Jump to content
Raven434th

T-14 overpowered against sabots?

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

And another thing taking inconsideration of how light the Turret is. When the ammunition is ignited would the Turret pop off? If not why?

Why? Well, I guess since we are on trial here...

 

First of all, whether the turret pops off is purely cosmetic. The explosion kills the vehicle. Rivet counting.

 

Secondly, we put thought into these things. We didn't think it was likely to pop off, because in most cases, in our experience, the heavier the turret is, then the more resistance to overpressure, and the turret is launched into the air rather than the turret being ruptured, or the explosion coming out the turret ring. In the case of the T-14, it would likely be too light, kind of like self propelled howitzers, to the point that the turret would just likely be ruptured (and there is a large maintenance hatch on top that would vent the explosion too). But I think some of this was explained previously.

 

But I guess one day if we see a photo of a T-14 with the turret blown off, then we will change it.

 

As for the M829A4, look: did I not say that it bypasses ERA (at least based on claims)? And in regards to the M829A3, this is not the same thing. The M829A4 is apparently tandem-like effects, to apparently make the ERA irrelevant, but the exact details about this are unknown, while the M829A3 is more traditional. There are details here on how it works, then there are specifics about the type of ERA (K1, K5, Relikt, etc), so please - the broad statements are not helpful.

 

Anything else we want to bash on this rampage?  🤨

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well turrets pop are in sb because turrets pop off in real life due to ammo cook off...thats why you put it there

Edited by Raven434th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

well turrets pop of in sb because turrets pop off in real life due to ammo cook off...thats why you put it there

Whether the turret actually pops off or not is purely cosmetic, for coolness factor. We don't know the probability, and in most cases we are using our best judgement whether it even should or not. Subjective.

 

In any case, I refer to to this, since you obviously didn't read it:

 

14 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Secondly, we put thought into these things. We didn't think it was likely to pop off, because in most cases, in our experience, the heavier the turret is, then the more resistance to overpressure, and the turret is launched into the air rather than the turret being ruptured, or the explosion coming out the turret ring. In the case of the T-14, it would likely be too light, kind of like self propelled howitzers, to the point that the turret would just likely be ruptured (and there is a large maintenance hatch on top that would vent the explosion too). But I think some of this was explained previously.

 

That's about all I can do here.  Anyone else that follows can feel free to post my previous replies to answer future questions. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said an armata turret would pop...I said it for the reason the T-72 pops when getting hit in the ammo storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so when tanks explode that neccesserily doesnt mean that the turret will blow off... also its down to how the design of the vehicle..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed...but when we see a turret pop in sb its purpose is to emulate a ammo storage hit which is a known flaw of the T-72 chassis...and other T tanks I believe.

Edited by Raven434th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on the M829A3 vs  M829A4 is that the new features that make the A4 model interesting are going to require some programmer involvement. For the cases discussed here - M829A3 in a flank shot situation, the A3 has so much power overmatch that you'd never notice a difference outside of a quantitative statistical analysis with a large sample size.

I'd rather hold off with the introduction of the A4 because, right now, you wouldn't see much of a performance difference. It'd feel like fixing imagined bugs with placebos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that eSim has said they would look into this and in return they have been badgered. I think some on both sides are are getting rather worked up about this.

 

I have every confidence that eSim will do what they can to achieve a realistic outcome, within the bounds of their modelling. Meanwhile they are not attending to other business, because of the amount of their time this thread is using.

 

Just my opinion

 

Edited by ssidiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

critical component in Armata turret and their coverage in SB: 

image.thumb.png.5f435f0169503219030e623849e73f60.png

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badgered is not a strong enough word for this topic.  If this is how you treat devs who go to the effort of putting in a a good piece of content, I hate to imagine how you treat devs of games you don't like.  And I don't want to hear, "we're tough because we love".  There are much more useful ways to provide feedback.  This whole topic disgusts me. 

 

And I'll come back to my original comment.  If I were the devs, I'd just pull the Armata out until they decide what to do with it.  I would be fairly disillusioned.

Edited by thewood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

critical component in Armata turret and their coverage in SB:

It should be clarified to everyone that the image is from the new T-14 after some tweaks and adjustments to the breach and autoloader have been made today to better match the diagrams we have. B|

 

This improvement should be in the next update (BTW, along with better K5 ERA behavior which causes it to be removed more often against high power KE impacts - which was an unrelated change we previously made).

 

Besides those tweaks, that is it for the valid issues - according to the info we gathered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Volcano said:

It should be clarified that the image is from the new T-14 after some tweaks and adjustments to the breach and autoloader have been made today to better match the diagrams we have. B|

 

This improvement should be in the next update (BTW, along with better K5 ERA behavior which causes it to be removed more often against high power KE impacts - which was an unrelated change we previously made).

Thank you Sir and all the DEV team for listening to our input. Glad to hear this and sometimes it take some bumping heads and new information for better things to come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

critical component in Armata turret and their coverage in SB: 

image.thumb.png.5f435f0169503219030e623849e73f60.png

Thank you for this diagram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raven434th said:

We won

And this is exactly what I am talking about...dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious here but how often is the T-14 being rendered "Combat Useless" by taking hits to the turret that cause no obvious external signs of blazing flaming death, yet still stop the vehicle from firing it's main gun?

 

Perhaps in the future the AI is going to have to learn to deal with the T-14 by concluding "I've nailed it solidly in the turret three times and it is not engaging me...Next target!" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if a proper gunner and here i talk "HUMAN" Gunner.. he would shoot 1 time at 1 target then go to the next target.. and then continue till he has hit each target once, then after that he starts going back again. to hit them again... so basicly u open and close the book like this continuesly.

Edited by DK-DDAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

Just curious here but how often is the T-14 being rendered "Combat Useless" by taking hits to the turret that cause no obvious external signs of blazing flaming death, yet still stop the vehicle from firing it's main gun?

 

Perhaps in the future the AI is going to have to learn to deal with the T-14 by concluding "I've nailed it solidly in the turret three times and it is not engaging me...Next target!" ?

Agreed, this would be interesting though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raven434th said:

We won

Congratulations, and thanks for confirming what I suspected.

 

 

 

Now consider your chances, next time you raise an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DK-DDAM said:

well if a proper gunner and here i talk "HUMAN" Gunner.. he would shoot 1 time at 1 target then go to the next target.. and then continue till he has hit each target once, then after that he starts going back again. to hit them again... so basicly u open and close the book like this continuesly.

Yes, basic drills, but they seem hard to implement in SB. After all, it is "simple" scripted behaviour and not "AI"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit more than simple scripting (air quotes or not). Steel Beasts is about as complex as a state machine can get before becoming unserviceable.

Downside: Limited creativity.

Upside: Predictable behavior.

 

Often enough in training, you don't want the computer-controlled units to be too creative and rather err on the side of predictability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...