Jump to content


Damage vs Caliber: 2 Graphs


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

Engineer777 #1 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 02:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23511 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

(Updated)

This first image is a bubble chart showing all guns listed on tanks.gg that have non-premium AP, APCR, or HEAT rounds, excluding the "Nameless" tank. The area of each bubble represents the number of guns of identical caliber and damage.

The curved line represents the function D=K((R^3)+(R^2)+R) where "D" is average damage upon penetration, "K" is 20 hitpoints of damage, and "R" is the shell radius (NOT diameter) in inches.

Side note: I had to download Microsoft Office, as Excel Online does not have bubble charts. I had to create the line out of 2000 small bubbles, since bubble charts are not an option when making a custom combination chart. My computer almost crashed when first plotting this chart.

The second chart (below)(which I published calling it "mostly useless", which it is) shows outliers when comparing the damage of standard AP/APCR/HEAT shells to their caliber.

The x-axis measures cross sectional area in square inches ((((mm/diameter)*(1"/25.4mm)*(1diameter/2radii))^2)*pi).

The y-axis measures average damage upon penetration, in hitpoints.

The curve is the same as in the last chart, but scaled to fit the new x-axis, which is by area instead of diameter.

In regards to the second chart (which was actually the one I made first):

I tried to include all outliers and be unbiased. I compared caliber to damage for all guns in the game without recording the tank name, using an excel spreadsheet. The requirements for being included are <75% curve height or >140% curve height. I included the PTA & Leopard, as they came close at 138% curve height, and all other 91mm+ guns are <130% curve height. NOTE: This does NOT apply to the "Comparison" or "Reference" guns. Note: I did not check guns that do not have any non-premium AP, APCR, or HEAT rounds. This means that the 152mm T49, with standard HEAT was checked. Meanwhile the 105mm M4A1, with only premium HEAT, was not checked. In the M4A1's case, the Pz. IV H has the same damage and has AP rounds which were checked, so it obviously wouldn't have made the chart anyways.

Exclusions:

"Nameless", the tank is on tanks.gg but not available in the game.

40mm guns with 55 damage (7TP & Matilda), since Cruiser IV & Covenanter have the same caliber and more damage (60).

45mm guns with 70 damage (T-50 & stock MT-25), since 10TP & 14TP are nearly identical in caliber (47mm) and have more damage (75).

Thinking about it now, I probably should've excluded the Ke-Ni and Chi-Ha


Edited by Engineer777, Sep 18 2020 - 18:06.


NateRocko #2 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 02:06

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 589 battles
  • 502
  • [KTSHA] KTSHA
  • Member since:
    08-21-2020
182.9 mm L4 = 1750 average damage
240 mm Howitzer M1 = 1300 average damage

Hmm...

PTwr #3 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 02:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 49409 battles
  • 12,226
  • [BITSA] BITSA
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

Damage initially was set by caliber, but once first balance patches hit (2012?) and first high tiers with low calibers spawned (2013?) it became mess driven by game "balance".

 

First few years if WoT were practically early-access testing :] 



gmotoman #4 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 02:37

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 37520 battles
  • 2,329
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011
Out of respect I will always look at a graph when I see the word 'Engineer'.  +1 OP thanks for the info.

ArmorStorm #5 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 03:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 39883 battles
  • 9,232
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postgmotoman, on Sep 16 2020 - 19:37, said:

Out of respect I will always look at a graph when I see the word 'Engineer'.  +1 OP thanks for the info.


What if he is a train engineer though?



gmotoman #6 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 05:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 37520 battles
  • 2,329
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View PostArmorStorm, on Sep 17 2020 - 03:34, said:


What if he is a train engineer though?


Considering I grew up in a house with a two car garage that was filled with a an HO scale model railroad.  Even more so.



Pipinghot #7 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 12:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,951
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostEngineer777, on Sep 16 2020 - 20:00, said:

This graph shows outliers when comparing the damage of standard AP/APCR/HEAT shells to their caliber.

What information/message/story are you trying to convey with this graph? You said it's "mostly uselss" which implies that you think it's at least partially useful, so useful for what exactly?

 

At first glace what it seems you're tying to say is that the guns in the game have a German bias, but without knowing what message you're trying to communicate that's just speculation, especially with a mere 11 data points. Obviously the rest of the guns in the game don't all hug that curve more closely than the 11 you've shown, so... what's the point of this graph?



Engineer777 #8 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 14:55

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23511 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 17 2020 - 12:01, said:

What information/message/story are you trying to convey with this graph? You said it's "mostly uselss" which implies that you think it's at least partially useful, so useful for what exactly?

 

At first glace what it seems you're tying to say is that the guns in the game have a German bias, but without knowing what message you're trying to communicate that's just speculation, especially with a mere 11 data points. Obviously the rest of the guns in the game don't all hug that curve more closely than the 11 you've shown, so... what's the point of this graph?

That's not true. This is how I made this graph:

I typed all guns' caliber and damage into an excel spread sheet WITHOUT entering the name of the tank.

I sorted the information in excel.

I noted those that stood out most.

I went back to tanks.gg to find out what tanks those numbers matched.

These are the only guns that are <75% of the curve height or >140% of the curve height. I decided to include the PTA and Leopard because they were the only large caliber guns that came close to meeting the requirements. ALL 91mm+ guns other than the PTA and Leopard are <130% of the curve height (rounded to the nearest 1%).

Pz.IC: 217% of curve height

French lights: 158% of curve height

Ke-Ni & Chi-Ha: 152% of curve height

Cruiser IV & Covenanter: 158% of curve height

10TP & 14TP: 146% of curve height

A46: 74% of curve height

Tiger I & Tiger II & E75: 141% of curve height

PTA & Leopard: 138% of curve height



rockbadger #9 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 17:38

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16574 battles
  • 469
  • [1TANK] 1TANK
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Hello Engineer,

 

Thanks for presenting this data.  Can I ask, why is the y-axis given in cross sectional area instead of perhaps caliber in mm?

 

 



Engineer777 #10 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 18:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23511 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View Postrockbadger, on Sep 17 2020 - 17:38, said:

Hello Engineer,

 

Thanks for presenting this data.  Can I ask, why is the y-axis given in cross sectional area instead of perhaps caliber in mm?

 

 

That was to make the graph look more linear. If it's in diameter, the line is more akin to a parabola. Basically I just find it more aesthetically pleasing. BTW, the x-axis is cross sectional area and the y-axis is damage.



Pipinghot #11 Posted Sep 17 2020 - 19:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,951
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostEngineer777, on Sep 17 2020 - 08:55, said:

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 17 2020 - 12:01, said:

What information/message/story are you trying to convey with this graph? You said it's "mostly uselss" which implies that you think it's at least partially useful, so useful for what exactly?

 

At first glace what it seems you're tying to say is that the guns in the game have a German bias, but without knowing what message you're trying to communicate that's just speculation, especially with a mere 11 data points. Obviously the rest of the guns in the game don't all hug that curve more closely than the 11 you've shown, so... what's the point of this graph?

That's not true. This is how I made this graph:

I typed all guns' caliber and damage into an excel spread sheet WITHOUT entering the name of the tank.

I sorted the information in excel.

I noted those that stood out most.

I went back to tanks.gg to find out what tanks those numbers matched.

These are the only guns that are <75% of the curve height or >140% of the curve height. I decided to include the PTA and Leopard because they were the only large caliber guns that came close to meeting the requirements. ALL 91mm+ guns other than the PTA and Leopard are <130% of the curve height (rounded to the nearest 1%).

Pz.IC: 217% of curve height

French lights: 158% of curve height

Ke-Ni & Chi-Ha: 152% of curve height

Cruiser IV & Covenanter: 158% of curve height

10TP & 14TP: 146% of curve height

A46: 74% of curve height

Tiger I & Tiger II & E75: 141% of curve height

PTA & Leopard: 138% of curve height

Thank you for that explanation (and in hindsight I now see that much of this was included in the notes at the bottom of the graph, my apologies for overlooking that the first time).

 

Now that I understand it better your chart is pretty interesting, it shows how little WG has tweaked guns to make them different from the basic curve relating Area to Damage. Thanks for sharing that with us.



Pipinghot #12 Posted Sep 18 2020 - 03:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,951
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostEngineer777, on Sep 17 2020 - 08:55, said:

These are the only guns that are <75% of the curve height or >140% of the curve height.

After some reflection I have a follow up question - why did you chose 75% and 140% as your boundaries?

 

Why not 100%+/-25% (75% & 125%) ?

or a consistent ratio 75% * 4/3 = 100%, 100% * 4/3 = 133% (75% & 133%) ?



Engineer777 #13 Posted Sep 18 2020 - 05:12

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23511 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 18 2020 - 03:28, said:

After some reflection I have a follow up question - why did you chose 75% and 140% as your boundaries?

 

Why not 100%+/-25% (75% & 125%) ?

or a consistent ratio 75% * 4/3 = 100%, 100% * 4/3 = 133% (75% & 133%) ?

I actually did choose the latter initially <75% or >133%. I actually rounded it down to >130%. After seeing that there are more higher outliers than lower, I felt like it'd be easier just to start eliminating guns that are sort of between the line and another point. Put simply, I didn't feel like having so many above the line. Next you may be asking, "why not just raise line?" Well, it's mostly because it would fly over a massive number of 75mm guns with 110 or 115 damage. Also, I had already come up with the function for the curve.


Edited by Engineer777, Sep 18 2020 - 05:15.


Pipinghot #14 Posted Sep 18 2020 - 13:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 11,951
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostEngineer777, on Sep 17 2020 - 23:12, said:

I actually did choose the latter initially <75% or >133%. I actually rounded it down to >130%. After seeing that there are more higher outliers than lower, I felt like it'd be easier just to start eliminating guns that are sort of between the line and another point. Put simply, I didn't feel like having so many above the line. Next you may be asking, "why not just raise line?" Well, it's mostly because it would fly over a massive number of 75mm guns with 110 or 115 damage. Also, I had already come up with the function for the curve.

The function for the curve makes perfect sense, it's pretty much how WG designed the game.

 

I would argue that it's better to keep either 75%/125% or 75%/133% because it presents a more accurate picture of how the curve has been tweaked over time. The graph should show "that there are more higher outliers than lower" because is an accurate reflection of the changes that WG has made. Your graph gives the appearance that they've only modified 8 guns to be beyond the 1/3 ratio above/below the line but that's not a true picture of what they've done.

 

Also, in case this isn't clear so far, I love what you've done. I think your research and your data are pretty great, this is just a friendly discussion about how to define outliers in order to enable the best and most informative presentation.


Edited by Pipinghot, Sep 18 2020 - 17:53.


Engineer777 #15 Posted Sep 18 2020 - 17:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23511 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View PostPipinghot, on Sep 18 2020 - 13:53, said:

The function for the curve makes perfect sense, it's pretty much how WG designed the game.

 

I would argue that it's better to keep either 75%/125% or 75%/133% because it presents a more accurate picture of how the curve has been tweaked over time. The graph should show "that there are more higher outliers than lower" because is an accurate reflection of the changes that WG has made. Your graph gives the appearance that they've only modified 8 guns to be beyond the 1/3 ratio above/below the line but that's not a true picture of what they've done.

 

Also, in case this isn't clear so far, I love what you've done. I think your research and your data are pretty great, this is just a friendly discussion about how to define outliers in order to enable the best and most informative presentation.

I've edited the original post to include a chart of all guns.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users