Jump to content
Forum Shutdown - July 28, 2023 Read more... ×
Forum Shutdown - July 28, 2023 Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'AP'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest
  • ANKER's ANKER Candidate Info
  • ANKER's ANK-A Candidate Info
  • ANKER's ANK-S Candidate info


  • World of Warships Events
  • [C-RED] - Code RED's Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 12 results

  1. Before we start, special thanks are given to: TTaro (SEA server) for bringing the various discrepancies and the reverse engineered code to my attention as well as testing the USN 5" max ranges. warabi99 (SEA server) for helping me implement the updated model. @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 for testing and corroborating some of these cases before hand. In summary: Based on reverse engineered code (found in this EU forum post) from earlier an World of Warships client, we were able to piece together the formulae and methods used to generate a ballistics model that closely matches the one seen in game. This new model is able to accurately predict shell behavior in numerous situations where even the previous model failed. Note: the previous model refers to the model first created by fnord_disc on EU [more info on Reddit] and is used on most penetration implementations Model Performance: Cases where the new model out performs the previous model [all of which are reflected in game]: 1. The new model correctly predicts the maximum range of Yamato HE - previous model predicts a maximum range of ~29km; new model predicts a range of ~32km 2. The new model requires a time multiplier that is nearly identical to the stated in game time multiplier of 2.61 - previous model used a time multiplier of 3.1 3. The new model correctly predicts the distance at which ships like North Carolina begin to and consistently "deck pen". - tested by @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 4. The new model correctly predict the maximum ranges of USN 5" Shells Implementation differences: The previous model contained a linear drag component partially determined by the caliber of the shell. [code here] L44 - 45 for drag implementation The new model only contains a quadratic drag component - that is partially determined by total velocity. [code here] L206 - 211 for drag implementation [note: cw_2 is 0] This causes shells in the new model to be considerably faster which also contributes to the lower impact angles at a given distance. Remaining questions: Penetration Formula: In order to make penetrations work properly (due to the higher impact velocities) I had to generate a new equation regressed from WG Armada data which is as follows: Raw Penetration(mm) = 0.00046905491615181766 * V(m/s)^1.4822064892953855 * D(m)^-0.6521 * M(kg)^0.5506 * K/2400 R²: 0.9955230522916081 While the regression performs well, the lack of data outside of the range [5km, 15km] means that the prediction is less certain when outside of these bounds. Deck Penetrations: According to previous testing, deck penetrations do not work at expected ranges for Minotaur even with the new model. - tested by @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 There are some theories ranging from deck penetration may not be correctly applied properly for ships with improved autobounce to height compression. But no evidence currently points to or excludes either. Viewable Implementation: Currently you can view an implementation of this new ballistics model here at: https://jcw780.github.io/wows_ballistics/ Additional Notes: - The previous model graphs are generated from a local instance of the website that I use for testing purposes - the site originally used that model. - In the spirit of full disclosure, I do actually run wows_ballistics and maintain a library that models this. - pardon me for the spaghetti code though :) - This post is not meant to bash the original model or author(s) - I actually use fnord_disc's post-penetration velocity formula on my site and if it wasn't for his work I probably would not have gotten so far into this and gone to create the updated model. - If you have any additional questions feel free to ask me in this thread or join this discord server: https://discord.gg/fpDB9y5
  2. I just had a game with 215 ap shell hits which caused 76,228 damage. Mostly targeted against Satsuma and Pommern. Is 355 damage per AP Shell hit (hit, not fired) decent? Feels low considering the max shell damage is 2950. What damage are you guys averaging per AP shell hit?
  3. Took a quick look at a video Flamu uploaded since it went through some of the changes in the upcoming USN BB line and talked some about Oklahoma. Video in question if you want to take a look: What follows is hopefully a bug, but has to be seen to be believed. Oklahoma's AP penetration is closer to a cruiser than a BB of the tier. I compared her to some tier V cruisers, and what do you know, they have similar AP penetration. I would laugh maniacally if this wasn't just sad. As you can see, Oklahoma (blue) has barely more penetration than Mikoyan (dark blue), and 50mm of extra penetration compared to Exeter (yellow). Compared to actual battleships, South Carolina (purple), the tier III USN BB has 150mm more AP penetration. As for Texas (orange), Oklahoma's peer at tier V, the difference is simply silly. Someone on the video talked about Oklahoma firing WWI ammo instead of more modern one, no idea on that. I just want to believe it's simply an error, be it on fitting tools, or a mistake on the values of the ship. Regardless, in the chance this is actually what WG wants to release, might as well spread the word.
  4. I am not sure what I am doing wrong I am watching AP hit the center of ships and still getting Over pens I understand the concept of all or nothing armor on ships so I understand an OP at the front or rear of the ship. But I am getting multiple OPs in the dead center of the ship. I was told in game that in their infinite wisdom the great and mighty WG Devs had changed AP rounds so you can still OP even when you hit the center of the ship. Is there a trick to getting AP to work like it used to or is it all RNG God randomness? I mean you should not have a broadside of AP hit dead center and get 5 over pens. Please save the "Get Gud" answers no one actually finds them funny. Any real suggestions would be greatly appreciated
  5. Since the whole thing about the Russian cruiser lines are being changed/split, I feel like now is a good time to ask WG when they are going to revisit the little devil Khabarovsk? That ship in the current meta is piss poor. You have ships like Kleber that have 8 kilometer torpedoes and go to nearly 60 knots and then you have ships like Smolensk that can spam you to death with 16x 130mm guns. What about the Khabarovsk? The ship has only 6 kilometer torps with a speed of 43 knots. Khabarovsk's max speed without flags is 43 knots as well as her max range being only around 13.5 kilometers being a full gun boat build. Yes the ship has good armor, but the cost is, is that you still get the old pin values of DDs when shot by AP! The ship was buffed awhile ago and to be turned into stats that made sense at the time. Khabarovsk's current form was good for a time where their were less variety of ships provided by War Gaming. Back then at around 2017 (estimated) you didn't have ships like Venezia, Henri, Kleber, and Worcester. Not to mention any new BBs that have entered the game and the recent CV changes! Since these ships and changes have been brought into the game, the role of Khabarovsk has been demoralizing and not fun to play. Khab has also been over taken by the other DD, Kleber which has better detection, speed, and torps. Yes Khab can equip a heal but why would you choose a heal when you can't dodge shells that will go around 900 meters per second from multiple different type of ships? You also have to deal with the variety of DDs that you face like Harugumo and Daring that have good guns and way better than your concealment which is 9.7 kilometers. Khabarovsk used to have 8 kilometer torps with a lower damage Alpha as well as greater range for her guns. Khabs torps helped get that damage needed to help regular players to break that 100k damage. Back then, when their were less ships to counter Khab from her past form, she was a very disgusting ship to deal with. Now with new varieties of ships, we Khab is now power crept in this current meta. And she needs to be re-looked into to get her back to being a ship that can be enjoyed and maybe considered for Clan Battles? The ship needs to have better range in torps and gun range. I feel the past form of the Khabarovsk can suffice to bringing this ship back from the grave.
  6. In world of tanks when you move your aim reticle on an enemy it will be green, red or orange based on the calculated probability of penetrating armour where you aim. In this game, some ships can have troll armour, where you think your HE for example can pen/not shatter but in reality it can't. The Khaba and Gearing are great examples of this but so is the Kutuzov, as it's the only CL with 26mm instead of 25mm plating. Showing a new player that their HE shells can't pen parts of a ship with troll armour is still trollish but will removed much of the potential confusion and frustration, especially as you can't always look to your right to track the number of shatters when you're fighting someone else. Doing this for AP shells will also show in real time how much angling can change a ship's effective armour in a way that will make the game more newbie friendly imo. The only downside is when brawling and doing a drive-by, otherwise bad players (who also happen to not use the mods that show ship angles) who would shoot you too soon can now have a better chance at blapping you. So from the experienced brawler's perspective (or from the perspective of someone using the angle indicator mod) this is a negative but otherwise I'd say this change would be mostly positive, and in theory because WoT and WoWS use the same game engine it should be easy to implement (they'll have to redesign how the reticle looks like/works since right now colours are used for reloading time) This feature would work the best when fighting someone really close up, where you're aiming near the ship already (since you need to mouse over parts of the ship for the indicator to give you information). This could arguably 'dumb down' the game but it would also make it easier for newbies to learn fairly simple game mechanics that we take for granted, like the fact that a ship's extremities are weaker.
  7. The Wiki seems way out of date on this topic. Is there a list of AP shells somewhere with improved auto-ricochet angles? I know the US 8" and 12", as well as the UK 6" have this feature, but I believe there are more than that......
  8. @Sub_Octavian is there a chance we just call it good and “un-buff” the AP bombs? We appreciate the effort to compensate Graf after the speed changes but it’s not working out. I don’t know if a buff has ever been asked to be reverted but the new bomb mechanics seem worse than they were before. The bombs bounce, overpen or completely miss the target most of the time. Coupled with the speed boost “standardization” this CV feels worse in 8.4 overall. Thanks.
  9. I'm looking for more information on this mechanic. I've heard of this occurring but wrote it off. Then while searching on the WOWS wiki for another stat, I located the following piece of information: Armor-Piercing Internal Ricochets An AP shell that ricochets after penetrating armor will cause another instance of penetration damage in the section where the ricochet occurs. Additional ricochets will cause additional instances of penetration damage until the shell exits the ship or explodes from fuse activation. This extra source of damage is most commonly encountered when shooting at "turtleback" armor schemes (common on all German battleships and other nations' dreadnoughts). Plunging fire that is insufficient to penetrate interior decks may also ricochet, causing one or more extra instances of damage.(http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration) I'd like to see some discussion and information on this. Here are some of my questions: 1) Does this apply to all AP shells? 2) How does the damage appear in the ribbons and reported in post battle results? 3) What is the damage percentage for the shell ricochet? 4) Layer penetration resulting in a final shatter, overpen or guarantee fuse arm? 5) What is the interaction with modules? Anything helps and I look forward to any comments or answers. Thanks
  10. HMS HOOD REVIEW I'm not going to go into to much detail here because no doubt you've seen a review for this ship before. This is more specifically about Hood's guns which were "Buffed" at 8.0, and alike with most of that update, Hood's AP is right now in a bad place. Do I think that any of the CC's, Developers or anyone else who could make a change will see this review? No. I don't, neither do I think that WG will do anything about it. Frankly, I'm just putting this out there because I'm venting from WarGaming taking my money and making my favourite ship a dumpster fire. So without further ado, if you are ready then grab your metaphoric stick and let's start beating this metaphoric dead horse (BTW So everyone knows, I do not condone violence. This is just a joke so treat it as such. If somehow you are offended by this joke, it wasn't my intention to insult/offend anyone with this light-hearted joke) Hood's AP right now is bad... ok that might be a bit of an understatement, it's AWFUL. Hoods AP is lacking in every way and can't do anything unless you are within 2km and have the flat side of an AFK Musashi to shoot at. Ok, that's a little harsh but it is true that the AP is lacking in comparison with its old shell. I have hit the citadel of an NC, Nelson, Giulio Cesare, New Mexico and New York but all were within 10-2km and all were completely broadside. Which is pathetic, the Gneisenau could citadel an NC from 15km away. However, I'm not going to regale you all with boring stories that you probably haven't seen nor do you care about. I brought numbers to back me up... Yeah, I'm a nerd. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So these numbers are from when Hood was first released so 1 thing in here is inaccurate "bulletDetonator" is now 0.033 instead of 0.015 but the rest remained the same. What I'd like to bring to your attention is the category "bulletKrupp" Krupp if you are unaware means how much armour a shell can penetrate before shattering. Krupp of Warspite is 2330.0 and the Krupp of Hood is 2190.0 this means that Warspite a T6 remember will pen more than Hood a T7. However, both Hood and Warspite have the same fuse time now 0.033s if you don't see what I am getting at here let me explain. Warspite a T6 will penetrate and detonate within Battleships at all ranges, she will also hit with more of her shells due to her higher sigma value. Warspite will overpenatrate cruisers because of her higher Krupp and fuse time. However, Warspite will not struggle to do damage, the higher sigma, fuse time and Krupp values are perfectly fine against battleships. Hood T7 a tier higher than Warspite will struggle to do any of the things listed above. Her Krupp is low enough that she can't reliably penetrate enemy battleships unless a suicide ranges. Fewer shells will hit the target because of her slightly lower sigma and yet she will still overpenetrate any cruiser she comes across. So THIS is why Hood needs to be looked at. Before the "Buff" Hoods AP shell would penetrate a cruiser and arm inside doing substantial damage. Citadeling a cruiser at 18.6km? No problem. Citadeling a cruiser at point blank range? No problem. But now Citadeling a cruiser at 18.6km? Overpen. Citadeling a cruiser at point blank range? Overpen. The old AP was also good against battleships too. If the Battleship was bow on? Aim at the guns, Hood's shells would hit the superstructure and arm inside of it due to the short fuse time. Battleship broadside on? Aim halfway up the hull, Hood's shells would pen the weak upper armour and arm due to the short fuse time. Now Hood's shells overpen the superstructure richocet of the deck armour and if T8 or higher richochet off the bow armour. Also now if a battleship turns broadside on Hood's AP overpens the weak upper armour and shatters against the belt armour unless it's a New York or Hood's at suicide ranges. Before the "Buff": Now I could go digging through my pictures and find many more but I know someone will say that all of those were nitpicked. To that, I say yes, of course, I chose some of the best games I had with her before the rework but I would commonly, easily do 90k damage a game. Hood's AP wasn't useless or broken it was people not knowing how to use it. I mean it really is that simple, people buying a battlecruiser, expecting it to be a battleship getting frustrated when the AP didn't work the same way it did on other ships and then complaining saying the thing was useless. This is what the current AP looks like: The more observant of you might realize that I died because of ramming, that ram caused 40k damage so in total with only my guns I managed to do 22k damage. Hood just can't do any consistent reliable damage. I WANT MY MONEY BACK. If you were considering getting Hood, don't because before she was usable but different now she is unusable and just a terrible ship. WG even got rid of her special Defensive AA consumable instead of multiplying short-range rockets by 25 it gets the standard +100% to medium long range AA guns. WG you either need to give me compensation for this terrible mess of a ship or put it back to the way it was. I paid $55 for Hood and now you just went in and messed up my purchase. It wouldn't be acceptable if a company went into your house and replaced your wooden table for a picnic bench. I don't like to hate on WG it's hard to make everyone happy but YOU BETTER NOT MESS WITH PEOPLES MONEY!!!!!! Your policy of "Never altering premiums" is great because then you don't end up with situations like this where you tried to help a dying horse and in the process accidentally killed it.
  11. I was messing around in a training room with my Moskva when I noticed that 99% of my AP shells that registered as "penetration" and was aimed at the lower broadside of the French Tier X Republique ship did almost no damage. Even just above the water line by quite a bit it's still the same issue. This only seems to happen in the mid and stern sections of the ship. The bow area doesn't seem effected. Below is a gif of what I noticed. Is the ship designed like this? If it doesn't load: https://i.imgur.com/4kOtUXy.gifv
  12. As a cruiser, should you keep firing HE shells at a BB even when its burning or do you fire AP shells?