Graviteam
August 13, 2020, 04:36:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Inconsistencies in the Armour Values settings for various Tanks and APCs  (Read 6558 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
frinik
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 3145


« on: June 07, 2014, 09:02:54 AM »

his is not the first time that I am raising this topic but I think it needs to be examined before we move on to the next Update or NTA(1.9???).I was playing Kolobanov's Mission with the KV-1e at balance 10 ( Grin) .I am happy to report that despite being unable to finish the mission because I ran out of ammo I managed to destroy 12 German tanks( incl. 2 Pz4F1s, 9 Pz IIIs and 1 P38(t), damage another 6, as well as 2 trucks and 3 apcs , kill 82 infantry and take out 2 BMWs...My poor tank received 138 hits a various calibres, with the driver and radio killed. Nevertheless checking the post battle stats I was amazed to find out that even though I hit the APcs with armour piercing shells none of them were destroyed and some of the Panzer IIIs received 14 hits from my own 76 mm AP and HE shells and yet survived....I promptly checked the tech_cfg files and I was amazed to finds out for example:

The Panzer IIIJ cz has the ar_str value of 2100 and the arm _thick value of 100 whereas the Panzer III L lg has an arm_thick of only 50 and the same arm_str of 2100.Since both models are essentially the same except for the f gun why the discrepancy in arm_thick??? Also why is the Panzer III given an arm_str of 2100 whereas the Panzer IV and the Panther have less Huh??

As well all the Germans APCS except for the skfz2 and 7 ( values 1800 and 1900)have arm_str of 2200!!!!No wonder I was pumping shell after shell and I was unable to destroy or even stop them....

I think we need to look at all tech_cfg files prior to any new update and agree on common values that make sense considering the type of vehicle, real life data, commonality of armour design and type and also make sure that one variant of one AFV does not have different basic values without reason or logic....

I think once we have agreed on consistency it will be easier to upgrade or update in the future.

Likewise I would suggest that in any future update all sounds files be regrouped in one sounds file rather than have one in the game data folder, another partial one in NTA 1.8 and one more partial one in the latest monthly update.
Logged
Donken
Generalmajor
*
Posts: 460


« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2014, 10:34:10 AM »

his is not the first time that I am raising this topic but I think it needs to be examined before we move on to the next Update or NTA(1.9???).I was playing Kolobanov's Mission with the KV-1e at balance 10 ( Grin) .I am happy to report that despite being unable to finish the mission because I ran out of ammo I managed to destroy 12 German tanks( incl. 2 Pz4F1s, 9 Pz IIIs and 1 P38(t), damage another 6, as well as 2 trucks and 3 apcs , kill 82 infantry and take out 2 BMWs...My poor tank received 138 hits a various calibres, with the driver and radio killed. Nevertheless checking the post battle stats I was amazed to find out that even though I hit the APcs with armour piercing shells none of them were destroyed and some of the Panzer IIIs received 14 hits from my own 76 mm AP and HE shells and yet survived....I promptly checked the tech_cfg files and I was amazed to finds out for example:

The Panzer IIIJ cz has the ar_str value of 2100 and the arm _thick value of 100 whereas the Panzer III L lg has an arm_thick of only 50 and the same arm_str of 2100.Since both models are essentially the same except for the f gun why the discrepancy in arm_thick??? Also why is the Panzer III given an arm_str of 2100 whereas the Panzer IV and the Panther have less Huh??

As well all the Germans APCS except for the skfz2 and 7 ( values 1800 and 1900)have arm_str of 2200!!!!No wonder I was pumping shell after shell and I was unable to destroy or even stop them....

I think we need to look at all tech_cfg files prior to any new update and agree on common values that make sense considering the type of vehicle, real life data, commonality of armour design and type and also make sure that one variant of one AFV does not have different basic values without reason or logic....

I think once we have agreed on consistency it will be easier to upgrade or update in the future.

Likewise I would suggest that in any future update all sounds files be regrouped in one sounds file rather than have one in the game data folder, another partial one in NTA 1.8 and one more partial one in the latest monthly update.

I agree about the armor. I few problems to mention thou. There are many different tank creators (the 3d models) and we that are still active here dont have the raw models for them. And that is a problem. Because some models have errors in their models like open edges and wrong angle values on armor plates etc. So that is a no go!

What we can do is to change armor strength in the cfg file. And here comes a catch-22 dilemma. Because we change the armor values some guns are to strong/weak. Oh what do we do! We change the guns instead. And ouch, now we have tanks with to strong/bad armor.

That is one reason to why i want to make some dummytargets so we can make the penetration values correct, and then work from there. And because SF is still growing its gonna be a very very tedious work to change the values for all guns/shells! There are hundreds of them Sad So what is easier? Change the armor on the tanks (catch-22 yet again)

Anyway, you are not alone! This is in my future plans for sf, So hang out for a year or two Cheesy
Logged

The real heroes are those that never came back.
lockie
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2348



« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2014, 12:17:07 PM »

I managed to destroy 12 German tanks( incl. 2 Pz4F1s, 9 Pz IIIs and 1 P38(t), damage another 6, as well as 2 trucks and 3 apcs , kill 82 infantry and take out 2 BMWs...
That's a great result! 8)
Logged

Provocative signature removed
kapulA
Oberst
******
Posts: 202



« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2014, 08:36:04 PM »

Couldn't this be hot-fixed by a small SPM addon mod that alters the relevant values for the Pz III J, APCs and any other tanks, depending on how many actually need editing?

I understand that some guns could be too powerful then, but would it really be such a major issue? The APCs and armored cars ought to be vulnerable to anything above and including 12.7mm, and the Pz III change would only make it less resistant to 76mm calibers and above, as it should be, or am I missing something?
Logged
Kyth
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2044


« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2014, 10:30:33 AM »


Not to flog a dead horse here, but the following suggestions may be relevant to getting a perfect result:

- Use HE against APCs.

- Use AP against the Panzer III's.

- Proceed in a calm, cool manner when selecting your target.  Cheesy
Logged

"What am I, chopped liver..?"

"Yes."
Flanker15
Generalmajor
*
Posts: 490


« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2014, 11:55:24 AM »

arm_thick doesn't effect the armor strength of the tank.  It's used with the armor map to set the base line shade. arm_thick = thickness at shade 100 I think.
arm_strength is the metallurgical quality of it and effects how likely it will shatter a shot and create spall.
Logged
frinik
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 3145


« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2014, 04:55:57 AM »

arm_strength is the metallurgical quality of it and effects how likely it will shatter a shot and create spall.

Then lowering the value will increase the likelihood that the crew will be killed through spalling? If so then I see no reason for the discrepancies in the values between the apcs some like the skfz7 have an arm_str value of 1800 and most 2200...
Logged
Flanker15
Generalmajor
*
Posts: 490


« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2014, 05:57:04 AM »

Does the sdkfz 7 have armor?   It might be set lower because it uses normal steel?   Only the vehicles maker will know the reason why its set that way.
Logged
frinik
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 3145


« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2014, 08:00:01 AM »

It has the same size of armour as the other similar German apcs about 15 mm for the the front and 3 to 5 for the sides I think.

@ Kyth; - Use HE against APCs.


That's what I always do but even hitting Germans apcs with HE shells from 800 metres away it would take me 5 to 6 shells to stop them.Actually I resort to machinegunning the engine in order to make the vehicle stop and set it on fire.It's often more efficient than using the main gun....
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 08:02:40 AM by frinik » Logged
Flanker15
Generalmajor
*
Posts: 490


« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2014, 08:26:30 AM »

Change it to whatever you feel is right.  It won't make much difference with such thin armor though probably just change the way machine gun bullets effect it a bit.
Logged
frinik
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 3145


« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2014, 10:13:09 AM »

Well, I am going to test firing at them with HE and AP at the current armour default values and at then at lower values.I'll see if it makes any difference.
Logged
Lord_Haw-Haw
Major
****
Posts: 96


« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2014, 06:00:24 PM »

To me, APC's seem like their hollow, like it needs an engine and fuel tank that can be damaged with AP, HE or heavy MG. ...Personally I never shot out a tire or track on these Huh? ...Only thing that is enjoyable right now is seeing the platoon being ejected Grin
Logged
Flanker15
Generalmajor
*
Posts: 490


« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2014, 03:58:30 AM »

To me, APC's seem like their hollow, like it needs an engine and fuel tank that can be damaged with AP, HE or heavy MG. ...Personally I never shot out a tire or track on these Huh? ...Only thing that is enjoyable right now is seeing the platoon being ejected Grin

They are effectively hollow, the engine, transmission and fuel tank are pretty small boxes in comparison.
Logged
Kyth
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2044


« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2014, 04:02:41 AM »

To me, APC's seem like their hollow, like it needs an engine and fuel tank that can be damaged with AP, HE or heavy MG. ...Personally I never shot out a tire or track on these Huh? ...Only thing that is enjoyable right now is seeing the platoon being ejected Grin

They are effectively hollow, the engine, transmission and fuel tank are pretty small boxes in comparison.

That's about right. Don't expect much effect by shooting through the passenger compartment. Instead, try hitting the engine area / driver area to knock out the halftrack.
Logged

"What am I, chopped liver..?"

"Yes."
Lord_Haw-Haw
Major
****
Posts: 96


« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2014, 04:11:31 PM »

To me, APC's seem like their hollow, like it needs an engine and fuel tank that can be damaged with AP, HE or heavy MG. ...Personally I never shot out a tire or track on these Huh? ...Only thing that is enjoyable right now is seeing the platoon being ejected Grin

They are effectively hollow, the engine, transmission and fuel tank are pretty small boxes in comparison.

That's about right. Don't expect much effect by shooting through the passenger compartment. Instead, try hitting the engine area / driver area to knock out the halftrack.

Of course I've tried, seems randum, ap round front too back still running like it's a Sunday afternoon, like they have VW engine (flat four engine) below the axle line and the fuel tank is a wireless solar panel 3 miles away Grin

What does the 3D model look like so I'll know where the wirly things that go boom are?
Thanks in advance.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!