Talk:Battle Mechanics
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
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)
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)
