Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Destraex » Mon 7 Jan 2019 12:25

If you watch this video (chieftan and Hilary Doyle) you will see that even though the hetzer has great sloping and armour. That the armour is not of the same manufacture quality or type as on other German armoured vehicles due to it using Czech technology and factories. When you put MM stats into SD2 please make sure you also add the other special factors that may have a negative effect on the armour and other stats. In other words. Please put as much realistic detail in as possible so we can learn. Don't concentrate on streamlining things but rather letting us learn from the complexity. The stats should actually be more complex than red dragons!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG_mY-jSZzQ&t=1564s
Image

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12398
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Mike » Wed 16 Jan 2019 01:30

Maybe it'll just be the "effective thickness" in mm.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Destraex » Thu 17 Jan 2019 11:56

That's the problem with game devs a lot of the time though. We history buffs want to see our history come to life. Not have it streamlined into a BS figure arbitrarily determined by the developer. If your going to use an arbitrary figure don't use mm.
Preferably though at least show your working so that modders can put the correct figures in if need be.

e.g. We would see in the stats:

slope =
steel quality by year =
steel quality by batch =
mm =

total effective armour rating =

Like red dragon you can bring up complex stats if you want to see how it's all worked out.
Image

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby steppewolf » Thu 17 Jan 2019 18:46

I see your point, I'd also like to see the lower silhouette of a Stug/Hetzer being rewarded somehow same as penalizing Kingstiger or IS clumsiness and especially the slow rate of fire and crew awarnewss especially for the Soviet tank.

I don't think is a big deal to take this into consideration as well, same as the steel composition. Yet, Hetzer was mainly interesting because it's low profile and maneuverability so I don't think a slightly less qualitative steel will make a big difference.

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Destraex » Fri 18 Jan 2019 11:31

In red dragon vehicles were classified by their size which added advantages like you speak of. They probably were in sd1 as well. But the stats were not verbose or shown to the player.
Image

User avatar
Darkmil
Brigadier
Posts: 3023
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2012 15:17
Location: Lyon
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Darkmil » Fri 18 Jan 2019 17:34

Destraex wrote:In red dragon vehicles were classified by their size which added advantages like you speak of. They probably were in sd1 as well. But the stats were not verbose or shown to the player.

It's just a number scale, the balancing will not be different. People can argue about what should be the armour value in SD1 as well and it will be the same in SD2. No vehicle has homogenous armour thickness over the whole front of the vehicle anyway so the method to calculate the effective thickness is as debatable as the number SD1 displays. And we are not even accounting for the angling of the tanks in combat other factors which would further complicate game mechanics. So I really don't see any problem here, take it as it is, an estimation of an effective thickness over the front/side/rear of the vehicle.
Image

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Destraex » Sat 19 Jan 2019 01:38

Darkmil you make our point exactly. We want the extra complexity and the working shown for all angles, thickness, armour type and quality etc. What is not desired is the dumbing down of stats we saw in SD1 to try to make the game into a competition level starcraft stats cruncher. The game claims to want to do things realistically. That means next level of detail in the armour modelling. Physics is what the game does poorly however. So I imagine their is not too much point. But it is nice for those fanatics that want to see all of the stats for wargaming and learning purposes.
Image

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3718
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Drang » Sun 3 Feb 2019 09:46

Destraex wrote:Darkmil you make our point exactly. We want the extra complexity and the working shown for all angles, thickness, armour type and quality etc. What is not desired is the dumbing down of stats we saw in SD1 to try to make the game into a competition level starcraft stats cruncher. The game claims to want to do things realistically. That means next level of detail in the armour modelling. Physics is what the game does poorly however. So I imagine their is not too much point. But it is nice for those fanatics that want to see all of the stats for wargaming and learning purposes.


I would day that SD and WG have perfectly acceptable levels of armour abstraction for this scale of wargame, and that the values used in that abstraction are remarkably realistic.

I don't realistically see how the armour modelling can or nerds to be improved.

To give am example of this, Eugen is already aware of the impact of material quality on armour - it has modelled Abbot of Chantrys lower armour due to its use of mild steel plate

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby Destraex » Mon 4 Feb 2019 12:46

It's about content and the learning aspect of the game as well as the ability to mod things properly and for people to see in the working that things are done correctly "show your working" so to speak. Also goes to physics. If this game has a physics model pulling the strings. But I think this game is more about chance and stats.
Image

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: Armour in MM is not necessarily an indication of GOOD armour. Hetzer is a good example of this!!!

Postby praslovan » Thu 21 Feb 2019 22:39

Well, panthers should have perpetual gearbox failure then. Oh and IS2 should not run on petrol but vodka.

Jeez people, how about we straight out make the game completely unlikable so noone buys it and Eugen goes bankrupt finally. But hey, at least tiger will have a correctly shaped hatch and NKVD will be able to massacre penal battalions exactly to specifications.

Return to “Steel Division 2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest