Big guns not Penetrating 1.1.9 R

[BoredViking]

14.5 in AP vs CA (6.9 max belt) @ 10 Km:

38 blocked
1 pen
2 partial
6 over
2 ricochet

In previous pacth I would destroy a CA after 40 direct hits, not it has 92 % integrity.

Small guns, don't seeems to be affected

[BoredViking]

5.1 inch AP, same ship, same target

0 blocked
3 pen
60 partial
0 over
8 ricochet

[Gavin McStine]

Ya, I'm running my flooding tests on bulkheads and I found that a 13" with about 1.3 times the pen value are blocking fully shots. Fire still happens. HE rounds, not sure about AP. AP is well and above pen value, but I'm not sure if the AI is firing.

[redhongkong]

i think the problem is only the top grade AP shell pens reliably. the normal / slightly upgraded AP shell have weak penetration angle . they bounce more frequently

use 9" SAP might be better choice until u get best AP shell

[Pyrit]

Yeah penetration is completely borked at the moment, I made several posts about in the stickied feedback thread already. It's as if the calculation breaks if the shell has too much penetration.

[Banzaikampai]

Can confirm, something is very, very wrong here. In my campaign Battleships with 13'' (330mm) guns keep getting blocked by CL main belts at almost no angle. Oddly enough Fore and Aft belt pen appears to be working just fine.

Over all, there is just way too much RNG involved. Big guns should reliably cause damage to compensate for their low rate of fire. The fact that they cannot do that at the moment makes them a poor choice for battleships, contrary to how it should actually be.

[redhongkong]

i think any ship turning 45degree to enemy, its in defense stance. this give the ship high bounce/ block ability even a 6" lightcruiser get this ability. this apply both u and AI

the game ask u to work with ur friendly ship to sandwhich opponent with V formation travel both flank
or travel single direction to box opponent in L formation in order to find best angle to shoot ur AP round at opponent's broadside . or force them to make turn( this give u opportunity window to shoot their broadside )


with High velocity shell . u have low chance of penetrating its main belt when opponent is in defense stance. very low chance of penning its main deck. u have good chance of penning fore/aft belt/deck (if its low armor fore/aft belt it will be overpen)
u only able to reliably penning it main belt when its in the middle of turning that shows u flat broadside


with average velocity u get 50% 50% jack of all trade, master of none, its like rolling dice game.


with low velocity shell (heavy shell, bigger caliber, short/regular barrel length) stay far away and you will lope shells like artillery on tank's top armor. it give high chance penning main deck fore&aft deck with full dmg. but also give u even higher chance to bounce/blocked on main belt hit. however it could still penetrating fore&aft belt. so the only place u cant reliably pen is main belt. but problem with low velocity shell in close range is they cant reliably pen deck or mainbelt so u only able to reliably pen fore and aft belt. unless u are in torpedo range and shooting at their broadside, which give u okayish penning chance on their main belt



now bonus. SAP shell is OP at current patch, it hits and it dmgs. ignore armor or hit angle like cheating. when u see light armored target, it does full dmg in every hit on top of ignore armor and hit angle. with high armor target it does partial pen dmg, but it will destroy guns and turrets easily. i think it also apply instability debuff on opponent's accuracy just like any other hits. if u able to mount small caliber fast reloading 8-10" guns in number, its gonna wipe out everyone in no time. i once did 150k dmg with single 1221 chinese CA using 8" SAP with assistant from few other dd and light cruiser (they just bait hits, this ca does like 95%+ dmg XD)

[redhongkong]

when u test ship in 1vs1 situation, AI will always turn 45 degree toward ur gun, thats not very good for AP shell testing.

its best if u use 2 BB vs 5-10 CL to find out whats going on with AP shell.

[redhongkong]

incase u dont understand what i am saying

light weight shell + long barrel (choose light weight + high velocity propellant and charge) = mainbelt seeker, the longer barrel the higher muzzle velocity u get, the further away u can stay, while still maintaining a relatively flat trajectory , this setup give u very low deck pen chance. but give u very high hull pen chance.
but penning or not is a dimensional calculation, u need to fire shell at opponent's flat broadside. do not expect to pen angled ship.


heavy weight shell +normal barrel or short barrel (choose heavy weight + low velocity prop and charg.) = high deck chance, hit high dmg, high bounce on belt , but suck at mid range
this setup ignore 3dimensional calculation, u are hitting from above. deck isnt as thick as hull. so u will pen as long as u stay at distant

[Pyrit]

I don't have the faintest clue what you're on about with a defensive stance. An angle of impact of 45° increases the effective thickness of the armor by about 42% and shouldn't cause a significant chance of a ricochet unless you have saboteurs on your ship who replaced the AP shells with round shot. If a 45° angle already meant your shells are likely to bounce regardless of armor thickness, deck penetrations would be an even worse strategy to go for than belt penetrations because shells will pretty much always strike a deck at a worse angle than 45°. I'm not talking about minmaxing within the game mechanics as they are but whether those mechanics make any sense. Either way, if the shell was deflected because of the angle itself, that would be a ricochet, which is explicitly not what is happening in situations like this one:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2931620973
The shells are being blocked. They're running up against an impenetrable wall of steel and destroying themselves in the attempt to get through without even making a dent. And this is nonsensical when these shells have enough penetration to punch clean through the target ship twice over, shells from the same guns in the same volley can strike the same location and either overpenetrate or be blocked with no in-between and shells from smaller guns with less penetrations can achieve partial or full penetrations on thicker armor.

[redhongkong]

Originally posted by Pyrit:

I don't have the faintest clue what you're on about with a defensive stance. An angle of impact of 45° increases the effective thickness of the armor by about 42% and shouldn't cause a significant chance of a ricochet unless you have saboteurs on your ship who replaced the AP shells with round shot. If a 45° angle already meant your shells are likely to bounce regardless of armor thickness, deck penetrations would be an even worse strategy to go for than belt penetrations because shells will pretty much always strike a deck at a worse angle than 45°. I'm not talking about minmaxing within the game mechanics as they are but whether those mechanics make any sense. Either way, if the shell was deflected because of the angle itself, that would be a ricochet, which is explicitly not what is happening in situations like this one:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2931620973
The shells are being blocked. They're running up against an impenetrable wall of steel and destroying themselves in the attempt to get through without even making a dent. And this is nonsensical when these shells have enough penetration to punch clean through the target ship twice over, shells from the same guns in the same volley can strike the same location and either overpenetrate or be blocked with no in-between and shells from smaller guns with less penetrations can achieve partial or full penetrations on thicker armor.

i already posted a test result on AP shell in discussion. i can get 100% shell penned without bounce or shatter. loot it up

[Pyrit]

Originally posted by redhongkong:

i already posted a test result on AP shell in discussion. i can get 100% shell penned without bounce or shatter. loot it up

As I said, I don't care about minmaxing within the game mechanics as they are but whether the mechanics make sense.

[redhongkong]

im not artillery expert, all i know is when i play wows, they give US a 5-10% penetration angle auto correction which made them easier to pen while their shell still travel really curvy.

when i start playing this game, i notice they give top of the line capped ballistic II okayish pen angle, but normal or capped APC round seems to suffer greatly on pen angle if u read the description.

and AP shell do bounce or shatter quit often on tank, thats why german learned from russian, abandon boxy tiger and go for king tiger

and unlike tank where u shoot at close range, artillery in this game travel really far away, the shell fly like rainbow all the time so its already angled on the way

if ur opponent is angled against u, its end up with big big angle.

its like pushing a glass, the best way to push it is lining up ur finger straight and push in the middle.

if u push off the center it slip away if u push 45 degree downward and off center, it slip away even easier

its like chinese taichi teacher would say, u wanna use as little force as possible to push away incoming attack, the force will dissipate into thin air.

same as katana block move when u block opponent by creating an angled blade that guide opponent's strike off to the side

[Hidden Gunman]

2.2 inch with 10-12% barrel length is one of the most lethal calibres in the game.

[Rittersporn]

I think pen off the main belt is dorked since the intrusion off the inner layer
"citadel I" armor.
It seems to get added to the main belt including the 50% reduction buff.
So overpens at fore and aft armor and no penning for main armor with normal guns.
Clearly a bug.

[the Baron]

Originally posted by rjmdubois:

14.5 in AP vs CA (6.9 max belt) @ 10 Km:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2932279459

1 partial and 1 full pen and is dead.
One more time.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2932279394

2 full pen and is dead.

It is difficult to understand what is the issue here.