WWIIONLINE

Var hälsad kamrat!

Jag är också medlem i SAFD, men har dock var inaktiv väldigt länge pga bråk med internetleverantörer och så. Kommer tillbaka nu när löningen kommer!.

Vi ses!

How to approach understanding armour in WWIIOL:Battleground Europe

I think this week I'll talk a little about tanks in this game. At no point should anyone reading this assume that anything I say comes from a belief we have the perfect tank simulation or that it caouldn't be better in some respects. Everything in life could be better in some respects. Well, except for my girlfriend.

What ? She's not reading this ? Oh ok. Scratch that last remark. B)

We model our tanks using the performance and armour and ballistics data from the real world equipment that fought in the Second World War. Actually that's how we model ALL equipment, tanks, planes, rifles, MG's, bombs ... we use genuine WWII military performace data and analysis wherever we can find it. We actually have tons of this stuff (most of it declassified) and some other stuff I won't mention (d'oh!) ...

Anyway, until we get our public WIKI project out, and even after that happens (as it will constantly be expanded upon) ... you might wonder what things are and why. If you need to know the armour values of a certain tank, you can look it up from a reputable source and ours will match that as we use the same real life data to model ours with. Same for gun performance, although you need to be wary when researching that as there are many different ways to express those performance characteristics. When looking up a "penetration" chart be aware of the pitfalls that might trap you.

Some charts vary in what they claim. People argue over these things endlessly. Stay away from that and just cross referance a number of sources and the obvious will become apparent. The average of all reputable sources you can find will generally be a good guide. Don't rely on it as a bible however, no performance number is written in stone, there is always some variation. In real life this is also what happened. A round that was listed as "100mm at 0 degrees at 1000 yards" would vary from say 97mm to 102mm for example, that kind of thing. All charted numbers you will find (and we simulate) are averaged over many tests. The individual results will show some variation.

The most important thing to get an understanding of is angle and range. Angle refers to the angle a round strikes the target at. As such a 0 degrees angle (perpendicular to the target) is always better performing versus armour than an angle like 30 degrees off perpendicular, or 60 degrees and so on.

-------> | (this is perpendicular or 0 degrees)
-------> / (this is not perpendicular, say ... 30 degrees)

All rounds are generated and fired employing ballistic properties. They slow down the further they go before impact. This reduces their performance. Angle of impact can reduce their performance versus the target. They can bounce off if at a sufficiently poor angle of impact and do little to no damage at all. There are millions of possible variables. This game is not a hit box shooter where all you do is hit what you see. Most damage is done hitting what you don't see, fuel tanks, ammo boxes, crew members, engines, oil tanks, transmissions and so on. Much more like real life where the RESULT is what you rely on, not the target showing you it blew up every time. Did it crash ? Did it stop shooting back ? Did it despawn ? <- game concept but highly relevent in this example

Here's a thread that covers some of the highly complex modeling (compared to most games) that goes on here.

Some damage model concepts from Battleground Europe revealed

In addition, there was a thread posted that showed a number of players don't know the differance between a Sherman M4a2 and an M4a3(76) Sherman tank, other than they have different guns. They are also different in subtle ways in their armour ... which is realistic, and how you would use them best in the game based on their differances does translate into different tactical uses in game ... in order to maximize these differances to the users advantage. This is how you must think if you want to beat the guys who are killing you over and over and over again. B]

While the answer I gave in that thread is specific to the users who wanted to understand the differances between just the two SHERMAN tanks in game, the PROCESS by which you fold that understanding of those two tanks into your perceptions of effective tank combat are equally applied to ALL tank combat.

You NEED TO KNOW THIS STUFF in order to best those who ALSO KNOW THIS STUFF. They learned it. Where did they learn it ? You aren't up against a computer player who will let you be the best gamer that ever lived. If you're lazy, the guy who isn't lazy just killed you. Oh, he did it again. And again. Because he learned his shizzle. You need to do that too.

Anyway, I'll post the response I gave to that Sherman question because it tells you a little about how you need to apply this kind of knowledge based skillset to your tactical based actions in the game. You can appy the concept this post illustrates to any combat unit in game really. It's just "what is this versus what is that" and understanding that match up best.

REPOSTED FROM THE MOTOR POOL
_____________________________

It differs in different ways. (note:- this is in response to the original question)

The earlier M4a2 with 75mm gun has much better mantlet protection (roughly 50mm more) from it's 2" rotor sheild it has in addition to the mantlet. The later M4a3(76) does not have this extra "baby mantlet".

The M4a3(76) has slightly thinner front glacis armour but it lays back at a lower angle (less vertical) providing actual increased protection as long as the round coming in gets less obliquety at impact, which is GENERALLY true but not always. The M4a3(76) also loses the "drivers hoods" at the top of the front glacis plate which were a known weakness as they trapped rounds being little vertical "bumps" including seams and were not contiguous plate.

The M4a3(76) has a better nose (lower front hull) casting which is slightly superior to the nose casting on the M4a2.

The M4a3(76) has 1/2" more side turret armour (12.7mm) over the M4a2.

However front turret face (not including mantlet and rotor shield values) of the earlier Sherman (M4a2) is 12.7mm thicker than the M4a3(76). Add in the 2" of rotor shield as well (the "baby" mantlet) and you have nearly 63mm more frontal turret armour over the later M4a3(76) ... all this baddass protection is just where the mantlet is however, and that earlier Shermam (M4a2) has a SMALLER mantlet area covering the front of the turret than the later M4a3(76) does. Swings and rounabouts guys. I suggest you just don't get hit at all and you do a lot of ambushing personally. B]

The M4a2 has ammo storage in the side hull sponsons, where the armour is thin and a direct hit pretty easy. There is an applique armour patch there but it ain't stopping anything serious from getting through. this is why they blow so easily. The M4a3(76) has it's ammo moved out of the side hull and under the floor, where it is hard to hit. This is why they DON'T blow so easy. Although it is abstracted (fidelity in a game will never rival real life) the end result rather represents the reality of the later Shermans that didn't blow or burn anything like as easily as the early ones. Yes, we know all about wet stowage and that's what is replicated in a manner of speaking.

In terms of what the simplified average is that most users will see ?

The M4a2 has much better front turret protection. Hull down it can be a beast. It's gun sucks against StuG.IIIg's and PzKw.IVg's frontally, and that has to be considered. Against the Tiger if you don't have a very close range flank or rear shot, forget it.

The M4a3(76) has slightly better front hull and side hull/turret protection. Not a lot, and if the guy shooting you has a German 75mm or 88mm and the first drop, I wouldn't be relying on that extra protection at all. The gun however, out to 1200/1300 meters, is the best the Allies have (the M10 will beat it past 1250m but is a little less effective under 1250m) ... at extreme close range the M4a3(76) will beat everything but the KwK.36L56 on the Tiger, and it can equal that gun at around 250 meters ... but as range increases it becomes more and more like the M10's gun performance, until after 1300m the M10 is superior. The differance between it and the M10 is the ammuntion, the M10 fires M62 APHE (good post penetration kill ability) and the M4a3(76) is firing M79 solid shot AP. No post penetration explosion but a whole lot more penetration up close. It's ballistics over long range are not as good but it grants you much more opportunity for the first shot kill once you have learned where to target your opponents tanks.

Use the speed/mobility and superb 1km and under gun performance of the Sherman M4a3(76) to get in quick on an opponent that you know the location of. Treat it like a Stuart on steroids. Get in fast on a KNOWN location opponent, kill him and get out.

With the M4a2 you need to act similar but slightly different. You still need to sneak up on your (known location) opponent, but the low velocity gun means that unless it is the rear/flank of a StuG.IIIg/PzKw.IVg you will need to be quite close to win. Against an earlier AFV like the PzKw.IIIh or IVd, or maybe a StuG.IIIb, which are much more vulnerable from all angles, you have the advantage pretty much always.

What this all means is instead of the "Stuart on steroids" race in kill and get out (the M4a3(76) tactic) you have to instead stalk your opponent a little more, and use little "sprints" from berm to berm to get hull down positions from where to continually refine the approach on your target, before you sprint to the next hull down berm position. This is because you have to get closer than you do with the Sherman 76, and if they spot you or hear you, you want to give them nothing but a frontal turret face to shoot at.
__________________
Geof Rey Evans
Producer/CRS
Game Manager/WWIIOL-Battleground Europe
"this is rocket science, it just looks like a video game"