Tank damage model

[Nemisis]

I would like to know how we have damage modeled for our tanks. Does the angle of your armor relative to a round hitting your tank affect its thickness, or do we have it so that a round hitting an 80mm thick armor plate has just as much chance of a kill when hitting at 70 degrees (\ \-) compared to 90 degrees (flat on, []-) provided it doesn't ricochet? Or does the damage model take into account how thick the armor would be at 20 degrees, if thats the angle you're hit at?


I would really like to know, as it seems to vary at times: I've had perfect hits on the rear armor of a tiger at 40 degrees and 1000yds out and not gotten a kill, but have been hit in the side armor of a panzer by a T-35 at around 35 degrees from 1500 yds out, and it was an instant kill.

[Bronk]

[Nemisis]

Lol, not it at all. I'm just asking since it would affect how I drive a tank (is it better to angle your tank giving you thicker frontal armor, but also exposing your thinner, but also thickened, side armor? Or is it better to give them your front? Also, would I do better to climb a small (JUST enough to get me a shot at his top) hill to get a shot at a tiger's engine deck, or would I do better to circle around and shoot him in the rear?).


I think this is a reasonable question, and one that won't give away secrets to HTC's (failing) competetors.

[ScatterFire]

Sometimes with GVs you just have to go 

I've kill a Tiger with a Panzer at 3200 yrds with one shot, then turned around 1/2 hour later and hit a M8 9 times in the wheels at less than 200 yrds until he finally killed me.  Note: He wasn't "tracked" and just kept going.

I've also been hit 28 times during one sortie while driving a panzer, it took almost 20 minutes before someone got me.  Of course I lost my turret on the second hit  I did kill 2 IL2s with my pintle gun though....

Course you've been around long enough to know all that.  Just smile and know your time will come if your luck sucks today...

[Ack-Ack]

I would be curious to know the answer as well because I've always felt the damage model on GVs was one of the more lacking areas of the game.  Of course, that probably stems from not fully understanding how the damage is calculated in regards to ground vehicles.


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

Sometimes with GVs you just have to go 

I've kill a Tiger with a Panzer at 3200 yrds with one shot, then turned around 1/2 hour later and hit a M8 9 times in the wheels at less than 200 yrds until he finally killed me.  Note: He wasn't "tracked" and just kept going.

I've also been hit 28 times during one sortie while driving a panzer, it took almost 20 minutes before someone got me.  Of course I lost my turret on the second hit  I did kill 2 IL2s with my pintle gun though....

Course you've been around long enough to know all that.  Just smile and know your time will come if your luck sucks today...

Speaking of luck, I killed Dr7 yesterday in a Panzer, with him in an M4. I'd guess the engagment took place at around 2500 yds. I was up on a rise, and had a side shot on him, it was a nerve wracking experience regardless. I took 3 hits from him before I finally put enough shells onto him to get a kill. Point of the story is that after being killed, I took ONE hit from a T-34/85 from 2500yds or so, and got instant-killed.

[kamori]

I would be curious to know the answer as well because I've always felt the damage model on GVs was one of the more lacking areas of the game.  Of course, that probably stems from not fully understanding how the damage is calculated in regards to ground vehicles.


ack-ack

If The Damage Models are fixable...Then why was a WW1 version created without fixing what has been a Very long standing issue. If Not fixable then admit it and tell us its the best they can do. Either way, we are in the dark and have been for many many years.

Kam

[Ack-Ack]

If The Damage Models are fixable...Then why was a WW1 version created without fixing what has been a Very long standing issue. If Not fixable then admit it and tell us its the best they can do. Either way, we are in the dark and have been for many many years.

Kam

I don't think anyone has implied that if there is (the keyword here being is) something wrong with the damage model in GVs that it's unfixable.  Nor do I think that HTC would add a feature to something that was essentially broken.  You have to remember that the new damage model is an update of the existing damage model that allows ore objects to be damaged, at least on a plane.  We haven't seen how the new damage model will work on GVs, maybe it will fix whatever issues that maybe affecting GVs.

ack-ack

[Nemisis]

I don't think anyone has implied that if there is (the keyword here being is) something wrong with the damage model in GVs that it's unfixable.  Nor do I think that HTC would add a feature to something that was essentially broken.  You have to remember that the new damage model is an update of the existing damage model that allows ore objects to be damaged, at least on a plane.  We haven't seen how the new damage model will work on GVs, maybe it will fix whatever issues that maybe affecting GVs.

ack-ack

There ya go!!!!  . I don't think HTC would add a feature to something thats broken either. And if they did, they probably wouldn't go and say "yup guys, its broken. And the bad news is that its unfixable. Sucks to be you, you're gona have to limp on with what ya got". They would say "yes, there is a problem with the damage model for GV's, we're checking it out to see whats wrong, and we'll try to have it fixed as soon as possible. Thanks for your patients, I know its been kind of hectic the past few weeks."

[Karnak]

I recall hitech or Pyro (don't recall which, but think it was hitech) state that the tank damage model was the most complex part of AH.

[Nemisis]

I have a little trouble buying that. What with the new additions to the aircraft damage model, AND the one in WW I.

[Karnak]

I have a little trouble buying that. What with the new additions to the aircraft damage model, AND the one in WW I.

The quote predates that by a long, long shot.  That said, I don't see anything in the new damage model that would change it.  The reason is that armor thickness, angle of hit, range and so on is all counted into the tank model whereas the aircraft model was just a hit point system.  I don't know about the new one for sure, but it seems to just be a hit point system with more granularity.

[Nemisis]

Don't forget that range comes into effect, at least for the MG's. But you do raise a good point sir.

[Karnak]

Don't forget that range comes into effect, at least for the MG's. But you do raise a good point sir.

Yes, range comes into effect for all guns in AH, even the cannons are slightly affected by the loss of velocity in how much damage they do.

I recall them saying that one of the reason the tank damage seems off is because it is so detailed.  Consistent results are very hard to produce with it because of how much it works with.  A simpler model would be more consistent, but not really more realistic.  It just depends on if people want consistency or a more detailed model.

[Nemisis]

Yes, and complex doesn't mean accurate. I could have a complex damage model, and if I coaded it, it would be fubar. Planes could kill tanks with 303's and .30's, and it would take 5 hits from a tiger's 88 to down a plane  . But that doesn't mean it won't be complex.

And to think all this started when I asked if the angle of the armor relative to an impacting shell affects its thickness.