Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Skyfaller

BB AP overpen on situations it shouldn't?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,042
Beta Testers
1,946 posts

Situation:

Yamato fires AP  at a cruiser that is bow-on to Yamato.

Yamato AP shell arcs high and plunges down into the cruiser's upper deck, behind the forward turrets, on the base of the superstructure.

Now, cruiser deck armor is paper thin. Cruiser superstructure armor is paper thin.

What is BELOW the deck armor or the superstructure? The citadel. Even if that citadel has topside armor it still is not enough to stop the Yamato AP shell.

 

...so the curious thing is, why does this Yamato AP shell get registered as 'overpen'?

Shell is hitting the cruiser vertically. It has the pen to easily punch through any armor between it and the citadel. Why is the shell not striking the citadel?

 

In contrast, at closer ranges, this same Yamato AP when it hits the superstructure itself, shell flying horizontally, it applies 'pen' damage on it. Not overpen, pen. In a situation where the shell has higher KE and where it is going through MUCH thinner armor.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Are Yamato AP shells not registering anything BUT the first layer of armor it hits to detect if its a pen or an overpen?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[SPTR]
Members
20,152 posts
6,159 battles

Simply put, RNG. The shell may have gone through the superstructure instead, even if it looked as if it penetrated the deck.

Stuff like this happens all the time, don't worry yourself over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[ANKER]
Supertester, In AlfaTesters
1,105 posts
4,867 battles

As far as I'm aware, the only time you get a citadel hit is if the shell fuses and detonates in the citadel. It is entirely possible to overpen citadels if the shell fails to fuse/detonate in the citadel.

 

My guess, Yamato AP is so powerful and the cruiser armour you hit was so weak that it went in one end and never fused, therefore passing harmlessly out the other. This can happen quite often on weak-deck cruisers when the shells arc high resulting in a failure to arm and detonate in the citadel. It can be frustrating, but does have a degree of accuracy to it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,521
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
23,092 posts
17,161 battles

If it goes in and out of the cruiser in less time than it takes the fuse to finish or if the fuse fails to arm at all, it's an overpen.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,787
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,148 posts

Makes one wonder, doesn't it... shells that big over pen on a vertical drop, why  you'd expect so see some gushers erupt like Old Faithful.

Over pen's a very weird game mechanic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
[_RNG_]
Members
787 posts
7,673 battles

I am no expert on all the mechanics in this game. Far from it.

But another possibility is: I think you see ribbons for the behavior of the Shell when it hits the first layer of armor, even if other things happen after that.

For example: your shell may over-penetrate the deck armor but it may still be detonating inside the ship behind the second layer of armor. So you would get penetration damage amounts but still get an over-pen ribbon.

Are you just looking at ribbons or are you also seeing damage amounts?

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could explain this better. Or just tell me I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,028
[HINON]
Members
12,680 posts
12 minutes ago, MrSparkle said:

Why is it also not causing flooding if it causes a hole below the water line?

Because it would be OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,783 posts
8,154 battles
13 minutes ago, MrSparkle said:

Why is it also not causing flooding if it causes a hole below the water line?

Because the size of the exit hole is significantly smaller than that caused by a torpedo. The associated overpen damage technically "already accounts for it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,014 posts
6,965 battles

What cruiser? 40mm is sufficient enough in this game to bounce Yamato's guns(requires a caliber of 572mm or greater to overmatch), and only some high tier BBs can cause true plunging fire at the extremities of their range with a spotter plane up. Which means that overmatching the deck doesn't necessarily mean the shell has the arc to not ricochet off the citadel roof.

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
433 posts
2 minutes ago, Compassghost said:

Because the size of the exit hole is significantly smaller than that caused by a torpedo. The associated overpen damage technically "already accounts for it."

Maybe the game needs a new flooding mechanic, that does damage similar in severity to a fire. Overpens below the water line should be cause for alarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,307
[D-PN]
[D-PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,563 battles

Perhaps it is because This Is A Game and Not A Simulator!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,307
[D-PN]
[D-PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,563 battles

@MrSparkle They had shell hit flooding included early on but it complicated things too much so they removed it. I do like that they left the shell hole graphics in though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
433 posts
1 minute ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@MrSparkle They had shell hit flooding included early on but it complicated things too much so they removed it. I do like that they left the shell hole graphics in though!

Shell flooding shouldn't be as drastic as torpedo flooding but an 18 inch or 16 inch shell should still cause some flooding, especially multiple holes.

Plunging shells don't work correctly either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,307
[D-PN]
[D-PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
21,563 battles

@MrSparkle Yes a ship full of below water line holes should take on water and sink rather quickly So that in a few seconds ones ship could be sunk very quickly in the first few minutes of a match rather than have a chance to at least get off a shot. Devastating strikes and detonations already have that covered and they are also evidence that Plunging Fire works as it should, it just doesn't appear that it does. Just like that hit you think went right down the stack actually hit the stern and blew it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30,521
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
23,092 posts
17,161 battles
23 minutes ago, MrSparkle said:

Maybe the game needs a new flooding mechanic, that does damage similar in severity to a fire. Overpens below the water line should be cause for alarm.

Ships have bilge pumps that WG has decided have enough capacity to deal with the flooding from shell holes, but not that from torpedo holes. It streamlines game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[JUICE]
Members
824 posts
6,375 battles
9 minutes ago, Lert said:

Ships have bilge pumps that WG has decided have enough capacity to deal with the flooding from shell holes, but not that from torpedo holes. It streamlines game play.

This. Couple that with sealed compartments and things along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
969
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
4,004 posts
4,608 battles
58 minutes ago, MrSparkle said:

Why is it also not causing flooding if it causes a hole below the water line?

They actually have experimented with this. I don't remember which Q&A it was, but Octavian said they tried it and found that it was, overall, detrimental to the game and not fun because it meant that people were constantly having to use Repair Party whenever they got hit or suffer 3-4 instances of flooding (or more) per volley.

Considering that a ship like Minotaur puts out a volley of 10 shells every ~1.5 seconds, that easily adds-up to huge amounts of floodings (which are not limited by section, unlike Fire), within seconds.

Edited by Carrier_Lexington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

I quite enjoined the sedate nature of flooding from shells when it was tested and was sad when it was removed because of the whiners, when it was patently obvious any initial implementation could have been improved upon and would be MUCH than what we have now, but as usual to the whiners the sky was falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
785 posts
3,318 battles
1 hour ago, MrSparkle said:

Why is it also not causing flooding if it causes a hole below the water line?

I feel like I remember this happening and it being extremely poor in terms of gameplay. I could be imagining stuff though. I took a loooong break from playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
433 posts
1 hour ago, Belyy_Klyk said:

I feel like I remember this happening and it being extremely poor in terms of gameplay. I could be imagining stuff though. I took a loooong break from playing.

When it's the same flooding that a torpedo causes it can't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts
2 hours ago, MrSparkle said:

When it's the same flooding that a torpedo causes it can't work.

 

it was much slower flooding than with torps, also IMO flooding was better back then than the crap we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×