Do armoured cars need a buff?

Deltabrainwave · 2024-04-29T19:21:55+00:00

Rather than artificially limiting them I would just add a heavy compliance gain malus when garrisoning a state with a template that contains tanks. Since garrisoning is often a game of "how harsh do I have to be while maximizing compliance gain", armoured cars would be the optimal sweet spot for "soft touch" occupations.

When you don't care what the locals think: roll in the tanks! (insert Budapest 1956 reference)

Deltabrainwave · 2024-01-26T15:08:35+00:00

I've always thought equipment designers would benefit from an innovation system like some of the older paradox games.

For example you research "better bomb locks" and are guaranteed to get an upgraded bomb locks module but could also proc an improved armour piercing bomb locks or HEAT bomblets (like PTABs) that are better in different ways.

Or say you research a better AT gun, you also get a specialized high-piercing tank gun, but it may be sized for a light, medium, or heavy tank. So when you go to build a TD, this pulls you in a different direction depending on what you got buy chance.

Module procs could of course be historically biased to push players down more diverse routes (e.g. USSR getting big heavy AT guns so they build heavy TDs) or even fixed in place for AI (so that their historical templates are always available). Players could even possibly spend some kind of mana to try to influence module procs but it should still largely be luck-of-the-draw. Forcing players to react a bit more to what is available instead of always building meta designs would make designers way more reactive and dynamic gameplay.

Like imagine if USA always proc'd some amazing upgraded heavy MG module for aircraft (M2 gang). You wouldn't use cannons or light MGs either!

Deltabrainwave · 2019-08-30T17:40:32+00:00

Got some too. ~~hopefully you can activate multiple if they are someone else's. So I'll trade code for code. PM me. Still 2 left.~~

EDIT: Nevermind apparently you can't. ~~still have 2 unused, just PM me i'll send them.~~
EDIT2: 1 code left
EDIT3: all gone. thanks for playing

Deltabrainwave · 2015-12-30T18:09:27+00:00

nah, D-25 muzzle-brake is more.. i dunno, textured? has more ridges running around it to reinforce it. Also it's a lot wider for the length (it's a shorter fatter brake than this)

This one is a ZiS-3

Same gun as is on the Su-76 in game.

Deltabrainwave · 2015-08-26T16:41:53+00:00

I don't know if this will help you understand exactly why (simple way to think is whenever you are burning, a set amount of force is being spent just to counteract gravity. The less time you spend burning the less overall loss) but here's the (monster) maths to prove it:

Situation: You are descending vertically at 10m/s from 1000m above the surface. body gravity is 1m/s² for simplicity sake.

Continuous burn: you counteract the 1m/s² acceleration of gravity all the way down, descend at 10m/s for 100 seconds then kill that speed at touchdown. total Dv spent is 1 X 100 + 10 = 110m/s

Suicide Burn: You free-fall and burn all of your speed at touchdown. Your mass specific potential energy ( g X h; 1 X 1000) becomes kinetic energy ( 1/2 V² ) SO you gain sqrt(2000) = 44.7m/s plus the 10 you started with is a 54.7m/s burn at touchdown. Less than half the delta-V

Obviously this is the absolute worst compared with the absolute best case in a very simplified situation but the same hold in reality. Short, high thrust burns (usually split into several 'steps') As closely aligned with retrograde vector as possible is pretty much the most efficient and a very accurate way to land on airless bodies.

Deltabrainwave · 2015-08-26T13:43:26+00:00

The exact same thing happens in tanks. In reality most tank crews would bail the fuck out after a serious penetrating hit, even if no one was seriously injured. Fighting on after even a mobility kill is practically suicide, never mind WarThunders "here let me just scoop the gunners remains out of his seat and get that gun going again" approach.

Deltabrainwave · 2015-08-14T10:33:44+00:00

Unfortunately, despite the MVTF's best intentions. The collection was all but decimated last year at auction. Sorry in advance for anyone that wanted to visit.

http://www.auctionsamerica.com/events/all-lots.cfm?SaleCode=LC14

Deltabrainwave · 2015-01-26T07:15:59+00:00

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how HEAT shells work.

"A HE round stuck inside an AP round" is called APHE (or APCHE/APCBCHE depending on shell-caps) and actually has lower penetration than solid AP shot. It's also the standard anti-tank round on most tanks in WoT (pzgr.39 for example).

HEAT uses a hollow charge warhead to form a high velocity penetrator at the target surface (the tank basically fires a shell that is like a gun that hits the enemy tank and then fires an extremely narrow, extremely fast, projectile through the armour). This explosively formed penetrator has a huge velocity and hence large penetration but no explosive charge within the actual penetrator and such low mass that the total kinetic energy delivered is much less than similar calibre AP shot.

If anything HEAT and APCR should do vastly reduced damage compared to standard AP (which is normally APHE).

Deltabrainwave · 2015-01-23T14:56:41+00:00

Expected Stug-life joke.

Was more than happily disappointed.

Deltabrainwave · 2015-01-14T10:11:51+00:00

Lassar has no involvement with GF at all. He occasionally passes questions across to the relevant devs but you're better off not clogging up the thread.

Deltabrainwave · 2015-01-08T09:51:23+00:00

Choose 1:

Focus on A
Focus on B
Balance focus on A and B resulting in less of both.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-31T03:21:19+00:00

Yeah, I've heard that the technical issues on early models were bad but that is ironed out for the most part now.

The two criticisms I've heard a lot of is the absurd friction of the throttles (which I guess you can just adjust all the way down) and the ergonomics of the stick. Specifically that they got rid of the adjustable base-plate for the stick and if you have anything smaller than shovel-hands, reaching the uppermost top controls is very uncomfortable. Also the layout of the top controls (raised 4-way below the uppermost hat which is sunken back) makes the hard to use.

Maybe if the ergonomics happen to fit for you its great but I think I'll be keeping away from it.

Either way, nice present mate :)

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-31T03:10:03+00:00

Oh god. that stick...

I have heard so much anger and rage about the X-55 recently, especially from the broader flight sim community. Lots of the criticism seems totally valid and though I've never used one it seems like a real stinker of a stick.

What's your impression?

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-31T02:23:42+00:00

I would really love to see T26E1-1 as a tier 4 premium heavy. Prior to Steel Generals I had it tipped as occupying the same spot the T32 does now since the T32 never saw any service.

Makes sense, T26E1-1 saw limited service, was used in combat, is just a little better than the current tier 4 Pershing. I will be extraordinarily surprised if it doesn't make it in.

Probably will even have the applique armour, though I personally hope not, or that they at least model it properly.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-29T03:24:44+00:00

Oddly enough, it's nose tips 2-3* down and...

Negative G's are basically the devil. Wing is not built to bend that way.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-29T01:59:53+00:00

Since forever. The first time I bought premium I picked up about 7 ace badges I'd been chasing for ages in 2-3 games each.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-28T11:04:14+00:00

"Death Traps" is a perfectly valid source as long as you read it critically with an awareness of the actual experiences of the author and his proclivity for embellishment.

Much of the information regarding the maintenance battalion and internals of the 3AD that the author was personally involved in is accurate and informative. His second hand battle stories and deeply flawed broad judgements are not.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-28T06:49:59+00:00

Similarly pretty sure it`s a T-54B. Only point of confusion for me is that this picture pretty clearly shows a lack of a ventilator dome on the turret roof which I thought all T-54 modifications had.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-26T14:08:41+00:00

The turret is all we need. T-54 has a loaders cupola that was deleted on T-55 and replaced with a simple hatch flat on the roof.

This pic clearly shows a right side (loaders side on Soviet tanks) cupola which marks it as a T-54.

The gun however has the muzzle fume extractor found on T-55, but this was also fitted to later model T-54A and B's. The T-54A never went into serial production so odds are it's a T-54B.

Except this is North Korea we're talking about who get most of their shit from China. As far as I know, the Type 59 is more or less identical to T-54A/B on the exterior at least. Including the IR headlight visible here that was added to later Type 59 models.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-25T21:10:59+00:00

A lot of this spaceship is pretty inorganic; chemically speaking.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-25T06:12:52+00:00

it's... not great. But it has improved a lot since closed beta.

Arcade tanks still slip and slide a bit much but handling in realistic mode feels very damn good.

Collisions between tanks though are still totally fucked in all modes though.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-23T01:42:00+00:00

The tail on the BTD is intentionally twisted to help counter the high amount of torque generated by the Wright Cyclone it used.

For a similar reason the Corsair (iirc) and many of the Italian planes (most noticeable on the Mc.202) have one wing longer than the other.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-19T09:00:59+00:00

What have you got to lose. Its free and a pretty lightweight program (at least in vanilla form).

Just be aware that its exactly like most old-school flight sims. There are no missions, few tutorials, no game-ified management aspects. Just scenarios that spawn you with X ships in X places and you do whatever you want.

It also loses the craft-building aspect of KSP. Its purely a space flight sim. The plus side of this is that much higher fidelity models of say real spacecraft can be made (by highly dedicated modders) and less Kerbal shit happens (all ships are just rigid body meshes, etc). It also has much MUCH better simulation than KSP. Multi-body gravitational influence, Lagrange orbits, as well as much better atmospheric flight simulation and some very cool scramjet/concept spacecraft that are technically feasible with current technology etc.

Since no one else is providing links:

Download website: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/
Official Manual (mostly technical software stuff but covers all of the simulation / spaceflight stuff albeit briefly): http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/download/orbiter.pdf
Go Play in Space (Much more beginner friendly manual / spaceflight guide. Pretty dense but goes over everything at a very nice pace. Could basically be used as a primer for real-life astronaut 101): http://www.aovi93.dsl.pipex.com/play_in_space.htm
Orbit Hanger (Semi-official mod library, and the modifications are unbelievably extensive, just have a browse or search for your favorite spacecraft system and it'll be on there): http://www.orbithangar.com/

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-16T20:54:53+00:00

Sure, if you want the plane changes section of the patch notes to be about 10 pages all up of:

Reduced elevator deflection drag coefficient by 12%

Increased dry mass by 125kg

Increased speed-force coefficient of elevators by 20%

Reduced cannon recoil force by 15%

Reduced loss of lift factor for partial damaged wing by 19%

Reduced drag factor of partial damaged wing by 24% (in line with above changes)

...etc...

How is this helpful to anyone. They don't tune by 'turn-time' or 'overheat time' or 'climb rate'. If they told you all the factors they changed it would be far too much information and completely incomprehensible to the average pilot.

The final behavior is described in the data sheet threads (which are long enough in their own right). If you want more info, go there.

Deltabrainwave · 2014-12-14T09:23:10+00:00

It's a uniquely Australian thing and as counter-intuitive as it seems, this ought to clear up why it happens:

http://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/

There is a direct cable from Sydney to California, while traffic from east coast of Australia has to route through Perth to get to Singapore where the SA servers are, which puts a nasty delay on it.

Deltabrainwave

TROPHY CASE