Armor Tables vs. Armor Quality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Aktion T4 -> Armor Tables vs. Armor Quality (6/6/2000 10:39:00 AM)

All of the tables I have seen relating to armor are specific in the actual thickness and relative thickness based on slope and angle of deflection. The question here is often times old tankers spoke of vehicles, although heavily armored, were death traps because of poor materials or construction. I remember hearing tales of bolts and rivets being flung about inside tanks as a result of the armor plating taking a full force hit. While deflecting the shot and preventing penetration, the poor materials and design flaws defeated the purpose of some extra-armored vehicles. Mind you that many types of armor were developed over the course of the war and being completely clueless in the profession of metalurgy, I do know that some stronger armor, although thinner was more effective at providing protection than some other poor quality material that was much thicker. The game seems to give advantages to guns of the same class and calibre as they improve during the course of the war. Why not do the same for the armor tables as well? Relative thickness is not the end all be all for armor. A mix of quality, design and of course thickness all combine to make a specific type of armor stronger. I don't think using the actual thickness of armor should always be factored into the equation of determining whether or not a shot penetrates or not. I guess what I am referring to goes beyond the scope of the game and coding quality variables for armor would be something that would require a huge overhaul of the combat matrix. Who knows.. I've never seen or examined the code for this game but I think it's possible to keep the existing thickness tables and couple them with quality tables to at least come a little closer to simulating armor effectiveness. Just a thought..... And I'm not flaming the tables as they are now, I think it is a huge step in the right direction.



Paul Vebber -> (6/6/2000 12:20:00 PM)

Armor quality is a VERY difficult thing to judge let alone code :-) We need more ammo types (AP was considerably different form APCBC). Cast armor differed from rolled, and face hardened. THere are some general relationships on sites such as www.wargamer.org but for now we have done "first big step" to improving the combat system. How much further we can go remains to be seen. There are still issues to be resolved with what we have:-) Its a good point, but data is tough to come by, and other then "German armor is good" and Russian armor is "poorer" it gets hard to find data to make more than (slightly) educated guesses. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 06-06-2000).]



O de B -> (6/6/2000 8:31:00 PM)

Hi Just to know, I read that the Russian test plate was harder than the german or western ones. Was this taken into account when designing the OOB for russian gun stats ? Thanks



Larry Holt -> (6/6/2000 8:51:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Aktion T4: The question here is often times old tankers spoke of vehicles, although heavily armored, were death traps because of poor materials or construction. I remember hearing tales of bolts and rivets being flung about inside tanks as a result of the armor plating taking a full force hit. While deflecting the shot and preventing penetration, the poor materials and design flaws defeated the purpose of some extra-armored vehicles. ...
I believe that the early model Grant tanks had bolted armor which did just what you said it did. The US switched to welded armor because of that. While exact data may be hard to come up with, the fact that the US switched production shows that the bolted armor was defective. Perhaps early Grants should have less protection to reflect this. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Drake666 -> (6/6/2000 8:51:00 PM)

From what I have read, It was the German steel that was harder and their gun test was done against armour that was more sloped.



Paul Vebber -> (6/6/2000 10:35:00 PM)

The disparity in testing techniques make it very difficult to just look up armor values in books and compare them head to head. I used a combinaition of "book data" form actual testing and a theoretical formula and used "best engineering judgement" mixing the two. Obviously rating every gun in WW2 this way is pen to a lot of interpretation and there are more than a few instances where "hot rounds" crept in (like the Russian 57mm). The very idea of asigning a single "penetration" value is vastly oversimplifying the interaction, but its the best we can do right now:-)



Larry Holt -> (6/6/2000 10:41:00 PM)

It boggles my small mind to consider how many numbers that Paul must have had to evaluate then put into the game. We can only provide our data and points of view for Matrix's consideration. Good work Matrix and good work gamers who look into the numbers and discover possible discrepancies. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Wild Bill -> (6/6/2000 10:56:00 PM)

You are right, Larry! It was a major undertaking. Paul did a superb job. I personally go by the "feel" of the battle. This game has the best "feel" of real armor of any SP game to date. I like it.. WB ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Paul Vebber -> (6/7/2000 1:37:00 AM)

That's really important Larry! Keep looking hard at the numbers, I juggled an awful lot of figures and ended up inputing them all by hand late at night, so errors like the UK Boys ATR (should be 23 not 33) and the Russian 57mm (should be like 117 instaed of 144) do crop up. If you think a particular number is out of whack, it may be!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375