limit or remove prem ammo from ranked

Draschel:        I mean, I say it alot, but a great example take Tiger II, Suka Pershing, or AC48 mle. These tanks have alot of armor, and given if you auto-aim them with standard 225 AP pen in the tier, you will very likely bounce off them. HOWEVER, if you take a moment to aim at them, you can penetrate them easily with 175 AP pen nevermind 225. This is the way things were done with WG for alot of tanks a decade ago. The chrysler, or Defender, or oho approach is just toxic, and sadly it has spread to mediums too - and it screams firing premium ammunition at them. And then the drivers complain over it. Seemingly unbeknownst by them, that they are driving a toxic piece of s--- that begs for that response to begin with. Now, I am not saying that weakspots should be huge, like those of Tiger II, Suka pershing, or AC48 mle - just illustrating a point. But they shouldn't be too small either, like a mousehole - which realistically that is what the cupola hatches are on tanks like 50TP proto, 274A, T54Mod1, IS-M, or E75TS. Why couldn't they have turrets like Renee, AMXM49 or WZ111 or 112? Strong turret armor, but fair sized cupolas you can reasonably hit.        I agree, a balance around different shell mechanic types is good, forcing people to use the right ammo for the job. They can try something exotic, like reducing APCR downrange penetration compared to how AP loses pen, but chances are when you are shooting at targets 400-500m away aimed fire is unreliable at best even with Leopard 1 or K-91. They can try to widen the gap between the two shell normalization numbers. They can maybe remove the bonus of 2x bore size enhanced normalization equation for APCR, just leaving it on AP, but again very situational. I can agree to an APCR  &  HEAT damage nerf compared to AP, but it needs to arrive hand-in-hand with heavy armor front profile nerfs. Not after, but alongside it.