battle gun range and units questions

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Message
Author
BG
Warrant Officer
Posts: 28
Joined: Jul 23 2005

battle gun range and units questions

#1 Post by BG » Sep 06 2005

Ok here it is:When i start a new game(campaign)i always check the options and make them so that no extended range is applied.But every time i go to the second senario of that campaign it seems that the extended range is reactivated.Any ideas?
2nd:how do i use the supply trucks for resupplying units?
3rd:There are several mistakes in the units strenghts but here is one "big",F16A is better fighter than F16C.This is tottaly wrong.Also it seems that in game the A modell has longer range air combat capacity than the C which is totally wrong(the C uses AMRAAM BVRM while that A none of them unless updated not to mention the much better radar of the latest model).
One more:i think that long range air defence systems like Patriot/S300/S400 should have a very small low flying target capacity and much bigger medium and high.These were build not to shoot down slow moving helos but fast moving planes.For helos the small range air defence like Tunguska and the MANPADS are supposed to be used.
Oh and since there was a mention for Patriot,why Pac 3 has so small range?It makes no sence.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#2 Post by Balthagor » Sep 06 2005

Thanks for the feedback;

1) You are correct that the campaign options are not holding between scenarios of a campaign. We have made not of this and will be fixing it.

2) Supply trucks will automatically give supplies to any units in their Zone of Control that need them.

3) You are incorrect, the F-16A is not "better" than the F-16C, it is different. We don't allow players to control the exact payload of the aircraft so have an interceptor version (F-16A) and a fighter/bomber version (F-16C). The interceptor is fitted for Air to Air, the fighter/bomber for air to ground.

As for the AA units, that is being discussed in the balance thread, bu tif you compare the two versions of the Patriot, you will see that the long range one has a much lower close attack value than the short range version, so we already do what you're suggesting.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

BG
Warrant Officer
Posts: 28
Joined: Jul 23 2005

#3 Post by BG » Sep 07 2005

Thanks for the quick answer.

However i have a couple of points i am interested to talk about.
1st about the range and capability of AD units like Patriot.I am glad that my mention is generally taken into concideration when strenght and range of all this AD systems are decided.Especially for Patriot i have to point that maybe there is a mistake in the PAC3 details.This type remains a long range fast planes interceptor missle system with small(if any at all)capacity of hitting low flying slow targets much like the PAC2.The only difference is that PAC3 is updated version with improved chances of intercepting ballistic missiles used by "rogue" states in a possible encounter as a theater ballistic defence.So for all practical purpose PAC3 should have same range like PAC2 and good middle flying planes hit capacity.
2nd for the F16 i think its as clear to me as to anybody interested about modern planes that the C modell is better(is reality)in every possible specter of fight than the earlier one.Especially in air to air combat this is much more obvious because of BVR missiles that it can carry(while the A cant unless upgraded and fitted with new radar).
Now the way you have decided to represent the air planes and combat model has unfortunatelly to make distinction between fighters and fighter-bombers.Now this isnt taking into concideration the 30-40 last years of combat plane development which aims(with very few exceptions)to make planes capable of multi-mission capacity.Dozens of examples can be offered to prove it but i guess that you already know that.So what i ask for if possible(and since that you can make an overhaul of the system)is to make the C modell of F16 and other planes(especially)more modern types as real multi capable planes with equally(utleast)capacity for air to air combat as fighter(range and strenght factors)so that players will aim at creating forces that the majority of planes are this type.Keep the pool of speciallized fighters(but with less modells)but the only difference should be a slightly increased air to air capacity without such range differences as there are now and tread this difference for high cost for those that want a very special exclusively interceptor force.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#4 Post by Balthagor » Sep 07 2005

Looking at sources such as http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/pa ... 2_usa.html it seems to indicate that yes, anit balistic missile is it's prime role these days, but it was designed for shooting down flying stuff, no reason it can't tag a helicopter or low flying plane. It's just not very good at it and this is reflected in the stats.

As for the F-16C, just because it can be fitted with AMRAAM does not mean it always is. While you are correct that most of these aircraft can be used in multiple roles, it is my understanding that not until something like the F-18 where the onboad computer can be switched from "Air to Air" to "Air to Ground" by the flick of a switch, the role had to be determined before launching. We had discussed in the design allowing switching units roles but this never came to be. We already have a number of aircraft in the game that are speced as "multi-role" aircraft, the F-16 is not one of them and I don't think it should be.

Moving this to Balance thread btw...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

#5 Post by Jan » May 30 2007

Balthagor wrote:(...)"multi-role" aircraft, the F-16 is not one of them(...)
being any air warfare enthusiast, i would love to learn why the F-16 is not a multi role plane and what is your definition of a muli role plane.

About having them not always carying Amraam, you are right, when they do transit fly, they usually don't, only carrying Sidewinder on tip plus external fuel tanks if they don't have aerial refuel planned. Please note that in that configuration, they don't carry any bomb or recce/designator pod.


cheers,

Jan

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#6 Post by Balthagor » May 30 2007

Usually our definition of multirole was something along "can perform extensive air combat and ground combat without having to land, be rearmed, and have the computer rebooted". F/A-18 is a perfect example of multirole.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

#7 Post by Jan » May 31 2007

the following sources may have a different definition that yours but they all precise that the F-16 is multirole. The wheel was not invented with the Hornet ;)
The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a multirole jet fighter aircraft developed by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin for the United States Air Force. Designed as a lightweight fighter, it evolved into a successful multirole aircraft.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon
The original F-16 was designed as a lightweight air-to-air day fighter. Air-to-ground responsibilities transformed the first production F-16s into multirole fighters.(...)All F-16s delivered since November 1981 have built-in structural and wiring provisions and systems architecture that permit expansion of the multirole flexibility to perform precision strike, night attack and beyond-visual-range interception missions.
Source:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft.
Source:
Air Force Link - Factsheets : F-16 Fighting Falcon

a good reading:
http://www.f-16.net/

PS: do you know the sim "Falcon"?

if you need specific infos, please ask, it will be my pleasure to search it for you.

cheers,

Jan

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#8 Post by Balthagor » May 31 2007

Really this all comes down to what we mean by multi-role. I appreciate the links, but really can't devote this much time to one unit out of 3000. It can always be changed or modded post release if it should be in a different catagory.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

#9 Post by Jan » May 31 2007

i fully understand that you can't devote much time to every unit of the hughe database and that the variety you offer is very enjoying but isn't the thin line between quality versus quantity reached?

maybe focusing a bit more on units really used by players and IA (you certainly have enough experience now to do it wisely), even if you drop several units, could allow you to devote sufficent time to standard units without devoting it an entire life.

Then the players will add variety if they feel the need and will be able to define attributes on relation to standard units that you'll have defined.


The Harpoon 4 (boardgame) database is made like that (ask to Larry Bond), originaly a few standard units were defined, then players that have acess to infos and/or have more time than devs to do it define new units thanks to the original "templates" units.

i hope that my english writing is good enough to let you clearly understand what i mean because i'm convinced that it is a critical part of the game.

cheers,

Jan

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#10 Post by Balthagor » May 31 2007

No problem, I understand. And we did do some of that, we balanced "Helicopter" versus "Tank" not "Mi-24" versus "Leopard" when we set the balance for SR2010. That is why some of the units can get incorrect stats, when we spread things out we sometimes had little information and no time to research it.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

#11 Post by Jan » May 31 2007

could you make a list of units that you can define as template?

i mean units that you consider as fully reliable and wich can be used to evaluate other units in relation with them?

for exemple, you tell that for MBT class, the Leopard 1A4 (id 291) is the standard then we can evaluate other MBT in relation to the Leo 1A4 in terms of survivability, firepower, mobility.

PS: i would like to thank you all at BGS to be so open, developpers so "user friendly" can be counted in a single hand and you are one of the few! ;)

cheers,

Jan

User avatar
ainsworth74
Colonel
Posts: 485
Joined: Apr 17 2004
Location: Middlesborough, UK

#12 Post by ainsworth74 » May 31 2007

I might be slightly out of line here, but I've been thinking that perhaps our favourite pass time of "Badger Balthagor" might best be held off until the game is at a stage past building the map and designing the GUI. While there are many things that we can annoy Balthagor with for hours, lets give the poor guy a brake, cause some of the ideas that are be generated may well be forgoten, before they can be realy thought about in the framework of the game. And we are distracting him from making this game (ahh memories of when SR2010 was being developed come rushing back).




For now let him work but later...

Muahahaha!
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Sir Edmund Burke

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#13 Post by Balthagor » May 31 2007

Jan wrote:...for exemple, you tell that for MBT class, the Leopard 1A4 (id 291) is the standard then we can evaluate other MBT in relation to the Leo 1A4...
This will probably be possible for SR2020 but the balancing for SR2010 was done so long ago I can't remember what we used. I have a vague recollection of testing A-10 attacks vs. M1A1s and against T-80s but that's about it.
ainsworth74 wrote:...pass time of "Badger Balthagor" might best be held off until the game is at a stage past building the map and designing the GUI...
Well, I certainly won't complain if some of the questions wait till later! ;)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

#14 Post by Lightbringer » May 31 2007

Are we there Yet?







Are we there Yet?







Are we there yet?

:P
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill

Jan
Captain
Posts: 122
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: Belgium

#15 Post by Jan » May 31 2007

sorry to annoy you in your sleeping ainsworth74, the problem is that if i wait, i'll probably forgot and/or have something else to do, so i post them as long as it's hot in my mind.

Chris, i'm fully aware that you are a busy man and even if i always appreciate a long answer, i can live with simple answers like "keep it for later" or "forget it" ;)

about SR2020 balancing, it would be very interisting to read about it in your blog when you'll work on it.

cheers,

Jan

Post Reply

Return to “Balance”