Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
2017-10-16, 07:10 AM
Post: #11
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
well if the ships are made of wood just make a 18mm frag sabot round

this is how the DWG continuously die

(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
2017-11-10, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 2017-11-11 04:04 PM by damowang2.)
Post: #12
RE: Some possibly better new rules for armor piercing
(2017-09-29 04:42 AM)damowang2 Wrote:  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.

[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.

[Image: DSC04034.jpg]

and here is a thick armor penetrated by a shell whose caliber is similar to the armor thickness. There is cracks in the front and more cracks in the back, but the damage channel itself is not much larger than

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.

First, we have to divide blocks into "Structural" and "Functional". Structural blocks will hold together with a few holes and cracks, but functional blocks will certainly fail with a few hits or even shakes. As a result of this, the essential of sinking a ship with shell is to penetrate structural blocks and detonate the inside functional part.
For each structural part, we first assign a cutoff armor value, kinetic energy lower than this value will definitely not penetrate and deal any damage at all. This will get rid of the problem of overpowered frag shell, because fragments are meant to damage fragile parts, not shred off bulky armor.
Next, when a penetration body is inside the armor, it consumes itself while travelling through the metal body, and lose kinetic energy. The loss of kinetic energy is linear to the distance travelled. We will assign a coefficient of friction to armor blocks to simulate this effect.
With simplified models, the kinetic loss of shell through each layer of armor can be calculated with one calculation.
or else, simply use the empherical formula as a test.

the flow in rate of a hole on a hull follows the stream speed of a straight pipe:V=A*sqrt(2gh). According to this result, hole smaller than diameter 6 inches is insignificant in terms of damage control, let alone the damage by HEAT or SABOT, which is usually well under 3 inches.

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
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

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