroyers had a field day on them but of course suffered losses as well as the Panther's gun could easily penetrate the TD frontal armor.  The TD's resorted to a drive up hill, shoot, then go back down the hill and either locate to a new firing position or kept the same and just did nothing but roll up and then back.

 

The French Medium/Heavy Tank, Char B1 Bis was slow but had good armor.  In a battle with mainly Panzer III's and IV's it was beating them.  The Germans then noticed on the side of the tank a weak spot that if they fired at it had a good chance of knocking the tank out.  It was a weakness the French never fixed (since they surrendered).  The Germans would go on to use captured Char B1 Bis with a few modifications of their own in Panzer units.

 

What am I trying to say?  Well a shot to the side of any tank type should do serious damage since the armor was much thinner than firing at the front of the tank.  Yet tanks in this game either block, ricochet, absorb or take a low amount of damage when hit like that.  This is just one example of realism issues.

 

Another issue is with the prototypes that only were on paper, were being built when the war ended or only had 1 or 2 prototypes.  We do not know how they would have really performed outside of the testing stage.  So some tanks that never were tested in combat are based strictly on blueprints/schematics or on prototypes.  The guns used were matched against guns being used on other tanks as being just as effective.  The speed and armor also are based on limited data and some of it had to be determined by the engine and mathematical equations to guess what the true speed and mobility it had.  Many tanks couldn't be produced because of the complexity of the tank or a weak spot was discovered, engine problems or just problems in general.  "The things I have said is why I can't understand how a hvy tank gun fails to scratch the paint of a lt and td especially when they are showing their sides and when shooting at the front armor sometimes also represents 0 damage results.



1ST_AD_Abrams #22 Posted Aug 20 2019 - 12:46

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3258 battles
  • 56
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

Oh and shooting point blank at enemy tracks with a hvy results in no damage at all, give me a break.  Might as well give me a bazooka and 10 hps and I will run around as infantry.  Also missing for realism is infantry (hunter-killer teams), anti-tank gun emplacements, minefields (in random), no air strikes, and other things I will add as I think of them.  Oh stats might be slightly unrealistic in what they track (I don't think Tank Aces kept track of how many shells they fired, which hit and which didn't, if it knocked out a module and the avg of stuff.  Since players seem to worry so much about their stats they often compare them to your stats.  As mentioned I sure would hope a 34K battles player would have better stats than a 2500 battles for a player.

 

The fact that there is no death penalty in random battles.  If that was instituted I am sure some will quit however that would add the cost of war into the realism.  Now what or how you would have a death penalty, I do not even have any suggestions that sound like players would put up with it.

 

Not having tanks who are only allowed to work with allies instead of the mash up of different nations on each side.  Sure it is fun to see every nation's tanks on each side but then that isn't realism.

 

You want realism, go look at simulations from DCS.  Bet it will take a person a lifetime to learn to fly the A-10C with a full clickable cockpit if they aren't a pilot to start with.



Geek_Verve #23 Posted Aug 27 2019 - 15:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7183 battles
  • 553
  • [DHO] DHO
  • Member since:
    11-15-2013
 

Hey OP, see those Quote and MultiQuote buttons in the bottom right area of each post? They're really helpful, when replying to something a specific person says.

 

 


Edited by Geek_Verve, Aug 27 2019 - 15:30.






Also tagged with losing, broken, rigged

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users