>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)

[Fangoriously]

1 hour ago, Kane said:

Yes....except no.
A 16" 50-caliber guns should not be scoring 90% deck hits at ranges of less than 2 miles.  At that range and shell velocity, it should be pretty damn difficult to hit the deck of the opposing ship at all. 

The problem is that the developers of this game seem to have a pre-schooler's understanding of ballistics, and think that angling armor just a little bit will turn it into a magical invulnerability shield.  Hence, 18" super heavies ricocheting off 1" armor plate at a range of 1 mile or less, when a shell of that velocity and sectional density should smash through that plate like its not even there, despite significant angling.

This combined with the fact that the ballistic arcs the weapons have are just ridiculous.  Again, at less than 2 miles one should not be scoring 90% deck hits.

The problem here is not what we are doing with our guns.  The problem is what the devs have done with armor angling, and ballistic arcs.

Hell, just spend some time zoomed in on an enemy ship while its feeling from you, and take note of how many times you'll hit the front belt while you're attacking from behind.  This problem existed before the option to lengthen barrels was in the game, and its still here.

Edit:  Meanwhile in my current game, I've tried shortening barrels as far as 40-calibers on a 13 inch.  While I get a even more deck hits (as if more were needed) it still gets only partial pens when by the numbers it should have plenty of penetration to go right through.

Again, even if belt armor wasn't bugged out and close range 50 cal guns were shooting as flat as they probably should, plunging fire is still king. Your always going to be hitting targets most under 20km anyway, trying to make your guns shoot farther is pointless, even if there weren't a ton of downsides associated with long barrels. Those are only going to give you plunging fire at 30km, and your not going to hit anything reliably, maybe not even spot them, that far out anyway.

[Kane]

27 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

Again, even if belt armor wasn't bugged out and close range 50 cal guns were shooting as flat as they probably should, plunging fire is still king. Your always going to be hitting targets most under 20km anyway, trying to make your guns shoot farther is pointless, even if there weren't a ton of downsides associated with long barrels. Those are only going to give you plunging fire at 30km, and your not going to hit anything reliably, maybe not even spot them, that far out anyway.

So I guess you missed the part of the game where barrel length has a direct impact on hit probability?
Judging by your comment I'm having doubts you've actually spent any time using long barrels.
Meanwhile the entirety of your argument has been rendered moot by the bugged mechanics of the game which you acknowledge.  Penetration is king, and right now it is impossible in a huge number of circumstances where it shouldn't be.
Your opinion on how people should be playing, is immaterial.
The problem is in the game itself, and the broken mechanics.  Mechanics that have been broken since before we had the option to tinker with barrel length.

Edit:  Not to mention, as has been pointed out, that even when optimizing for plunging fire, players are not getting the penetration they should.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Kane

[SpardaSon21]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

I had a long fight. During the whole fight, I saw only a couple of hits in the main belt. Everything hits into the deck from any distance.

I assume that the mortar trajectory is an attempt by the developers to correct hits to other ships. Well, I can say that there really are much fewer such hits. However, the price for this is absolutely broken shooting mechanics.

Its a combination of far-too-heavy ammo (since the devs don't separate out the ammo from the shell for weight) and too-low velocity.  In Shared Design as the USA in 1940 the triple 16"/56 Mark 4 with Capped Ballistic I/Triple Base/Super Heavy/Dunnite fires an AP shell that weighs 2195kg, or 4,839 pounds, or almost a full metric ton more what the actual super-heavy shells weighed at 2,700 pounds/1,225 kg.  The muzzle velocity of 722/sec is also hilariously low considering those guns IRL at 16"/50 had a muzzle velocity of 762 m/sec... using what was essentially an upgraded form of Poudre B propellant.

 

One of the issues is that whatever the velocity of a base barrel is scaling it up jacks it up far higher or a lot lower than what it would be if that was the gun's normal length.  Using that same ammo/shell/year combo with all Mark 5 guns a 6" gun that has a muzzle velocity of 865 m/sec at the base L/57 but shrinking it down to L/50 at -11% length drops the velocity all the way to 740 m/sec.  I had no idea losing 7 calibers cost you 80 m/sec.  Meanwhile the 8" L/50 at base length has a velocity of 810 m/sec.  A 5"/41 has a velocity of 762 m/sec, but raising it to an L/50 by jacking the length up to a full 20% to make it an L/50 gives a muzzle velocity of a whopping 965 meters per second.  The IRL 5"/54 only went 808 m/sec out of the barrel, and that was intended to take down early jets.  Naturally the shell weights are all about twice what they would be IRL.

[Fangoriously]

20 minutes ago, Kane said:

So I guess you missed the part of the game where barrel length has a direct impact on hit probability?
Judging by your comment I'm having doubts you've actually spent any time using long barrels.
Meanwhile the entirety of your argument has been rendered moot by the bugged mechanics of the game which you acknowledge.  Penetration is king, and right now it is impossible in a huge number of circumstances where it shouldn't be.
Your opinion on how people should be playing, is immaterial.
The problem is in the game itself, and the broken mechanics.  Mechanics that have been broken since before we had the option to tinker with barrel length.

Edit:  Not to mention, as has been pointed out, that even when optimizing for plunging fire, players are not getting the penetration they should.

Barrel length has a single to double digit % bonus to practical accuracy, having a decently trained crew can have triple to quadruple digit % accuracy bonuses, rendering long barrels little more than a very costly way to get around having a well trained crew. Have you ever even checked on your 'range found' bonus in battle? it trivializes every other bonus listed on the side combined, most of all any benefit from barrel length. There was quite a lot of nerfing and balancing on this exact thing in the beta based on my findings and feedback alone, comical you think i might not know what i'm talking about.

the Iowas having reduced charges available to try and duplicate the ballistics of the 45 caliber guns on the previews 2 BB classes is not a broken game mechanic, shooting at the belt at all was going out of vogue right before naval artillery went out of vogue entirely. People should stop complaining that the wrong tactic is extra not working due to bugs and use the right tactics instead. The belt armor pen calculation bug isn't the main reason your setup is ineffective.

If a decent battle pops up in my campaign ill record and post it and show just how devastating and accurate my short guns can be.

[Kane]

2 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Barrel length has a single to double digit % bonus to practical accuracy, having a decently trained crew can have triple to quadruple digit % accuracy bonuses, rendering long barrels little more than a very costly way to get around having a well trained crew. Have you ever even checked on your 'range found' bonus in battle? it trivializes every other bonus listed on the side combined, most of all any benefit from barrel length. There was quite a lot of nerfing and balancing on this exact thing in the beta based on my findings and feedback alone, comical you think i might not know what i'm talking about.

the Iowas having reduced charges available to try and duplicate the ballistics of the 45 caliber guns on the previews 2 BB classes is not a broken game mechanic, shooting at the belt at all was going out of vogue right before naval artillery went out of vogue entirely. People should stop complaining that the wrong tactic is extra not working due to bugs and use the right tactics instead. The belt armor pen calculation bug isn't the main reason your setup is ineffective.

If a decent battle pops up in my campaign ill record and post it and show just how devastating and accurate my short guns can be.

Yes I have.  I doubt you're conveying any information anyone here doesn't already know, but I do note that you are going far out of your way to ignore the other points I've made that demonstrate that what you have to say is irrelevant.

"comical you think i might not know what i'm talking about."
Its your reading comprehension I have doubts about.

So I will try to explain this one more time.
You cannot make an objective assessment on things that modify ballistics when the ballistic mechanics are inherently broken.
Clear enough now?

""There was quite a lot of nerfing and balancing on this exact thing in the beta based on my findings and feedback alone"
I take it you were looking for a cookie?.

Do you understand how stupidly difficult it would be to consistently hit an opponent's deck with the conditions I have specified?  Do you understand why this is a problem?  Do you understand why this indicates that there is an inherent problem in the ballistics calculations of the game? 

Do you understand how impossible it would be to land repeated hits on an opponent's front belt when firing at him from directly behind him?

Do you understand that if the ballistic calculations of the game are so broken that one can get these results consistently, that there is an inherent problem in said mechanics that needs to be addressed?  And that quibbling over things like barrel length is basically the equivalent of worrying about what razor to shave with while your hair is on fire?

Literally nothing you have said has any bearing when the mechanics are this broken.  And your suggestion essentially boils down to "don't worry about how broken it is, just do X and pretend its not broken."  No, the solution is not "use short barrels".  The solution is fix the broken mechanics of the game, then evaluate what barrel length you should be working with.

And no, the belt armor bug isn't the problem when I'm doing nothing but hitting the opponent's deck at ranges where that should be impossible.

Edit:  Also, since you seem to want to go down the 16/45 vs 16/50 rabbit-hole
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php


At 42,000 the 16/50, could deck pen 14", that is more than the 16/45 can pen at any range, and out of the 45's effective range.  But at this range its a hail-Mary, so getting closer...
At 35,000 yards the difference is penetration between the two is 2.09 inch, at a range where both are still going to be lucky to be getting hits even with radar guidance.
At 30,000 yards the difference in penetration between the two is less than 1 inch.


At 16,000 yards the hit probably was only around 30%, and at that distance the difference in deck penetration was less than 0.25 inch.  The difference in angle of fall meanwhile being only about 2°.  All with horizontal penetration greatly favoring the 50 at this range.



So yeah, I'm sure the navy was real concerned about downgrading the velocity and accuracy of the 16/50 so that they could get more penetration in the tiny window where the 45 has an advantage, and actually scoring a hit has more to do with luck than anything else.
Or maybe the reduced charges were for training and shore bombardment...

Edited January 23, 2023 by Kane

[Mattymul29]

Nations collapsing so early into the game needs to be fixed. 1989 and France, Britain and Spain have all collapsed after minor wars.

Fix this

[German CL mk II guns]

4 hours ago, Kane said:

, and take note of how many times you'll hit the front belt while you're attacking from behind.  

not just you can hit you can also pen it "paralel". 

This is by far one the most annoying things for me cause it shows how wrong the ballistics are and it's here since the start. I dont understand much about programming but sometimes I feel they are not prioritizing essentials or worse essential problems are very difficult to fix. 

for the deck hits from short range I was hoping "oh great they are calculating the listing of the ship, that's why i am hitting the deck" but ofc this is not true when you can hit the bow from stern. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Terminus Est

[Kane]

43 minutes ago, Terminus Est said:

not just you can hit you can also pen it "paralel". 

This is by far one the most annoying things for me cause it shows how wrong the ballistics are and it's here since the start. I dont understand much about programming but sometimes I feel they are not prioritizing essentials or worse essential problems are very difficult to fix. 

for the deck hits from short range I was hoping "oh great they are calculating the listing of the ship, that's why i am hitting the deck" but ofc this is not true when you can hit the bow from stern. 

Yeah, this is a constant source of annoyance when I see my rounds clearly hitting the deck, but the game registers hits on the listing ship's belt.  Which is weird considering how often I get deck hits on ships that aren't listing, and at ranges where Luke Skywalker would be required to make the shot.

[AdmiralBert]

In my ongoing Britain campaign, war were finally declared between the USA and myself after *years* of the USA sailing ships between Eastern & Western USA via the Northwest Passage (up & over Canada) and Cape Horn, racking up multiple -10 relationship penalties a turn and then screaming at me for cash for....existing? I was pinned down with wars with Germany/China/Austria/Russia/Germany/Austria/Spain/Germany (again) plus a war with China which lasted one battle after my blockade of Spain ate their entire navy.

My rambling point is this; we need to be able to dictate how much we care about other powers moving ships. The USA were transiting between their own bases, and I have very minimal presences in those sea regions (with the heaviest being the Caribbean), so I should be able to just...not care? Write the USA a letter saying I'm cool with them sailing through, just don't shoot up any fishing boats? The events where the other power threatens war should also be adjusted when *their* ships are the ones provoking tensions. My cruisers sat In Being to protect trade isn't offending anyone, so I should be able to respond "I'm not paying you anything, if you want war *you* declare it", with the associated relationship changes favouring me for not being the aggressor.

EDIT: Further rambling; ideally relations should be a two separate values. How I feel about them, and how they feel about me. USA sailing fleets between their ports past a small overseas station of mine? Terribly minor negative penalty for my opinion of them. I park the majority of my fleet in a sea region which holds most of their ports, and then don't leave for several years? Major negative penalty for their opinion of me. One of these values gets low enough, an option to threaten war becomes available, with the response choices reflecting the relative difference between the opinion values (mutually poor relations having the lowest penalties for not 'negotiating' etc). This should accompany more/better diplomacy options, so we can agree free passage of ships to mitigate relation penalties etc.

Edited January 23, 2023 by AdmiralBert
Ramble ramble

[AdmiralBert]

Oh, and having clearer borders on the map for the various sea regions would be grand.

[Warspite96]

22 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:

In my ongoing Britain campaign, war were finally declared between the USA and myself after *years* of the USA sailing ships between Eastern & Western USA via the Northwest Passage (up & over Canada) and Cape Horn, racking up multiple -10 relationship penalties a turn and then screaming at me for cash for....existing? I was pinned down with wars with Germany/China/Austria/Russia/Germany/Austria/Spain/Germany (again) plus a war with China which lasted one battle after my blockade of Spain ate their entire navy.

My rambling point is this; we need to be able to dictate how much we care about other powers moving ships. The USA were transiting between their own bases, and I have very minimal presences in those sea regions (with the heaviest being the Caribbean), so I should be able to just...not care? Write the USA a letter saying I'm cool with them sailing through, just don't shoot up any fishing boats? The events where the other power threatens war should also be adjusted when *their* ships are the ones provoking tensions. My cruisers sat In Being to protect trade isn't offending anyone, so I should be able to respond "I'm not paying you anything, if you want war *you* declare it", with the associated relationship changes favouring me for not being the aggressor.

Yeah this is a big problem too at the moment. When I started my 1930 Japan campaign I tried to roughly follow history by allying with Germany and to a lesser extent, Italy, it's now 1936 and I'm at war with 5 nations including Germany simply for having ships in the Sea of Japan. The diplomacy system currently seems geared towards eventually having everyone at war with everyone at the same time.

[TiagoStein]

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Again, even if belt armor wasn't bugged out and close range 50 cal guns were shooting as flat as they probably should, plunging fire is still king. Your always going to be hitting targets most under 20km anyway, trying to make your guns shoot farther is pointless, even if there weren't a ton of downsides associated with long barrels. Those are only going to give you plunging fire at 30km, and your not going to hit anything reliably, maybe not even spot them, that far out anyway.

That depends a lot on the age. When you are  in 1090 and 1900 you are not goign to hit squat at range needed for plunge fire.

[Zuikaku]

Since removal of manual rudder even changing course of formations is hard to do. UI just seems so bad at responding to input. Also, evading torpedoes is now much harder to do. Bring the manual rudder back, please!!!

And major powers are still dissolving too easy! 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Zuikaku

[Xteam25Boyz]

For some reason the naval invasion never success......

[brothermunro]

I did a bit of testing on penetration and whilst I still don't know exactly what is going on something is definitely off. I started off with my test firing ship with 1940 British Mk4 15"/50 gun, using triple base, TNT IV and standard shells in three triple turrets. I engaged a target ship, an old 1910 German ship I just autogenerated to begin with. She had Krupp 2, a 14" belt and No citadel tech. Here's the battle results, the damage table from the target.

Nothing to surprising. Now lets up the penetration of our shells. Swapping to dunnite, super heavy, tube powder III.

It took more hits to sink the ship. Well that's probably due to shells over penetrating rather than penetrating lowering the damage to the ship. So far so good. Well what happens if we remove the armour entirely?

Now here is where we see the odd behaviour. You'd expect to just see more overpens, and you do, but you also see significantly more *blocked* shells which makes no sense as there is *less* armour than the previous battle. This is where I think the problem is occurring, very high penetration shells getting blocked (or giving a partial penetration) when they should be over penetrating. Now watch what happens to the same ships when the main guns get turned off and the secondaries turned on, despite firing a lot more shells there are actually fewer blocked hits. Anyway I hope that's helpful for tracking down the gremlins in the penetration system. My guess would be an overflow or a negative number or something fouling things up.

Edited January 23, 2023 by brothermunro

[MDHansen]

a quick 4.point list from me having speedrun 3 1890 campaigns.

 

1. Major nations (and in particular Britain and France) were disolved within 10 years in all 3 campaigns. They always reappear, and from there it's usually fine, they gain territory and go on a rampage, but not suicidal. wich leads me to point 2.

2. Once one war starts, all hell is loose. Friends, enemies, frenemies etc, all spiraling in to a big blobwar. Realistic, probably, but a bit over-the-top for a game one wants to enjoy.

3.1 Relations are a bit off. Way too many points are given (positive/negative) when other nations you have relations to goes to war, see point 2.

3.2 could we be given even more options here; Allies or not, we should be given the option to throw friendship overboard once a suicidal nation goes to war with everyone.

4. wars seems to start again right after a confirmed peacetalk. Heck, I've even gained ports and ships and cash from the nation, and 1-3 turns later its on again, no warning. This might have to do with point 2 and 3.

I am not going in to ballistics, armour and such, others in this thread has that ball rolling

 

Keep up the good work

Edited January 23, 2023 by MDHansen

[TiagoStein]

1 hour ago, brothermunro said:

I did a bit of testing on penetration and whilst I still don't know exactly what is going on something is definitely off. I started off with my test firing ship with 1940 British Mk4 15"/50 gun, using triple base, TNT IV and standard shells in three triple turrets. I engaged a target ship, an old 1910 German ship I just autogenerated to begin with. She had Krupp 2, a 14" belt and No citadel tech. Here's the battle results, the damage table from the target.

Nothing to surprising. Now lets up the penetration of our shells. Swapping to dunnite, super heavy, tube powder III.

It took more hits to sink the ship. Well that's probably due to shells over penetrating rather than penetrating lowering the damage to the ship. So far so good. Well what happens if we remove the armour entirely?

Now here is where we see the odd behaviour. You'd expect to just see more overpens, and you do, but you also see significantly more *blocked* shells which makes no sense as there is *less* armour than the previous battle. This is where I think the problem is occurring, very high penetration shells getting blocked (or giving a partial penetration) when they should be over penetrating. Now watch what happens to the same ships when the main guns get turned off and the secondaries turned on, despite firing a lot more shells there are actually fewer blocked hits. Anyway I hope that's helpful for tracking down the gremlins in the penetration system. My guess would be an overflow or a negative number or something fouling things up.

I don't think it is a linear function problem (like overflow), to overflow a floating point number you needs to be   handling in the level of BILLIONS on any number and I doubt the calculations are done in microns.  It seems more , to me  a problem in the part that take the result of the terminal ballistic penetration calculation and decides that event to trigger. On your last example you have penetrations  going on average through MORE armor than partial pens.

 

ON my tests I had even   more extreme results, like Overpenetrations on 40 INCH average... and partial pens on average 2 inch. That  is simply inconsistent to say the least.   AP shells effectively  are blocked much more than  HE ones on the same guns and targets as well . It seems almost random.

[Dewirix]

I'm having the same issues with penetration as described above. I've got a 1916 campaign going, and I'm having to rely on over-pens to get kills.

The images below are typical: 77 hits, of which none penetrate and 47 are outright blocked.

The target ship is minimally-armoured (except for the main deck).

I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but something's definitely not working as intended. I know there have been issues with penetration for a while, but it's got significantly worse as of the later 1.10 hotfixes/release candidates.

[ZorinW]

Just wanted to drop this. Ricochet angles are not calculated for each round individually. This game is very much a game!

All it takes into account is the position of the center of both ships relative to eachother. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I bet that the entire 3D stuff is just window dressing. There are most likely no calculations that are based on anything you see in a battle. Which is also why there is no armor model. It's all down to math functions that simplyfy what is actually happening.

Also switching between only main or secondary guns did not change the values for ricochet chance or side/deck hit chance. So I assume that firing arcs, as basis for side or deck hit chance, are also just a visual effect, that has nothing to do with what is actually happening.

Edited January 23, 2023 by ZorinW

[Plazma]

I guess we have not one, but three or more issue with pen function and this start overlapping on the point that we are not able to found the main issue without looking on the code. But... I think I found the gremlin! 

1. Maybe the main issue is with fuze time and AP shells not have chance to explode = blocked. 

When I used heavy armor and 1.1" gun with APBC II I have most of the time block result. (vs heavy armored BB).

When I used 0.1 armor as the test target and APBC II, I have around 25%-30% of block!

When I used HE APBC I I have 10-15% if block.

The 0.1" can block any of these shells (or very much unlikely)

The chance of block are similar to 20.9" gun! So no matter of pen value the chance of block increase with the fuze time!

 

 

Other theory, unlikely they are the root cause, but I left them here:

2. Maybe ricochet chance are not related to the armor value and even 0.1" of armor can ricochet the shell even from 20.9" gun at 2km. Like the angel is 60 degree than means 75% of shots will be ricochet via RNG. But some reasons the game mark the shell as no penetrating = delete this shell and start using the penetration function instead of ricochet and the non exist shell have 0 pen value 0 dmg and the result is marked as blocked instead of ricochet. 

The ricochet when the shell can't penetration because of angel is good.
The ricochet when the shell can penetration is marked as blocked instead??? Also wrong calculation the ricochet chance (unrealistic as only depends on the angle and shell type???) 

3. Maybe belt and deck armor is swapped and instead of that sometimes we have a values for penetrating deck armor instead of belt? 

4. Or the shell start penetrating the armor from other side of the ship and because of that is blocked or even penetrating this second layout of armor and the bool value swiped from true to false?

Example:

Shell penetrating the main belt from port side and the bool change the value to the true: shell_penetrating=true but this same shell penetrating the armor from starboard and the value is changed one time more to false? shell_penetrating=false

^^ this is so stupid, that I don't believe in the last theory, but man... If the devs don't simply put the RNG chance for pen for all the time I don't know what happens... 

 

But... If I use the HE shells and I have much often the better results, more realistic

[TiagoStein]

10 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Just wanted to drop this. Ricochet angles are not calculated for each round individually. This game is very much a game!

All it takes into account is the position of the center of both ships relative to eachother. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I bet that the entire 3D stuff is just window dressing. There are most likely no calculations that are based on anything you see in a battle. Which is also why there is no armor model. It's all down to math functions that simplyfy what is actually happening.

Also switching between only main or secondary guns did not change the values for ricochet chance or side/deck hit chance. So I assume that firing arcs, as basis for side or deck hit chance, are also just a visual effect, that has nothing to do with what is actually happening.

Your argument might be right but  might  not as well. Obviously in the interface  you can show a single ricochet angle, not  one for every possible interaction of gun position and  surface, so  the LOGICAL thing to do it to  show the center of mass angle. That does not mean  necessarily that there is no difference dependign on the impact part.

 

For example the angled bow have different ricochet   events than the main belt. If you angle your ship so the bow plate if flat to the enemy it will NOT ricochet. So at least there is 3 sections  of angles in the game for each ship.   I would dare to say 99% chance there is  3 sets for each WEAPON because calculate the angle from one weapon  to the section is exacltyt he same complexity and performance as evaluate from the center.. it is  just a dot product of 2 vectors.

[ZorinW]

5 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

Your argument might be right but  might  not as well. Obviously in the interface  you can show a single ricochet angle, not  one for every possible interaction of gun position and  surface, so  the LOGICAL thing to do it to  show the center of mass angle. That does not mean  necessarily that there is no difference dependign on the impact part.

 

For example the angled bow have different ricochet   events than the main belt. If you angle your ship so the bow plate if flat to the enemy it will NOT ricochet. So at least there is 3 sections  of angles in the game for each ship.   I would dare to say 99% chance there is  3 sets for each WEAPON because calculate the angle from one weapon  to the section is exacltyt he same complexity and performance as evaluate from the center.. it is  just a dot product of 2 vectors.

Fair point, but why then present the player with a read-out that would be clearly misleading?

 

Also what do you mean with bow plate? Presenting the bow should give the highest ricochet chance and not the lowest.

[TiagoStein]

8 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Fair point, but why then present the player with a read-out that would be clearly misleading?

 

Also what do you mean with bow plate? Presenting the bow should give the highest ricochet chance and not the lowest.

If you are flat against enemy yes,  but  90% of the time I pass in this game is runnign in circles and  then the back  (or front depending on who is pursuing who in the turn) is the one with lower angle .

[Skeksis]

Penetration became problematic with the introduction of adjustable barrel lengths and shell size (it's been that long).

Base penetration values, when things were good…

One correlation is shell size.

Bug appeared after adjustable shell size implementation and as shell sizes go up in size, so does penetration errors against lesser armor.

“there's also a slight additional dependence on diameter but this is negligible” maybe not so negligible? 

"no armor best armor"!

Edited January 23, 2023 by Skeksis

[TiagoStein]

2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Penetration became problematic with the introduction of adjustable barrel lengths and shell size (it's been that long).

Base penetration values…

One correlation is shell size.

Bug appeared after adjustable shell size implementation and as shell sizes go up in size, so does penetration errors against lesser armor.

“there's also a slight additional dependence on diameter but this is negligible” maybe not so negligible? 

"no armor best armor"!

True, but it got really bad more recently.  A few months ago it was mostly believable, but not accurate and sometimes  a few WTF moments. Now it is looney toons level of physics.