HE damage model change...error?

[panzer5]

Data: Anyone can check these AARs from Panzer5 and I'm sure CRS has the damage logs.

Training server

3/13/2011 and before; Extensive testing on training server shows HE grenades and rifle grenades effective against both Allied and Axis light armor (Vicky/Pan/A13/DAC/232/P2). Very realistic...thank you CRS.

Live Server

3/13/2011 13:10-13:17 Axis Grenadier kills Cru II with side shot to lower turret.

3/13/2011 13:38-13:47 Axis Grenadier kills Vicky with shots to side and rear as it drives by.

3/13/2011 18:39-18:49 Axis Rifleman places grenade under rear turret on buttoned up Cru II and gets a kill.

3/14/2011 New Patch

3/14/2011 'til now; Training and real life testing shows HE damage model has been changed. The simplest test is that Axis Grenadiers no longer are able to damage Allied tanks through their very thin armor. Grenades placed on top of hulls now actually fall THROUGH Allied tanks and explode on the ground.

Realism...that's all we ask. This game thrives on it...there is no other game that strives to be this realistic and I commend everyone at CRS who works to this end. It's what we pay for. More importanly I think both Allied and Axis have shown that what wins a map is not the units each side has, but how the players use them...so let's strive for realism...not favoritism.

Since CRS had this model in play in the past, we must assume that they once considered such a damage model as realistic and we must therefore assume that this is a bug...an error that has cropped up due to changes in the new patch. Who knows, maybe the removal of "sticky" grenades had something to do with it?

In any event I hope my posting of exact dates and times will help CRS track down the error and return the realistic damage pre-patch.

Thank you,

Panzer5

[Tigger6]

While I understand that you consider anything that gives you advantage realistic, having tanks take damage from simple HE grenades is a bug. A 5mm sheet of metal can protect you from a HE grenade, there is no armored vehicle in the game that should be affected by a HE or fragmentation grenade. The bug that was fixed was probably due to the explosion clipping into the vehicle without considering the armor at all.

[panzer5]

Odd...I was talking about units, weapons and realsim, and you immediately jump to personal favoritisim? So let's take a look at tigger6's stats...hmm you play only Allied. And you don't want weapons to be equal for Allied and Axis. What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Realism is just that...in fact this affects the French Rifle-grenade as well. If you truly believe that 5mm of armor will protect you 100% from a HE grenade then you have stated your opinion and I will be happy to argue on that objective point.

My argument is that that statement is ridiculous. In fact at the risk of verbosity, I will give sources and demand you do that same.

Even a simple rifle bullet, 7.92mm Rifle S.m.K.H, goes through 8-13 mm of armor at 100m. (Source:Panzerworld) Another source, Tarrif, lists a 20mm HE round being able to pentrate 20mm of armor at 100m.

Now the British Grenadier uses a 156g HEAT round which could penetrate 50mm of armor which is more than all Axis tank, except the Tiger. That's the fact and it should not change and I rejoice in CRS's realism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_68_AT_Grenade)

However, here is a quote from the article, "The Germans were the first during World War One to come up with an improvised anti-tank grenade, taking their stick ("potato masher") grenade and taping two to three more of the explosive heads without the sticks to create one complete grenade." So it is CLEAR that ordinary hand grenades CAN and WERE used in real combat to tak out tanks, as early as WW1.

5mm is 3/8 of an inch. While it is reasonable that light shrapnel would bounce off that thickness, a grenade put against that would definitely cause damage at least through spalling. Now put that HE into a propelled Rifle-grenade and you get a focused charge.

Only someone who is purely arguing from a favoritist view would try to pretend this is real. You will notice that in no way am I advocating a change to the British Grenadier. Your point about fragmentation grenades is correct...luckily that does not come into play as neither the French nor Axis Rifle-grenade are fragmentation grenades.

I am simply trying to point out that HE damage has changed from what CRS had modelled only 1 month ago, and I have heard CRS respond to other posts that they neither wished, nor intentionally made a change to the damage model...that makes this a bug.

I would truly enjoy hearing a response that avoids favoritism for either side and instead deals with the facts;

1. CRS had this HE damage model before. Many players have noted a change in the damage HE weapons do...not just grenades.

2. Rifle-grenades are NOT fragmentation grenades. Look at the ammo used in the Axis Grenadier weapon...it's a huge bullet, not a grenade lobbed with pineapple sides to throw fragments. Sources clearly show that HE grenades can and di damage armored vehicles.

3. French HE should ALSO be returned to it's ability to damage lightly armored vehicles. (See...no favoritism here!)

I thank you all in advance for your non-biased and source referenced data. In fact I challenge you to find ANY source that says Axis grenades or even better, Rifle Grenades (granatbusche) could not penetrate 10mm of armor at 100m.

Good Luck!

Panzer5

[mrfancyp]

Odd...I was talking about units, weapons and realsim, and you immediately jump to personal favoritisim? So let's take a look at tigger6's stats...hmm you play only Allied. And you don't want weapons to be equal for Allied and Axis. What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Realism is just that...in fact this affects the French Rifle-grenade as well. If you truly believe that 5mm of armor will protect you 100% from a HE grenade then you have stated your opinion and I will be happy to argue on that objective point.

My argument is that that statement is ridiculous. In fact at the risk of verbosity, I will give sources and demand you do that same.

Even a simple rifle bullet, 7.92mm Rifle S.m.K.H, goes through 8-13 mm of armor at 100m. (Source:Panzerworld) Another source, Tarrif, lists a 20mm HE round being able to pentrate 20mm of armor at 100m.

Now the British Grenadier uses a 156g HEAT round which could penetrate 50mm of armor which is more than all Axis tank, except the Tiger. That's the fact and it should not change and I rejoice in CRS's realism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_68_AT_Grenade)

However, here is a quote from the article, "The Germans were the first during World War One to come up with an improvised anti-tank grenade, taking their stick ("potato masher") grenade and taping two to three more of the explosive heads without the sticks to create one complete grenade." So it is CLEAR that ordinary hand grenades CAN and WERE used in real combat to tak out tanks, as early as WW1.

5mm is 3/8 of an inch. While it is reasonable that light shrapnel would bounce off that thickness, a grenade put against that would definitely cause damage at least through spalling. Now put that HE into a propelled Rifle-grenade and you get a focused charge.

Only someone who is purely arguing from a favoritist view would try to pretend this is real. You will notice that in no way am I advocating a change to the British Grenadier. Your point about fragmentation grenades is correct...luckily that does not come into play as neither the French nor Axis Rifle-grenade are fragmentation grenades.

I am simply trying to point out that HE damage has changed from what CRS had modelled only 1 month ago, and I have heard CRS respond to other posts that they neither wished, nor intentionally made a change to the damage model...that makes this a bug.

I would truly enjoy hearing a response that avoids favoritism for either side and instead deals with the facts;

1. CRS had this HE damage model before. Many players have noted a change in the damage HE weapons do...not just grenades.

2. Rifle-grenades are NOT fragmentation grenades. Look at the ammo used in the Axis Grenadier weapon...it's a huge bullet, not a grenade lobbed with pineapple sides to throw fragments. Sources clearly show that HE grenades can and di damage armored vehicles.

3. French HE should ALSO be returned to it's ability to damage lightly armored vehicles. (See...no favoritism here!)

I thank you all in advance for your non-biased and source referenced data. In fact I challenge you to find ANY source that says Axis grenades or even better, Rifle Grenades (granatbusche) could not penetrate 10mm of armor at 100m.

Good Luck!

Panzer5

I agree with tigger, the change you are reporting is most likely a bug being fixed. Remember how in 1.31 grenades stuck to ceilings? The same thing probably happened to grenades thrown on top of tanks.

So the grenades were never modelled to penetrate armor, they just clipped inside of it.

As for whether it is realistic - you are right that "geballte Ladungen" were used as improvised anti-tank grenades, but from what I know they had to be lodged in between the hull and the turret or in the tracks to do any damage. The same principle applies to firecrackers - let one explode on your open hand and it'll only scorch it. If it explodes in your closed fist you'll probably lose a few fingers.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Geballte Ladung could damage or destroy a light tank like a Vickers, but we don't have those things in game. What makes you think that one grenade would be as effective as a bundle of grenades?

I'm a bit confused about the rifle grenades. The wiki says their explosive charge is 600 or 700g respectively, but the grenades don't look like they weigh more than 1kg. According to this page their overall weight is 9 ounces and the explosive filler is just 1 ounce:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-rifle-grenades.html

Edited April 4, 2011 by mrfancyp

[panzer5]

Well I don't know how I can deny side favoritism more than showing I play both Allied and Axis and am advocating something that would benifit both sides...but I appreciate you moving past that issue and focusing on the technical aspect.

As for grenade clipping, I'm sure that's a possiblity. In fact I think the reason you cannot place a satchel on the outside of a moving tank has to do with the RATS removing that aspect of the game. So let's agree to disagree on grenades and move to Rifle Grenades.

Great article! In fact it helps prove the point that the Axis Rifle grenade had an AP shaped charge. I quote the article;

"Small AP Grenade (Gewehr Panzergranate G. Pz Gr)

This grenade (figure 2) incorporates the hollow charge principle, with a shaped cavity formed at the forward end of the HE filling with the result that, on impact, a jet of blast is concentrated in a forward direction."

Of course there is also the Anit-Personnel HE version which (in the spirit of non-side favoritism) could be the version that the Rats have implemented, although if you look at the ammo in game it looks a lot more like the AP round.

In ANY case your article proves that the Axis not only had a small AP round but and even larger Ap round with 250% more explosive than the small round. The low amount of explosive filler is probably because a shaped charge is so much more efficient.

Looking further with the info from your article I was able to find this;

http://www.inert-ord.net/ger03a/gerrg2/mod40/index.html

and I quote from that article;

"At the top is the Große Gewehrpanzergranate, (a.k.a the Mod.40) HEAT rifle grenade developed by the German Wehrmacht. It has a 45-39mm tapered shape charge warhead and is by far the most common of the Anti-Tank types encountered. It could penetrate 70mm of armor (regardless of range, as it was a shaped charge)...Below that is the earlier Gewehrpanzergranate 30, produced in conjuntion with the 30mm HE Gewehrsprenggranate in February 1942. Intended as a H.E.A.T. alternative to the H.E. round, it may have been effective against lightly armored vehicles but was obsolete almost from the onset. "

So in the spirit of non-side partisanship, I agree that the Axis Rifle Grenade is ONLY effective against lightly armored vehicles...but then that was my point from the start, right? After all if the Mod 40 HEAT round would go through 70mm of armor, then the Mod 30 which had 2.5 times less explosive should only be able to go through 28mm of armor (70/2.5=28). Heck, realistically, if it only went through half of that...14mm, it would be VERY realistic and well on the side of fairness.

So in the spirit of realism alone, why not have the Axis Rifle Grenade work exactly like it did in the real world, as evidenced by the article you posted? The ammo WAS an armor piercing, shaped charge as well as a anti-personnel grenade.

My final question to you and anyone else reading the post is this;

"Do you think, given the evidence shown, that the Axis (and probably French) Rifle Grenades should, as they currently do, have an armor penetration of 0.0mm"?

Thanks for your input,

Panzer5

P.S. The realistic answer is, "Of course not."

[mrfancyp]

Well I don't know how I can deny side favoritism more than showing I play both Allied and Axis and am advocating something that would benifit both sides...but I appreciate you moving past that issue and focusing on the technical aspect.

As for grenade clipping, I'm sure that's a possiblity. In fact I think the reason you cannot place a satchel on the outside of a moving tank has to do with the RATS removing that aspect of the game. So let's agree to disagree on grenades and move to Rifle Grenades.

Great article! In fact it helps prove the point that the Axis Rifle grenade had an AP shaped charge. I quote the article;

"Small AP Grenade (Gewehr Panzergranate G. Pz Gr)

This grenade (figure 2) incorporates the hollow charge principle, with a shaped cavity formed at the forward end of the HE filling with the result that, on impact, a jet of blast is concentrated in a forward direction."

Of course there is also the Anit-Personnel HE version which (in the spirit of non-side favoritism) could be the version that the Rats have implemented, although if you look at the ammo in game it looks a lot more like the AP round.

In ANY case your article proves that the Axis not only had a small AP round but and even larger Ap round with 250% more explosive than the small round. The low amount of explosive filler is probably because a shaped charge is so much more efficient.

Looking further with the info from your article I was able to find this;

http://www.inert-ord.net/ger03a/gerrg2/mod40/index.html

and I quote from that article;

"At the top is the Große Gewehrpanzergranate, (a.k.a the Mod.40) HEAT rifle grenade developed by the German Wehrmacht. It has a 45-39mm tapered shape charge warhead and is by far the most common of the Anti-Tank types encountered. It could penetrate 70mm of armor (regardless of range, as it was a shaped charge)...Below that is the earlier Gewehrpanzergranate 30, produced in conjuntion with the 30mm HE Gewehrsprenggranate in February 1942. Intended as a H.E.A.T. alternative to the H.E. round, it may have been effective against lightly armored vehicles but was obsolete almost from the onset. "

So in the spirit of non-side partisanship, I agree that the Axis Rifle Grenade is ONLY effective against lightly armored vehicles...but then that was my point from the start, right? After all if the Mod 40 HEAT round would go through 70mm of armor, then the Mod 30 which had 2.5 times less explosive should only be able to go through 28mm of armor (70/2.5=28). Heck, realistically, if it only went through half of that...14mm, it would be VERY realistic and well on the side of fairness.

So in the spirit of realism alone, why not have the Axis Rifle Grenade work exactly like it did in the real world, as evidenced by the article you posted? The ammo WAS an armor piercing, shaped charge as well as a anti-personnel grenade.

My final question to you and anyone else reading the post is this;

"Do you think, given the evidence shown, that the Axis (and probably French) Rifle Grenades should, as they currently do, have an armor penetration of 0.0mm"?

Thanks for your input,

Panzer5

P.S. The realistic answer is, "Of course not."

When I said that I agree with tigger I meant the grenade-clipping explanation, I didn't want to imply that anyone is side-biased.

And you are right that there were German HEAT grenades, but the grenade we have in game is the HE grenade. I'm not 100% sure why, but it probably has to do with availability. Didn't the article you quoted say that the German heat rifle grenade was manufactured in 1942? I think the British HEAT grenade was available early in the war.

But whether the Axis should have a heat grenade instead of a HE grenade is a different discussion.

Maybe a HE grenade should cause some spalling on thin plates but then the hand grenade would probably be better suited for that than the rifle grenade as it contains more explosives (I think).

[panzer5]

Yes the article said it was used as early as Feb 1942...that's pretty early IMHO and yes, I believe the British had their HEAT rifle grenade earlier.

And we agree that while the round used in game LOOKS like the AP round from the article, the RATS probably just made it an HE round.

It sounds like you agree in principle that it is at least POSSIBLE that an HE grenade or Rifle Grenade should be able to do at least SOME damage to thin armor.

And that's why I think it's a bug. HE rounds, even those from grenades, USED to be able to damage thin armor, and now they can't. If the Rats intended this change, then a quick note from them to that effect would settle it.

If instead (as I hope) they did not realize that their recent patch would change how HE rounds work in game, then I am trying to report it as a bug to them.

Of course this could all be settled by a RAT response, so I'll just keep waiting for that.

Thanks,

P5

[DOC]

We didn't make any change to how HE or "frag" grenades work, so I don't know that it's worth following up on because a frag grenade shouldn't do much if anything at all to even thin armour. So whether you feel it was changed or not (and we didn't make any such change) the fact is I don't see where incorrect functionality is being observed and thus what is warrented by these obsertions ?

I appreciate your doing some testing to prove your point but if we didn't change data on the weapons or the targets then that's the facts that we have to respond with.

On a side note, we have not yet chosen to add any new HEAT grenades since rifle grenades were first created and the players chose the current ones based on historical availability and general use. When and if we do, I am sure the German and French HEAT grenade will then be modeled, although historically they were both very very rare, and the German ones not used by general infantry at all.

In doing such a thing, we would probably want to make some other associated changes to widen the gameplay beyond "a few new weapons" so really, while that would mean extra work if done as part of a well thought out development you stand to gain a lot more.

This would involve the sapper and ATR infantry and be part of a broader and more sensible forward looking development, not just adding "more grenades".

1. CRS had this HE damage model before. Many players have noted a change in the damage HE weapons do...not just grenades.

We didn't make any change to "HE weapons" and since each is modeled individually in data and code you can't lump them all in together as "HE weapons". You have to work from the perspective of each being seperate and individual. You should also not attempt to lump "many players" in with you , this is not quatifiable as data but merely a method to try and give extra strength to your point, yes lots of people do this but it cannot be the reason why we would monkey with the data or code. We cannot manage the game based on perceptions and it would be wrong of us to do so. We must work with numbers and facts and logic.

2. Rifle-grenades are NOT fragmentation grenades. Look at the ammo used in the Axis Grenadier weapon...it's a huge bullet, not a grenade lobbed with pineapple sides to throw fragments. Sources clearly show that HE grenades can and di damage armored vehicles.

It is not a penetrator, a "bullet" as you say, it's ballistic properties do not act in that way at all.

3. French HE should ALSO be returned to it's ability to damage lightly armored vehicles. (See...no favoritism here!)

While I understand your point of view, we cannot return that which wasn't changed. If the weapons performance data was changed, you have somewhere from which to "return" but if it is the same as before, from where do you return ?

I do not attempt to explain why you feel it was changed, there are far too many variables.

[panzer5]

Thanks for your reply DOC.

I have seen the RATS in other posts asking for data and I have provided the exact dates and times where an Axis Rifle Grenade killed both a Vicky and a Cru II and another where a simple Rifleman put a Grenade on a Cru II and killed it.

This is not a perception, but rather hard data and facts...you've got the logs.

I agree with your assertion that the RATS have not made any intentional changes to damage...and thus, that's why I thought you RATS would like to see the exact dates/data so you could look at the logs and say, "Hey, that Panzer5 guys was right. He actually DID kill a lightly armored vehicles with Axis Rifle Grenades. I wonder what we did in this patch that changed that?"

It's your game and you all get to decide the rules. I'm just trying to provide the feedback.

I guess I had a definition of a bug as, "Something that's happening in game that we did not intend and it has a significant effect on the game." This seemed to fit the bill.

Thanks again,

P5

[jwilly]

I don't know what the game-design drivers would be on this issue, but history is always a strong CRS consideration in tier availability. Historically, the 30mm RG system, HE and smoke rounds first became available in early 1942, with the HEAT round following a few months later. We know this with certainty from the date of the development and first-production contract for the unique, task-specific rifled-cup launcher-adapter for the system. This was the first rifle grenade system issued to the Heer.

The Luftwaffe's ground weapons bureau earlier had developed the GG/P-40 HEAT RG and corresponding smooth-spigot launcher-adapter. We again know from the development and first-production contract date for that launcher-adapter that the first several hundred pieces of the launcher were rush-delivered to fallshirmjager combat units just a few days before the Crete attack in May 1941...thus it's likely that that weapon went into combat without ever being fired on a practice range by those combat troops. As Doc notes, the GG/P-40 being a Luftwaffe weapon was not used by the Heer.

The early GG/P-40 that was used on Crete--the one that's shown in most of the photos and drawings, with the almost-flat nose cap--was more likely to penetrate 40mm of armor, not 70mm, and then only if it had a very nearly 90* impact. There was an improved version with an extended nose cap, apparently relatively rare and only fielded for a short time in late 1941. That version would have had more penetration due to the improved standoff distance, but 70mm still seems impossibly optimistic for the charge diameter and mass, even if the geometry and liner were optimal, which certainly wasn't the case in the original version.

The GG/P-40 was withdrawn from service when the Heer introduced the 30mm system, and the Luftwaffe issued that system to fallshirmjager troops as a replacement to simplify its logistics and decrease costs.

Prior to the 30mm system, the Heer had two types of infantry HEAT projectile systems: a series of devices of gradually improving characteristics that were fired from the heavy-duty version of the flare pistol (kampfpistole), and some not-very-enemy-lethal-and-considerably-self-lethal hand-thrown grenades stabilized with spring loaded cloth fins or with an unrolled cloth streamer.

The hand-thrown devices were heavy and couldn't be thrown farther than their infantry-lethal-fragment range, so using one was pretty much a dice roll unless you could quickly get behind cover.

The earliest kampfpistole HEAT round that seems to have been somewhat fielded...it was developed at a point in time when there was minimal ongoing combat, and may have been superseded before it was actually used...might have been available at the very end of 1940, or possibly early 1941. Available information is sparse, but from an existing photo of a loaded unit and the various specs we have, we know that it had decent penetration with a good hit, but not much range.

[Tigger6]

I don't really understand how my answer was side biased, I would reply with the same thing if you were an allied player complaining about grenades no longer killing 232s or something, which was likely possible pre-patch as well.

And while I'm an allied player, I have no issue fighting with sticks and stones, I think I spawned a British tank 4 times in 2 years, I'm unlikely to be upset if I thought that almost any reasonable amount of unshaped explosives just slapped onto a tank is likely to do any damage. Just simple physics. The armor plate is about 6500 times more dense than the air on the other side.

[jwilly]

Just to complete the history: the Heer later used two improved versions of the HEAT device for the 30mm-rifled-cup-launcher system, in order to enlarge the warhead diameter and thus its penetration performance. The 40mm version first became available in 1943, I think, and was used through the end of the war.

The shutzstaffel's own weapons bureau...the Germans had a lot of weapons bureaus...later developed 46mm and finally 61mm HEAT rounds for the 30mm rifle launcher system, issued only to their units. The 46mm version was significantly more effective than the Heer's 40mm round, and also was fielded in a kampfpistole-fired version. The 61mm version was a very powerful device, probably about as armor-lethal as a 2.36 inch bazooka warhead. As a rifle grenade, it had much less range than the contemporaneously available and more lethal panzerschreck and early-panzerfaust devices, though. Its only advantage was that a regular rifle infantryman sometimes had one in his belt or backpack.

[jwilly]

that's why I thought you RATS would like to see the exact dates/data so you could look at the logs and say' date=' "Hey, that Panzer5 guys was right. He actually DID kill a lightly armored vehicles with Axis Rifle Grenades. I wonder what we did in this patch that changed that?"[/quote']

Directly observed testing is valuable as evidence of how the existing code works, but analysis of the existing stat system is not a substitute for such directly observed testing. As CRS has explained in the past, there are three problems with the current stat system:

1. It sometimes makes mistakes, either by failing to record data that doesn't get to it due to the complex server-to-server data path, or by simply getting the report wrong because of a data error. Improvements to the system's accuracy are on the priority list.

2. It can record game malfunctions, such as clipping events. When an outlier event shows up in the stats, seemingly a rare or singular occurrence, that's probably not how the code normally works.

3. It records who got the credit for a kill according to a complex and somewhat confusing set of rules...which isn't necessarily what a human observer would judge really happened. There are many instances where

player X gets a crit on target A, then player Y comes along and makes what he thinks is a kill shot on A...and the credit goes to player X. Other "errors" of that kind sometimes occur.

My apologies to the system for going off-topic here in the Bug Forum.

Edited April 5, 2011 by jwilly

[panzer5]

Hey all ty for replies and interest.

Unfortunately the discussion has side-tracked to when certain ammo was available and really that's not the point I was trying to make because yes, that can devolve into a side based discussion.

The point is on day X, a weapon worked in one way. On day X+1 the weapon completely stopped working that way. And I have the data/dates to prove it and provided it.

I agree that sometimes getting a "kill" can be complicated, but in the case of the Grenadier, I snuck up on a Cru II and fired into it's lower side turret. It was taking no fire from anywhere else. After a couple of rounds it despawned and I got the kill in my AAR. In the other cases it at least proves that critical hits could be achieved with Grenades and Rifle Grenades on light armor. This has undeniably changed.

I own a business and if a customer of mine came to me and said to me, "Hey thanks for the work but we noticed this changed. Did you do that on purpose?"

And I responded, "Why no...we have made no changes to how we do our work." and then they showed me the work and lo and behold there WAS a change, I would be concerned and try to find out what caused the change.

Of course if I instead said, "We have made no change and I'm not even going to look into your concerns." I would risk losing the customer.

But that's why I thank DOC for looking into this for us. If he and the RATS are satisfied with the way things work in the game then I agree, it's their game and we either play it or not. Me, I'm still of the opinion it's one of the most realistic games out there and I'll play with whatever rules we have.

And thank you RATS for allowing us to voice our opinions.

Panzer5

[DOC]

We have enough work here with all that is in this project, to employ 200 people.

We have 10, of which only 6 are coders or artists or data managers. Reduce that (in this case) to 3 (1 coder plus 2 data producers) and maybe that helps you to put this into the same perspective we have to.

You can see why we don't pursue everything you might think wise that would need a lot more people to be able to prioritize as highly as you might prioritize it. If something is working within the realms of what we think it should, it isn't going to be a very high priority to change it. Looking for a needle in a haystack (why wtf ? type issues as are often brought up) might be interesting (I can enjoy it for example) but often it's also a luxury we don't have.

I regret every minute of every day that I don't have totally complete and unassailable answers for players. Well I learned a long time ago that such things here are more a windmill than anything Don Quixhote ever tilted at.

[panzer5]

I totally understand DOC.

And thanks again for a great game. All in all, quite an improvement over the last 10 years!

Panzer5

[DOC]

As we like to say (and we mean it)

S!

[murhis]

It's nice to see somebody else have noticed the same phenomenom as I did. http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=358348

I understand the difficulty to track the problem which is causing this, but I think it might be still worth of look(check earlier versions etc.) when this "error" is causing significant changes in the gameplay. Not that much in top tiers. Even though 88 mm HE used to be much more capable at last patch.

Like I mentioned in my post this will affect a lot in T0-T1. Why? Because if you think about like Stug or IVD. Half of their AT capabilities were depend on their HE shells. Which were able to destroy most of tanks ok. Except the heavies. Currently the situation is that your HEs turned useless. Now they work mainly just against Panhards or soft targets. The most interesting thing is this also affects on HEAT shells.

DOC asked a better proof from me, but unfortunately as a player which only tool to give something on the table is doing testing on the training server and that's not too much. Not to mention I'm not able to test 1.32 comparative to 1.33. Still I'm a guy who is doing a lot of testing and my principle is "shoot and learn", not "guess and shoot". So I darn well know where you used to shoot and there's some documentation about it too(though most of it is in my backbone), like that example about Matilda on my thread. I can tell you i've spend quite many hours to learn how to kill Matildas with HEATs and suddenly you are not able to harm them like on the previous patch(Even in clinic tests on training server). Nothing have changed? I doubt.

Dunno about Allied gameplay that much, how much they rely on HE, but I believe this will affect them as well.

So even though this is "unintentionally" change it still affects us and I do hope this "error" would get some attention.

Edited April 6, 2011 by murhis

[DOC]

It isn't an error until you compare it to data. For all you know, what you feel it was doing previously might have been an error. You have to be open to all possibilities and not just personal preferance. You have to research like crazy then test endlessly in very controlled situations and totally controlled experiments.

Contrary to popular opinion, we don't change ANYTHING to do with weapons performance without enormous and very compelling data and evidence, based on simulation cornerstones. It is our desire that nothing EVER change unless it is wrong. When we find something we think is an error, we fix it if it's at all possible. At some point, you believe that. Or not, as you wish.

If we think this is an issue we'll fix it. If we do not, we won't. Nothing I have said is any kind of attack on your perceptions, claims or your right to feel something is not as it "should" be. I am merely explaining how things work here, and what some of our limitations are in doing "everything" that is expected to be done. "Should" is a difficult definition to use without years of research backing it up, in terms of simulating something as complex as this. "Should" is never an opinion, not even our opinion. It's 99% research pure and simple.

To be honest, if we could do 10 times what we already do, we'd still feel that wasn't enough, but at some point you have to be realistic because this is not dreamland here by any stretch of the imagination.

We'd like a little undertsanding of that fact (actually we'd like a lot but we know we'll never get it ) but in any event, we soldier on.

PS: I also did not say we were not going to look at this. I just gave you some hints why we *might* not change anything even after looking at it, despite what you might choose to believe. At this point we are powerless to say what will happen, that is yet to be determined, and any prediction would be a guess, and we totally hate guessing as expectation setting. I totally feel that you need as players to have your expectations set to match what happens and WHY it happens or you'll always never understand this thing at all.

Personally, it is my dream that everyone undertsand it but I am a hopeless romatic.

[bronco69]

DOC

when i shoot an 88 HE shell 5m next to an EI and he doesnt die to it .... is that correct ???

[oidin]

DOC

when i shoot an 88 HE shell 5m next to an EI and he doesnt die to it .... is that correct ???

In reallife you do have a good chance to survive...even without a scratch...but with tumb ears...

[DOC]

bronco69

you're not describing a bug, which is the only reason this forum exists