Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
2017-09-29, 04:42 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-10-14 01:58 AM by damowang2.)
Post: #1
Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
Some new concept for AP damage
1. AP shell does "virtual" damage to structural block(reduce AP speed and class on each layer of armor but does not do actual damage before reaching key parts) and does actual damage to functional ones. this models the fact that AP shells with no charge loaded will only punch a hole on armor, which is relatively easy to fix on a ship.

EXPLAINED:
[Image: ePgAxLD.jpg]
Here is a picture of the damage of an ordinary tank mount APFSDS. Notice that the long, thin, high density dart does little but punching a hole in the structure.

The objective of an APFSDS shell is to penetrate the heavy front armor of tank and do damage by setting off some explosive parts inside of tank, unlike the game, in which a high speed AP shell "removes" a block of armor entirely, regardless of its thickness and length.

2. AP damage and AP class reduce over range.

This will be significant nerf to AP shell but in this way we have a significant reason to nerf shields. I wonder how much calculation will be introduced if we use air drag trajectory at the first place.
Feel free to discuss and come up with questions. This is a simple and premature idea coming up when playing WOWS.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-09-29, 01:30 PM
Post: #2
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
Ever heard of pendepth/HEAT, that will get through armor, also, the AP rounds do well in punching holes through the armor to get to turrets or breach airtight compartments, it can also let an explosion into the hull. Massed AP can shred ships by breaking through the armor in an area and other rounds getting into the then exposed internals. That would possibly work, but a complete revamp of all APS shells would be required.

2000mm HE dakka enthusiast.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-03, 06:53 AM
Post: #3
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
(2017-09-29 01:30 PM)MizarLuke Wrote:  Ever heard of pendepth/HEAT

Pendepth is incredibly hard to set up and for some reason HEAT is really inaccurate.

(2017-10-09 09:22 PM)Captain_Fox Wrote:  Go take a shield generator, slap that on your ship and turn the bugger up to max.

KV-2: Derp Lord of the universe
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-03, 01:23 PM
Post: #4
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
Pendepth is harder with APS due to small AP values, but doable, particularly with a railgun. HEAT is no more inaccurate than others by much any ways. I've never had trouble with it.

2000mm HE dakka enthusiast.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-03, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 2017-10-03 04:10 PM by Fernir.)
Post: #5
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
I use PenDepth regularly with my main guns and sometimes on secondaries. It is easy to set up. Assume of your target 12-15m works well for big targets(including forward broadsiders) and calculate time needed for shell to cover that distance. Then set blocks penetrated to at 3-50% of excepted target depth.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-06, 05:31 AM
Post: #6
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
Pendepth is easy to set up, hard to do substantial damage with. HEAT is easy, effective, and if it's giving you huge accuracy penalties, that's a bug of some sort.

H͢elp!̵ I'͝ve bee͡n t̛rapped͜ ͏i͝n̢ ́my͝ co̕mpu͜t̴er! ҉A ҉bo̵t͢ ͏c̶o̷n̨ţrol͢s ҉m̸y͘ body͏!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-14, 12:32 AM
Post: #7
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
I always wondered how a flurry of 18mm marbles could tear a gaping 4m wound all the way through a ship. +1

My fanfic

(2017-03-17 12:40 PM)Gladyon Wrote:  Ships are less fun than rockets
But spaceships are undeniably cooler than both.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-14, 01:47 AM
Post: #8
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
(2017-10-14 12:32 AM)Alpha393 Wrote:  I always wondered how a flurry of 18mm marbles could tear a gaping 4m wound all the way through a ship. +1

Basically this is why I am coming up with this thread. The damaging potential of small high speed shells are too strong to be realistic. In realistic, these kinds of shells should bounce off from thick armor straight off.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-14, 02:16 AM
Post: #9
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
The simplest answer is that kinetic damage in FTD from sabot rounds and the like causes structural integrity failure which causes subsequent hull collapse. That's only a 105mm round, which might be big in real life but in FTD scale is pretty much machine gun ammo, easily spammable.
Sure, one hit just punches a hole in the armor, but if you spam dozens of them into a wall then it won't last very long.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-10-14, 03:32 AM
Post: #10
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
I get that, but as you said, it's practically machine gun ammo. too easy to spray across an entire ship for the potential damage to the armor.

Also, what kind of cheap aluminum are we using to make these battleships? It can't even take a hit from a giant lawn dart.

My fanfic

(2017-03-17 12:40 PM)Gladyon Wrote:  Ships are less fun than rockets
But spaceships are undeniably cooler than both.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)