- For PC
- For MAC
- For Linux
- OS: Windows 7 SP1/8/10 (64 bit)
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.2 GHz
- Memory: 4GB
- Video Card: DirectX 10.1 level video card: AMD Radeon 77XX / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Windows 10/11 (64 bit)
- Processor: Intel Core i5 or Ryzen 5 3600 and better
- Memory: 16 GB and more
- Video Card: DirectX 11 level video card or higher and drivers: Nvidia GeForce 1060 and higher, Radeon RX 570 and higher
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i5, minimum 2.2GHz (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 6 GB
- Video Card: Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Mac), or analog from AMD/Nvidia for Mac. Minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Mac OS Big Sur 11.0 or newer
- Processor: Core i7 (Intel Xeon is not supported)
- Memory: 8 GB
- Video Card: Radeon Vega II or higher with Metal support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
- OS: Most modern 64bit Linux distributions
- Processor: Dual-Core 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 4 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 660 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months; the minimum supported resolution for the game is 720p) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 17 GB
- OS: Ubuntu 20.04 64bit
- Processor: Intel Core i7
- Memory: 16 GB
- Video Card: NVIDIA 1060 with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) / similar AMD (Radeon RX 570) with latest proprietary drivers (not older than 6 months) with Vulkan support.
- Network: Broadband Internet connection
- Hard Drive: 95 GB
Today, we’ll be talking about changes to the post-pen effects for APHE shells used by ground vehicles that we plan to introduce into the game. We’re ready to show you what we have planned here, and at the end of this news post you can participate in voting for or against — whether there’ll be changes or not all depends on your vote. Let’s take a look!
Preserving fragments in the head part of the shell
First off, we’d like to tell you about a change that we consider necessary and will be implemented into the game without any vote. This change relates to maintaining the integrity of an APHE shell’s head after armor penetration. When an APHE shell explodes, its warhead is not subject to significant fragmentation and can cause substantially greater damage than the scattering fragments of the case and base.
The fragment of the shell’s warhead is significant in mass, can penetrate armor of considerable thickness, and at the same time also form secondary fragments when penetrating armor. This change will allow the warhead to better hit enemy crew members located behind internal partitions, such as the engine compartment bulkhead, as well as other modules along the shell’s flight trajectory that cannot be penetrated by small fragments generated from the shell exploding.
Increasing secondary fragments and high explosive damage
Due to a number of technical reasons, secondary fragments from APHE shells differ and are worse compared to fragments from regular, solid AP shells. When reworking fragmentation fields, we’ll enhance the secondary fragments of APHE shells to the level of solid AP shells.
The high-explosive damage from APHE shells will remain — it causes relatively little damage, affects the crew and modules inside the tank and has a damage zone in the form of a sphere around the detonation point of the shell. The diameter of the damage sphere of high-explosive damage is noticeably smaller than the scattering zone of secondary fragments.
Implementing fragment areas
Here are the changes that we’d like you to vote on, whether they’re introduced or not will be determined by community vote: scattering sectors of fragments from APHE shells.
When a shell explodes, three main fragmentation areas are formed, shown in the image below:
- The remainder of the shell’s head and its fragments.
- Fragments from the base of the shell.
- Fragments from all sides of the shell (the case).
When a shell explodes inside of a tank or armored vehicle, the shell’s head acts as a small solid AP round and may penetrate more internal modules. Alongside this, smaller fragments from the shell casing form a fragmentation cone and hit the crew and modules around the explosion point. We plan to implement both of these to the game.
*Translation (Pic.113): Scattering of the APHE shell fragments on impact
At the moment, we use a simplified fragmentation pattern for APHE shells in the game without segmentation into different areas. If we were to implement the proposed physically reliable sector fragmentation patterns for APHE shells, the post-pen effect of APHE shells will be more realistic. However, when hitting protruding modules, such as the commander’s cupola, the probability of crew damage would be reduced.
Reworking the post-pen effects of APHE shells can change the tactics of the game, making protruding weakened areas less vulnerable. However at the same time, post-pen effects after penetrating the hull of a vehicle due to the preservation of the shell’s head after the shell explodes will be increased.
We’d like to hear your opinion on this — share it in the comment field and vote Yes or No for the changes to post-pen effects in the poll!
In-game examples of the described changes
Here’s some screenshots of how damage to ground vehicles will be altered with the changes implemented.
Post-pen effect when penetrating the center of a tank without preserving the head of the shell (before) vs while preserving the head of the shell (after):
Before
After
Post-pen effect when the commander’s cupola is hit by a spherical spread of fragments from a shell explosion (before) vs hit with a physically reliable sectoral scattering of fragments from the shell explosion (after):
Before
After
We’re planning to give players the opportunity to test these changes in a special game event, as well as the “Protection Analysis” menu, before applying these changes to all APHE shells in the game. However, preparing this testing will require some significant time from the development team, so today we want to collect your opinions on whether you’re interested in switching to a more detailed damage model for APHE shells. So, shall we test it?
If you’re interested in testing, we’ll start preparing it and will host another voting on this change based on its results.
Comments (262)
Comments will be premoderatedyes it must be more realestic
artan24, Indeed! Even leaving realism aside, this new model would make gameplay better: as of now, the gap in performance capabilities between APHE shells and solid ones is WAY too big, making solid shots feel utterly useless by comparison- and no, artificially buffing these is not the solution; correcting APHE is. Gameplay wise, this would also make so many “trick-shots” less viable as well, like the “hit a pixel of a cupola and the entire crew dies because there’s a nuclear explosion inside the t...
artan24, No problem with that but the new model seem to yield results far from optimal . For instance in the cupola shot loader and gunner get away without any damage whatsoever which is completely unrealistic considering they are well within that 70% fragment concentration zone ( you have to view it as a cylindrical zone ). All crew members in the turret should die to that shot which is similar to what the old model produced but with the new model it isnt the case !
Please god no
wacky_yaaky, Please god yes
wacky_yaaky, tiger 1 speech bubble
People don't seem to understand how much more painful uptiers would be with these changes. Weakspots don't matter if there's no way to damage crew or components from them. This change would reduce the effect of skill in engagements and increase reliance on heavily armoured vehicles.
ShredderJR, So heavy vehicles would finally become more relevant, instead of being slower glorified medium vehicles? Sign me up for that.
ShredderJR, Absolutely, while also removing the incentive for players learning weak spots on vehicles.
Another way to ruin the game hell yeah
Purplaxz, I think you mean "massively improve"
Purplaxz, How is this an improvement? everything will be completely different again after how it was for 10 years
I currently see this creating a worse environment for the general health and metas around the mid tiers of the game. Cupola and other weakspot shots are necessary to current game balance, and are an important mechanic for the usage of some vehicles (see: Jumbo's and other "small gun" heavies). As a singular change, this feels more like it will hammer into the same path of meta we're currently stuck in surrounding overpressure, while fewer vehicles can instakill targets, so my vote is no. (2/2)
刺身, Completely agree.
刺身, While I do agree with you in that it'll redefine current metas and balancing, I also see that as a good thing. I'd rather see a big shake up with the new proposed mechanics, instead of sticking to the more basic version we have now an keep the current meta.
Oh jeez, nerfing cupola shots is going to make things very bad
ROMEO7ALPHA, Not if they adjust the BR correctly.
ROMEO7ALPHA, "Oh no! I need to learn! I need to have... SKILL! I need to AIM for WEAKSPOTS?" Thats what it felt like when I've read that lol
Making APHE shells act more true-to-life? Great. But are there any plans for solid-shot AP and APCR rounds to also be modelled more realistically, where they both do good post-pen, only slightly less than APHE shots?
Lynxium, The spall/post-pen for solid shot is currently very accurate to real life, it is dependant on how much armor is penetrated. Just shoot more armored areas
Lynxium, You forget that when IRL sources say AP has only slightly worse results than APHE, they don't mean that in a game sense. IRL, if you get penetrated and the guy next to you dies while some fragments pepper you and the engine gets hit, you leave the tank, and not just shoot back, repair the engine in 40s and continue your advance. AP is realisticly alot worse for killing (not just wounding) the entire crew instead of just disabling a tank.
Yes, realistic APHE is welcome
This is an interesting change, however you MUST consider some vehicles how they're affected by this change. Perfect example is the jumbos, they currently have to take out barrels and go for cupolas on a lot of heavily armoured tanks. This would make those vehicles even harder to play.
CptShadows, On the contrary, they would be much more approachable because you wouldn't just get one-shotted in return if you happen to miss the barrel or the track or whatever.
CptShadows, BRs are changed essentially automatically based on performance. If anything performs better/worse enough after these changes, they'll inevitably go up/down in BR, simple as that.
I'm fine with the shell head staying intact and having more ability to travel through the tank. However changing the way fragments form will be detrimental to low to mid tier gameplay as many weakspots, mainly cupolas are rendered obsolete (As shown in the example). This would especially have a major effect on mid tier TSS, where shooting cupolas on Tiger H1, T-34-85 and Shermans is the way people get taken out often.
人SυρεrSγmmετrγ人, not to mention the american T95 and the british Tortoise
人SυρεrSγmmετrγ人, Ill be honest, I dont think ive ever destroyed any of those mentioned tanks via a cupola shot? Not to mention on the inverse this is a nice change by the fact the cupola isnt now a major weakness for tanks like the tortoise and etc where it really shouldnt have been.
Submit a complaint