Originally posted by Vulcan
Scout: I know what you're saying, and you are right about the SMG. But the counter point is say a 50mm AP shell is 95% short of full penetration, a second 50mm AP shell hits the same spot, shouldn't the armour then fail? I think compound damage needs to be in there, but as you point out it needs to be a comprimise. (this is also why I get so annoyed when people go "its a hit point system, its crap")
Wasn't trying to suggest anything about a 'compromise', compromise about what ?
Compound damage by tank versus tanks has been discussed to death for years in WWIIOL.While not pretending to know much about shells or armor I decided I find CRS position convincing (as supported by players who seem knowledgeable).
If a shell is not powerful enough to penetrate, the armor acts elastic and the shell bounce off or disintegrate.
A tank with good armor (Matilda) can withstand shelling from a 'weak' tank gun 'indefinitely'. And thats how it really was.
As already pointed out if you hit
exactly the same spot over and over again, then maybe eventually gouging out a small fraction every time.
Compound damage in the context of riddling a wing with bullets exists obviously (except I have lot of questions regarding the implementation of that in WWIIOL, 1% lift-drag per bullet seems way to simplistic if thats the truth. Then I haven't kept up with that discussion since the version implementing it was released)
I believe CRS have the right ideas about damage model, I also think damage model are incomplete in airplanes, very incomplete for destroyers). And there are errors, has been, and most likely are and will be (like HE explosion dispersing inside armor for instance, old bug)
For example if an large caliber shell pass right through the cloth body of a Hurri for instance, provided it doesn't hit anything vital it doesn't matter if a 100 shells pass the same way.
A compounded damage model dictate Hurri goes
after three.
