Difference between revisions of "Talk:Battle Mechanics"

Revision as of 05:36, 16 March 2013

Voice Messages

This page is already ridiculously long - does the dialog really belong here? It's not even a battle mechanic. I'd propose moving them to a subpage or a new page of their own, like Voice Messages. -Auron 09:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Normalization Example?

I just can't wrap my head around normalization. It seems to state that if a shell penetrates spaced armor, you're worse off. Why wouldn't you then just weld that armor on?

Here's the walkthrough:

"The ideal impact angle is along the normal, i.e. perpendicular to the armour plate."

The ideal impact angle is a 90° angle, however...

"The actual impact angle is calculated as the deviation from the normal."

Impact angle is deviation from a 90°... Ergo this 90° angle would be a ZERO DEGREE IMPACT ANGLE!

"The impact angle of AP and APCR shells onto a vehicles armour is normalized, i.e. adjusted towards the armour's normal axis at the point of impact."

The impact angle of AP(CR) shells is adjusted towards perpendicular... aka adjusted towards 0° impact angle, not 90!

"We are told the AP and APCR shells are currently normalized between 4° and 5°."

The impact angle of AP(CR) shells are adjusted toward 0° by 4-5°... aka the impact angle is reduced 4-5 degrees.

"If the normalized impact angle of an AP, APCR or HEAT shell on the target's armour exceeds 70°, a ricochet (also called a bounce) occurs and the shell is deflected off the target without causing any damage. A ricochet can also occur on the hull armour after penetrating spaced armour."

If the final impact angle after this 4-5° adjusting is over 70° AWAY FROM PERPENDICULAR (intuition would tell you this is a 30 angle off the armor plate or less) then a ricochet occurs.

"In case of spaced armour, shells are normalized twice at the point of impact on the spaced armour..."

For spaced armor, the impact angle is adjusted towards 0° twice, that is, reduced by 8-10°.

Regular Armor Example: You fire an AP shell that gets normalized by 5°. Your impact angle is 78° from normal. You get normalized by 5°, towards 0, so your impact angle is 73°. You ricochet!

Spaced Armor Example: You fire the same AP shell that gets normalized by 5°. Your impact angle is again 78° from normal, but this time against spaced armor. You get normalized by 5° twice towards 0, so your impact angle is no longer 73°, but 68°. You actually might penetrate now! Especially since "No additional normalization occurs when the shell hits the hull armour after penetrating the spaced armour."

So adding spaced armor makes a tank more vulnerable? I don't get it. Why wouldn't you just weld that armor right onto the tank?

Here's an example at 60 degrees against spaced and unspaced armor, 30mm total steel. Spaced is 20mm hull + 10mm spaced.

Spaced:

• Penetration 54mm (we're ignoring overmatch for the example) at pen angle of 65°, AP shell normalization 5°. Target tank has 10mm spaced armor, 20mm hull armor. Normalization brings your penetration angle down to 55° (5° twice). A bit of math shows you're penetrating 17.43mm of effective armor. You have 36.57mm of penetration left over.
  • You hit the hull at the same angle ("No additional normalization occurs when the shell hits the hull armour after penetrating the spaced armour."). 20mm at this angle becomes 34.87mm of effective armor. You still have 1.7mm penetration left, so you penetrate!

Unspaced (weld that plate straight on!):

• Penetration 54mm (we're ignoring overmatch for the example) at pen angle of 65°, AP shell normalization 5°. Target tank has 30mm hull armor (since XZibit heard we like steel on our steel so he put steel on our steel :P). Normalization brings your penetration angle down to 60° (5° but only once).
  • 30mm of armor gets doubled at 60 degrees, so your 54mm penetration comes up 7mm short. Now you don't penetrate!

Spaced armor has made your vehicle more vulnerable, as it makes the shell penetrate at an angle closer to ideal/normal/perpendicular.

What am I missing??? --NanbanJim

1. If you are using spaced armor to reduce the penetrating power of AP and APCR shells, it's often sloped so that instead of normalizing the shells towards the main armor's normal axis, it normalizes the shells away or create a ricochet.

2. If you are using spaced armor to reduce the impact power of HE and HEAT shells, the spaced armor will cause a premature detonation of the explosives at a distance away from the main armor of the vehicle thus greatly reducing the impact.

--Immueggpain 08:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Spotting Range

Says here that there is no 500m limit on a tank's view range, and that the number can in fact exceed 500m. Later on in the page we are told that the game doesn't check beyond 445m for spotting tanks. Does the excess view range still factor in for countering camo values?

--Zyro_Falcon 08 Nov 2012 8:07 GMT+8

Yes. --Trifler 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

nominalStat

I'm confused with the 'nominalStat' in the formulae of tank stats. Is it after-0.7.2 version or before-0.7.1 version?

--Immueggpain 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's up to date. --Trifler 09:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I think it should clarified: Is that "nominal thickness" refers to the angled or not angled thickness? Cause in normal physics an explosion exerts equal force in all directions, making sloped armor ineffective. (While in turn kinetic stuff renders the spaced one ineffective.) Thanks! --MoZo1 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the guy who wrote all that stuff is gone now so he can't answer your question. --Trifler 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's should be not angled, since only in that way the damage is maximized. And also the angled armor is called 'Effective Armour Thickness'. --Immueggpain 08:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Camo

[1] Here is a more up-to-date table of camo values for tanks. I would swap it out with the one the page has now, but the other one (not mine) appears to have some stuff this one doesn't.

You can add it in addition to the existing one if you like. --Trifler 09:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Module damage: fuel tank

I think a clarification is needed for the yellow state of fuel tank. Here's the quote Yellow: This state signifies that a module has taken considerable damage but is still operational. Tracks remain fully operational in this state, whereas every other module works at 50% efficiency. What does it mean for fuel tank? Since fuel isn't a stat in game and yellow fuel tank doesn't affect tank's movement in any noticeable way, what happens? Does fuel tank behave like tracks (when yellow, it's more prone to get destroyed by a subsequent hit because it already lost some HP) or is there any effect? --Italkronin 03:10, 10 March 2013 (CET)

Impulse

Currently the battle mechanics guide does not mention impulse, which is an important factor in aiming. Would adding basic information regarding impulse be a good idea?

Basically put, each tank has a specific impulse value that differs from other tanks, and those with better impulse are more likely to hit dead center of the aiming reticle, regardless of how small the reticle has shrunk due to aiming time. Impulse is a hidden game stat that isn't documented in detail, but it allows people to make certain "lucky shots" with arty and tanks with better impulse value thanks to RNG. See https://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/211374-impulse-and-other-voodoo-science/ Benlisquare 05:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

For example, the Matilda has the OQF 3-inch Howitzer Mk. I with an impulse value of 0.48, which means that 50% of the time a shot will hit dead center, while the QF 2-pdr Mk.X has an impulse value of 0.26. (Source: https://gamemodels3d.com/worldoftanks/vehicles/b3 ) Arty in general has an impulse of around 0.5, which means it's a 50% dice roll to hit dead center. Benlisquare 05:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)