-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I assume if there are 20 variants it's 5% per each so tank is dead only 20% times (1 = Critical Ammo Explosion, 2 = Internal Fragments, 3 = Fuel explosion, 4 = Crew killed) and completely malfunctioning 25% times (+ 5 = Bailed Out)
If I ain't right correct me
I've noticed that there is some HP damage from penetrations but it doesn't matter much. Greyhound from the example tanks and overkills any AT gun worth its cost and more, it's true for every recon really like Puma. Not a matter of a vehicle, they all are now invulnerable.
...what were Eugen thinking? How come it is more chance to break tracks than destroy a tank by a direct frontal penetration?
Are there any additional calculations when AP is much greater than AV? Because situation when KT kills Stuart from second hit is bullshit.
You would think that....
And fire in the crew compartment,should equal bail out and or vehicle going boom.
Hmm should test out how well ammo vehicles soak up rounds. /wink.
Sherman’s were not called Purple Heart boxes for nothing. They were well known to light up like a Roman candle when hit. I don’t know why Eugene cannot simulate this with crit system.
Just odd how I am reading some of this and think “instant death’” I mean ammo storage hit only causes 50% reduction in ammo and 3 sec gun damage??? That is crazy. Any storage hit on any tank should be instant death.
Also any track hit on a tank while moving should make the tank spin of control and open up side shots.
The Sherman didn't burn any worse than any other tank- they were by 1944 almost all a bit safer in terms of ammunition explosions than many other tanks, including panzer IVs
The Sherman had indeed problems with his inflammability. The Germans called the M4 Sherman "Tommy-Kocher" (Tommy-Stove), because of that problem. Later the the Sherman was equipped with cans of water in the storage areas to fix that issue.
This takes away a percentage of ammo, it doesn't kill instantly.
This is awesome work, thank you! Could someone please translate all these into percentages as I am too dumb to understand that dice gambling shit.
So, am I correct in assuming that every vehicle has a hidden hp pool, that gets depleted by penetrating shots that cause a crit and HE hits? Does anyone know whether this pool gets repaired during crit repair?
The arguments on the forums over the brewing up issue was horrendous at launch. I remember having some rather 'heated' arguments (sorry) with a couple of 'experts' at the time who maintained that the water filled ammo storage eventually tried in the shermans eliminated the fire issue. That's fine for reducing the risk of heat igniting ammunition, but does nothing when splinters or other red-hot material exposes and ignites fuel or ammo propellant.
A lot of people simply don't accept the overall poor quality of WW2 tanks, and judge by modern standards...with a hearty dose of German/American rose tinted-jingo'ism thrown in. They refuse to accept that the M4 series was simply an intermediate stop-gap expedient till something better came along (same as the Grant/Lee)...which never really happened during the critical phase of the war.
Last edited:
Actually one guy on steam forum got info about HP values of different units.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/572410/discussions/0/1692659135919641918/
http://steamcommunity.com/app/572410/discussions/0/1692659135919641918/
I am a big rts fan and even bigger ww2 nerd. I even play paradox titles and has played Wargame prior (wasn’t a massive fan). I didn’t hear about steel division until after it was released.
Now I play at least a game or two everyday.
Same goes for shadow tactics, I only found out about that game due to a nostalgia fueled steam queue binge.
I think Wargame players are cunts about this game nearly entirely because it isn’t literally Wargame 4. And thus doesn’t have the same, setting, scale, identical mechanics and gameplay. That may explain why the steam reviews are mixed, or that Wargame—which has no future development—has retained Eugen’s customers.
I redescribed the info from @Sconna in a more presentable way.
I included this in my guide on steam you can find here -> http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1276910882 that consists of SD:44 stuff that not described in-game. And this promotion is shameless
===========================================================
Frontal penetration:
~20% chance - one-shot a vehicle
~20% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~35% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~25% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Side penetration:
~30% chance - one-shot a vehicle
~30% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~35% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~5% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Rear penetration:
~55% chance - one-shot a vehicle
~20% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~25% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~0% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
===========================================================
Frontal non-penetration:
~85% chance - bounce off a vehicle
~15% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Side non-penetration:
~65% chance - bounce off a vehicle
~10% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~10% chance - crit: light malfunction; repairs not needed.
~15% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Rear non-penetration:
~40% chance - bounce off a vehicle
~10% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~20% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~20% chance - crit: light malfunction; repairs not needed.
~10% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
===========================================================
I included this in my guide on steam you can find here -> http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1276910882 that consists of SD:44 stuff that not described in-game. And this promotion is shameless
===========================================================
Frontal penetration:
~20% chance - one-shot a vehicle
~20% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~35% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~25% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Side penetration:
~30% chance - one-shot a vehicle
~30% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~35% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~5% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Rear penetration:
~55% chance - one-shot a vehicle
~20% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~25% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~0% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
===========================================================
Frontal non-penetration:
~85% chance - bounce off a vehicle
~15% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Side non-penetration:
~65% chance - bounce off a vehicle
~10% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~10% chance - crit: light malfunction; repairs not needed.
~15% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
Rear non-penetration:
~40% chance - bounce off a vehicle
~10% chance - crit: severe malfunction; needs a repair.
~20% chance - crit: light malfunction; needs a repair.
~20% chance - crit: light malfunction; repairs not needed.
~10% chance - crit: crew malfunction; repairs not needed.
===========================================================
^ question: Do above values change when you have a Pak 88 blasting a recon vehicle? It seems like it...
Yes and no. It values HP-wise. Check this out: http://steamcommunity.com/app/572410/discussions/0/1692659135919641918/
The "Purple Heart Boxes" nickname was actually for halftracks, most notably the Anti-Tank model ones used in Africa.
As to "well known" to light up, again that applied to earlier models with ammo stowage high in the hull. Panzer IVs, Panthers, Jadgpanzer IVs, etc etc all had similar burn/explosion rates when penetrated (and they were penetrated, the old myth of Panzer IVs wading through 75 MM fire, or of massed Tiger legions needs to be really tossed in the trash at this point).
It wasn't "Cans of water" it was moving the main ammo stowage to the floor, and surrounding them with anti-freeze (as if it was water, it might freeze over if the tank was parked during cold weather which would burst the containers). Ultimately it was moving the ammo to the floor that was the most important measure as it moved it out of the most common lines of fire and later model Shermans kept the stowage location, but omitted the anti-freeze portion of the stowage.
This of course demonstrates ignorance of the topic entirely. The "water" portion didn't matter, it was the movement of the ammo out of the lines of likely penetration, which in turn reduced the burn rate of the Sherman to well below the ignition rate of any other tank in Europe circa 1944 that was still being shot at.
Also the Sherman was 100% not a "immediate stop-gap expedient!!!!" The US military regarded it as the tank of choice for 1942-43. US Ordinance Branch attempted to make a replacement in the T23 which basically failed to be better than the Sherman and was not adopted (with the exception of it's turret, which went on to become the pattern for the later model Sherman turret w/ 76 MM gun).
The main failings of the Sherman compared to German armor were:
1. Narrow tracks, meaning poor ground pressure compared to similar or even heavier tanks.
2. High profile
3. Until the later model, the split hatch with periscope was a worse observation system than the cupola type setup with 360 vision blocks (however the later "All vision" cupola on the 76 MM and later 75 MM Shermans was superior to the German model)
It's debatable if the armor or even gun were especially "bad" given their performance compared to other tanks of similar weight. That would then be should the US have fielded a "heavy" tank, or even a "medium" wink wink nudge nudge like the Panther. Given the performance of those vehicles relative to cost, and that most of the tank engagements the US Army was in involved only the US Army's tanks, this might be indicative the Sherman was the winning strategy.
Onto critical hits:
Honestly I'm enjoying the game more with them. Heavy armor doesn't seem quite as killdozer, AT guns are now a bad idea to employ on the offensive.
I don't play lots so I might be "wrong" but I'm playing again and liking it after walking away from the game for a few months, so going to call it a win.
The 'main failings' you outline are exactly the failings that make a bad tank, moreso if it has slab sides and a poor quality gun, that was outdated the year it first saw battle. Comparing tank weights/capability as a measure is as silly as sending a single Sherman to deal with a Panther.
The issue isn't a 'which tank is best' question, it's a question of why the western allies, the US in particular, sent troops off to fight with such a crap tank in the first place. In any cost analysis, you need to consider the full cost, including that in casualties, and the cost of the graves registration blokes to mop them out of the wrecks, and the welders putting patches in turrets and hulls.
If you wish to talk about the winning tank strategy, you need to include that a western allied invasion of Europe was unnecessary. The Soviets were winning the war very nicely on their own, with their own tanks, which the germans were playing catch up to.
More than happy to discuss, but please provide a source for the burn rates thanks, I'd like to cast a professional eye over it (my trade is military ammo).
The issue isn't a 'which tank is best' question, it's a question of why the western allies, the US in particular, sent troops off to fight with such a crap tank in the first place. In any cost analysis, you need to consider the full cost, including that in casualties, and the cost of the graves registration blokes to mop them out of the wrecks, and the welders putting patches in turrets and hulls.
If you wish to talk about the winning tank strategy, you need to include that a western allied invasion of Europe was unnecessary. The Soviets were winning the war very nicely on their own, with their own tanks, which the germans were playing catch up to.
More than happy to discuss, but please provide a source for the burn rates thanks, I'd like to cast a professional eye over it (my trade is military ammo).