Why was 3-caliber rule removed for HEAT?为啥Heat的3倍口径碾压被移除了

Hello everyone,
小朋友们大家好, 

just a quick “guide” – or more like explanation why there was a removal of the 3-caliber rule for HEAT shells in 8.9. What do patchnotes tell us?
这篇东西类似于“指南”—或者说更像是解释一下为什么在8.9中,HEAT的三倍口径碾压机制被移除了。补丁信息告诉了我们些什么? 

– Removed the rule for HEAT shells that excludes ricochet if the shell’s calibre exceeds the armour thickness by 3 or more times.
移除了HEAT的三倍口径碾压机制,也就是弹药口径是装甲3倍以上,必定不会跳蛋的机制

– Deflection angle for HEAT shells changed from 80 to 85 degrees.
HEAT的偏转角从80°上升到了85° 

As you can see, the three caliber rule excludes ricochet, if the caliber of the gun exceeds the nominal (!) armor thicknes by 3 or more times. Note that three is included in this. What it means is that 90mm+ shells (or, to be exact, shells from a 90mm+ gun) cannot ricochet on a 30mm armor. This is called “overmatch”, or “overmatch by 3″ (there is also a 2 caliber overmatch, but that isn’t very important now, I will simplify for the sake of explanation). They always hit. However, does this mean they will penetrate? Of course not.
正如你所见,三倍口径碾压是必定排除跳蛋的情况的。这只会发生在炮管的口径超过了装甲的标注(!!)厚度三倍或以上。 注意,正好三倍也是包含在这个机制之内的。也就意味着一个90mm以上的弹药(或者说,90mm+的炮打出来的炮弹)在30mm的装甲上一定不会跳蛋。这叫做“碾压”,或者“三倍碾压”(也有一个两倍口径碾压,但是现在不是很重要,我是为了便于解释而简化了一下)。它们必定会击中装甲。然而这真的意味着它们会穿透装甲吗?当然不是。

You see, the entire situation was not very intuitive for a player. When a player is aware of the “no ricochet” overmatch rules, he can shoot at a 30mm armor with a 90mm gun under extreme angles and expect it to penetrate. After all, I have a 90mm gun and he has only a 30mm armor, that has to penetrate, right? Much to their surprise, the shell often does not penetrate. Why? Because at early ricochet angle (80 degrees), a 30mm the armor is effectively 172mm thick (and that’s only on one axis, so I should say “no less than 172mm”). At 85 degrees (well within the “no ricochet rule zone”) it’s already no less than 344mm.
你看,整个情况对玩家来说不是很直观。当玩家知道在碾压情况下不会出现跳蛋时,他会用自己的90mm炮在极端的入射角的情况下射击一个30mm厚的装甲,并期待炮弹会击穿。总的来讲,我的炮是90mm,他的装甲只有30mm,没理由打不穿,对吧?但是令他们惊讶的是,炮弹经常打不穿。为什么呢?因为在以前的跳蛋角度(80°),30mm厚的装甲穿深是等效与172mm厚的(这只是一个轴上的,所以我该说“不小于172mm”)在85°角的时候(在“无跳蛋规则区域”中),等效已经不小于344mm了。

I am sure you can see where this is going. Removing the 3 ricochet rule for HEAT shells (that have high penetration) and moving the ricochet boundary to 85 degrees assures that when a player hits a 30mm armor at 84 degrees, he’ll have to defeat 287mm armor (hard, but possible with tier 10 shells), while 85 degrees will already ricochet: the player would (even with a tier 10 gun firing HEAT) not be able to penetrate the armor at 85 degrees anyway, but he would hear “did not penetrate their armor” instead of “ricochet” and that’s not intuitive. Now, the player will hear “ricochet” and will know he didn’t do damage because of the extreme angle and not because of the armor thickness.
我确定你能看到这玩意的走向。把HEAT的三倍碾压机制给去掉了(HEAT的穿深又很高),把跳蛋角度调整到85°,也就是说玩家在84°入射角射击30mm的装甲时,他需要打穿一个287mm厚的装甲(很困难,但是10级车的炮弹有可能),在85°就会跳蛋了:玩家(就算拿10级炮发射HEAT弹)也不能在85°入射角的情况下大船撞击,但是他会听到“我们未能击穿他们的装甲”而不是“跳蛋了” ,容易让大家产生迷惑。现在,玩家应该听到的是“跳蛋了!”,他也会知道自己没有造成伤害,原因是入射角度的问题,而不是装甲的厚度。

I hope it’s clear for you folks. Or at least clearer 🙂
我希望这玩意对大家有帮助。或者,至少明白了点什么东西。 

Why was 3-caliber rule removed for HEAT?为啥Heat的3倍口径碾压被移除了》上有7条评论

  1. Pingback引用通告: 9.3跳弹机制解释 | 坦克世界XVM战绩插件中文官方站

  2. 大家好,
      只是一个快速“指南”——或更像解释为什么有一个切除3口径规则8.9中热壳。patchnotes什么告诉我们吗?
      -删除规则为热壳,不包括跳飞如果壳牌的口径超过装甲厚度的3倍以上。
      ——偏转角为热壳从80调整为85度。
      正如您可以看到的,这三个口径规则排除了跳弹,如果口径的枪超过名义(!)装甲thicknes 3次或更多。注意,三是包含在这。这意味着,90 mm +壳(或者,确切地说,炮弹从90 mm +枪)不能跳弹在30毫米装甲。这就是所谓的“高手”,或“打败3”(还有一个2口径,但这并非强者很重要的现在,我将简化为了解释)。他们总是打。然而,这是否意味着他们将穿透?当然不是。
      你看,整个形势不是很直观的球员。当一个球员是意识到“不跳弹“强者的规则,他可以射一个30毫米装甲与90毫米炮在极端的角度和期望它穿透。毕竟,我有一个90毫米炮和他只有30毫米装甲,渗透,对吗?更让他们吃惊的是,shell通常不会穿透。为什么?因为在早期的跳弹角(80度),一个30毫米装甲实际上是172毫米厚的(和那只是在一个轴上,所以我应该说“不小于172毫米”)。在85度(在“不跳弹规则区”)已经不少于344毫米。
      我相信你应该能看到事情会怎样进展。移除3跳弹规则为热壳(有高渗透)和移动边界的跳弹到85度保证,当球员击打一个30毫米装甲在84度,他要击败287毫米装甲(硬,但可能与层10壳),而85度将已经跳弹:玩家将(即使有一层10枪发射热)无法穿透装甲在85度无论如何,但他会听到“没有穿透他们的盔甲”而不是“跳弹”,那不是直观的。现在,这名球员将会听到“跳弹”,就知道他没做伤害因为极端的角度和不是因为装甲厚度。
      我希望它对你的清楚的人。或者至少更清晰

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注