Pigeon_of_War

British Cruisers and French Cruisers Over-penetration, Investigation and Results

  • You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.

29 posts in this topic

Hi everyone,

 

Now, players can often see that the “Over-penetration” ribbon is displayed, when a British cruiser hits a French cruiser (FRCA). That is a surprise for

players, as British AP shells cannot over-penetrate even destroyer armor. You can recall that their fuse arming takes a very little time.

 

Why that happens?

The thing is that FRCAs have specific design characteristics: a part of torpedo protection is rather high above the waterline, the armor belt on the torpedo bulge (from Tier VI) and a long distance from this belt to the citadel (see the attached screenshot).

 

If a British armor piercing shell hits the torpedo protection above the waterline, its fuse arms and explodes between the bulge and the citadel. It cannot reach the main armor and cannot deal any damage to the ship.

 

Displaying the “Over-penetration” ribbon isn’t correct. Correct ribbon should be “Penetration”, but also without dealing damage. We are planning to fix this issue.

 zXe9XJO.jpg

 nHyy25i.jpg

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Displaying the “Over-penetration” ribbon isn’t correct. Correct ribbon should be “Penetration”, but also without dealing damage. We are planning to fix this issue.

Not sure that is the best choice - I foresee lots of salt about "How can I have a pen for 0 damage?"  Maybe use the 'under-pen' ribbon or shatter or whatever it is called.  Call it a 'partial penetration'.  Still not sure that's the best way but I think it'd be better than just a 'pen' for no damage.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a non-critical penetration ribbon is needed? And while we're at it: A MODULE PEN RIBBON(no damage pens are annoying).


11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a non-critical penetration ribbon is needed? And while we're at it: A MODULE PEN RIBBON(no damage pens are annoying).

 

I agree that no damage pens are annoying, but instead question whether they should, in fact, be considered damaging instead (at least for scoring purposes, if not actual HP).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my belief that they should be counted as damaging hits.


4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Displaying the “Over-penetration” ribbon isn’t correct. Correct ribbon should be “Penetration”, but also without dealing damage. We are planning to fix this issue.

Shouldn't it be non-penetration, if only for consistency's sake?  If I pierce the torpedo bulge of an Iowa or Missouri and the shells are stopped by the main belt, currently it shows as non-pen.

 

IMO the ribbon hit system needs to count everything that does not deal damage, whether it's to modules or to the hull, as a non-pen.  Adding a separate module hit ribbon would be nice, but by hard-coding this condition in, you would bring players to the conclusion that they damaged a module if they get 0 damage but a penetration ribbon.

Edited by TenguBlade

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've definitely had overpenetrations with Brit CL's before, usually hitting the uppermost and lightest parts of superstructures. 

 

The whole hit ribbon system is pretty flawed, my first 2 hits with a Warspite last night were 'Overpens' for a total of 6,000 damage or so.

 

I appreciate you're trying to improve the system but it could do with some other changes.

 

 

Also, in game when you hover mouse over the hit ribbon it gives you a breakdown of pens/bounce/shatter/overpen - any chance of applying the same to the aircraft shot down emblem so you can see what types you've downed? 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I least I learn this before I hop back into Wows to play. Thanks for the head up


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my belief that they should be counted as damaging hits.

 

Possible reduced damage over pen? Like when a torp hits the torpedo protection, it's just reducing the damage. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the ribbons needed?  I think only if your into the book keeping.  As long as the game tracks it honestly (and its all done server side NOT client side) its a bit of a non issue.   If you understand whats going on with the game mechanics.  The over pen no damage, pen no damage on the french cruisers is NOT a surprise to me.. I noted the particularities of their armor lay out on the test server  Saw this one coming!  Dev's told ya they'd be a bit different.  It's that sneaky French non armor armor!  Of course it works the same way as torpedo protection that works... by providing a void where the detonation of a round is just not going to particularly damage anything important..assuming the ships been built with that sort of armoring in mind which the French cruisers are!   Also note on the armor that where you really want to put your rounds right under the turrets if you only want to deal with a single armor layer.

 

 

 

 

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've definitely had overpenetrations with Brit CL's before, usually hitting the uppermost and lightest parts of superstructures. 

 

The whole hit ribbon system is pretty flawed, my first 2 hits with a Warspite last night were 'Overpens' for a total of 6,000 damage or so.

 

I appreciate you're trying to improve the system but it could do with some other changes.

 

 

Also, in game when you hover mouse over the hit ribbon it gives you a breakdown of pens/bounce/shatter/overpen - any chance of applying the same to the aircraft shot down emblem so you can see what types you've downed? 

 

That's actually caused by the shell penetrating twice, on two different pieces of armor.

 

I had something similar happen a while back when I decided to take my Amagi out for a quick spin. Put up the spotter and took a pot shot at an enemy cruiser. Two over-pens for 10k. Consensus was the shells over-penned the outer plating, then penned some kind of internal armor before detonating inside giving a 33%. The damage total added up to 2 over-pens + 2 regular pens.

 

Here's the thread I started asking about it, as it confused me as to why I did that much damage from just over-pens. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/104733-um-wat-could-anyone-explain-this/page__fromsearch__1


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think the torpedo bulge should only be able to "absorb" a certain amount of damage before those overpens/pens start eating into the health of the ship.

 

Just as an example, each bulge could get 10k HP that is not linked to the ship's total health. Once that 10k is depleted, then that citadel is free game.

 

It's a thought...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my belief that they should be counted as damaging hits.

 

​Assuming that you mean even when they produce zero damage on the scoring, subtlety of though won't make you popular lol.

 

Oh, wait-  it would produce a hit ribbon and count, say, for cap defense, correct?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to hear an official response to this. I figured it was intended, but it's still a very interesting mechanic that can look very suspicious (0 Damage HE vs Emile Bertin with 406mm guns was a shocker).

 

On a separate note though, is this 'spaced-armour' a trait that IRL French Cruisers had? I'm genuinely curious, since this a very different approach to any other design we've seen in-game before (Hence why I tested it out thoroughly).


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's actually caused by the shell penetrating twice, on two different pieces of armor.

 

I had something similar happen a while back when I decided to take my Amagi out for a quick spin. Put up the spotter and took a pot shot at an enemy cruiser. Two over-pens for 10k. Consensus was the shells over-penned the outer plating, then penned some kind of internal armor before detonating inside giving a 33%. The damage total added up to 2 over-pens + 2 regular pens.

 

Here's the thread I started asking about it, as it confused me as to why I did that much damage from just over-pens. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/104733-um-wat-could-anyone-explain-this/page__fromsearch__1

 

You overpenned then hit magazines (but without dealing enough damage to cause a detonation). Magazine hits will deal full penetration damage regardless of whatever other modules or sections were registered damage.

 

Consider it a feature, I suppose...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't these deal damage in that space?  At the very least, it's still exploding inside a contained area that would magnify and focus an explosive blast.  This shouldn't be dealing 0 damage, but possibly act more like an air burst small HE shell with shrapnel and spalling.


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You overpenned then hit magazines (but without dealing enough damage to cause a detonation). Magazine hits will deal full penetration damage regardless of whatever other modules or sections were registered damage.

 

Consider it a feature, I suppose...

 

The shells struck nowhere near the mags though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The shells struck nowhere near the mags though.

 

Keep in mind that the visual of shell arcs and impacts are just splines grafted onto what the server is telling your client. You can do all sorts of weird damages in a single shell (133%, 43%, various combos with saturated sections, etc...) as long as you hit magazines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't it be non-penetration, if only for consistency's sake?  If I pierce the torpedo bulge of an Iowa or Missouri and the shells are stopped by the main belt, currently it shows as non-pen.

 

IMO the ribbon hit system needs to count everything that does not deal damage, whether it's to modules or to the hull, as a non-pen.  Adding a separate module hit ribbon would be nice, but by hard-coding this condition in, you would bring players to the conclusion that they damaged a module if they get 0 damage but a penetration ribbon.

 

^ It should be this. It didn't pen the areas that can be inflicted damage, so it should be considered a non-penetration (despite penetrating the bulges).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Displaying the “Over-penetration” ribbon isn’t correct. Correct ribbon should be “Penetration”, but also without dealing damage. We are planning to fix this issue.

 

 

This doesn't sound like a fix to me. Penetrations should be damaging penetrations or penetrations to saturated sections of the ship only. Actually fix the ribbons so the result is what you get the ribbon for, not the first layer of armor. Also this "spaced armor" is kinda nonsense, a ship can't take an infinte number of hits detonating inside its torp belt. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear on how things currently work, below is a list of the conditions, the ribbons that you get, and the actual result.

 

Scenario 1

Condition: AP shell penetrates torpedo bulge armor, detonates before reaching the hull or citadel armor.

Ribbon: Over-penetration

Actual result: No damage, since the shell did not penetrate into and detonate inside the ship's main body.

 

Scenario 2

Condition: AP shell penetrates torpedo bulge armor, hits the hull or citadel armor but fails to penetrate.

Ribbon: Non-penetration (or what many people like to call "shatter")

Actual result: No damage, since the shell did not penetrate into and detonate inside the ship's main body.

 

Scenario 3

Condition: HE shell penetrates torpedo bulge armor.

Ribbon: Penetration

Actual result: No damage, since the shell did not penetrate the armor of the ship's main body.

 

 

First of all, the actual result in all 3 scenarios are correct. The player has only penetrated the torpedo bulge, but the shells did not penetrate the ship's main body itself, so no damage should be inflicted. This is working as intended™.

However, only Scenario 2 is displaying the correct ribbon, which is a non-penetration which most players already associate with inflicting no damage.

Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 are both displaying ribbons that are misleading since players expect damage to be inflicted from receiving those ribbons.

 

Therefore, the fix mentioned below is not the correct way to remedy the situation:

Displaying the “Over-penetration” ribbon isn’t correct. Correct ribbon should be “Penetration”, but also without dealing damage. We are planning to fix this issue.

(note: the situation PoW is referring to in his post is what happens in Scenario 1)

 

Both Scenario 1 and 3 should be displaying a non-penetration ribbon.

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I torpedo hit the torpedo bugle and causes damage, but not flood.  Sound right to me.  But a shell passing through the Torpedo Bugle doesn't? Something not adding up here?

 

Shell fire strike the ship ought to some damage, even if it is only one point of damage.  Besides the images showed in this post, indicate the rounds would have to fall straight down onto the deck in order for them to miss the citadel.  At close range, rounds have a shallower arc.  Striking the ship at shallower angle close to the area the bugle is present should not cause an over penetration, but damage.

 

http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/cutaway/shell2.jpg  This is a British naval gun by the way?

 

In this picture the shell is solid and comes from a 16" naval cannon, but I'm quite sure other navies used a solid projectile below 16" for use as armor piercing.  I point this out because the principle behind space-gaped armor is to make the shell detonate before hitting the main armor belt protecting the inside ship.  Great against HE and Armor-piercing that uses fuses, but what about navy powers who opted for the solid shot approach?  Are we now going to have a third type of round for the game?

 

With different mechanic and rules?  Or is it all ready in the game and we don't know about it?

 

My point here is simple.  If a torpedo striking the bugle does damage, then a HE shell full damage should be applied.  The bugle is only design to stop a torpedo from sinking the ship by flood.  It is not designed to stop the ship from taking damage.

 

Edited by Stardin

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't these deal damage in that space?  At the very least, it's still exploding inside a contained area that would magnify and focus an explosive blast.  This shouldn't be dealing 0 damage, but possibly act more like an air burst small HE shell with shrapnel and spalling.

 

​Clearly something nasty happens in that confined space, even, as you point out, if its just spalling from a non-HE hit. Its a rhetorical question, but what rises to the level of non-zero damage from this? Is it a RNG determined finding that they do not feel reaches the level of being worthy of server burden?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems awfully complex of an arrangement for measuring damage.

The server requirements for doing a complete structural analysis of an impact/angle/penetration/delay/explosive_charge/confinement/effected_module/effected_citadel for every one of my 500 Atlanta shells is a bit daunting.  I suspect RNG plays a part too.

...

And why can't we get flooding from exiting angled AP overpens?

Oh wait....     http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/15079-ap-should-cause-flooding/

..

nevermind...

...

All I know is that I spent half a mission hitting a French Cruiser in the Citadel - with another French Cruiser..   The Black marks show up where I hit, but there is little damage.

I citadel'd a British cruiser, though.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.