You know youâ€™re making me work on the weekend!
You keep refering to controlled tests, which is perfect for identifying small inblance issues and errors...
But the reason I keep referring to the controlled tests is that with a product like ours we cannot make radical changes, we must work in small steps to avoid the errors you refer too. We have both the blessing and the curse of been extremely complex. However, there will always be issues that if you change a dozen things at once and something gets broken you have no idea which of the dozen things is the cause. During development we did make some radical changes as you suggest but that is not how it works with a finished product. I saw your other post about a 4th air level and was not at all surprised, I had expected that to be your next suggestion because Iâ€™ve thought the same thing before. However, we got too far into the development when the idea came up, adding another stat would add further complexity, not to mention that Iâ€™ve got no more room in the bloody popup.
Iâ€™m mentioning this here and not in that thread because I donâ€™t want to â€œtaintâ€ the idea. It can stay in wishlist so that when we look at what to include in future versions it will get the same consideration as the other ideas. Weâ€™ll see if others expand on the idea or express support for it.
â€¦because I have this funny idea that gameplay should be closer to realityâ€¦
I know that you are looking to help make the game feel more realistic, it is why I take the time to reply in detail to your ideas. While some of them may be radical and I may disagree on what model is realistic, your suggestions are always constructiveâ€¦ even if they take me a while to go through
Why would every military commander still want a set of UAV at their desposal?
Here I think the issue is scale. One of the ideas that was discussed late in development (too late to fully explore, really) was of having â€œUAVâ€ as simply a technology entry that when researched would enhance the capabilities of infantry battalions. Another idea was to make it function like training where you â€œattachâ€ a UAV to a battalion for stat bonuses. In some ways these seemed much more realistic solutions than what we do know because of two key problems I see with UAVs.
1. The UAV can move around but its â€œcontrol vehicleâ€ is stuck at the airbase/airstrip
2. UAVs are used in one or two attached to a squad, they are not generally flown as stand-alone battalions which is how we present them.
I think one of our biggest problems there is that UAVs donâ€™t fit well into a battalion level scale.
This can be acomplished, I believe, by balancing the scanning strength of units
But there are problems in that thread that we have not resolvedâ€¦ more on that in a moment.
This effectivly means that Long range unit should have low detection versus short range units should have Strong detection.
While this is a nice idea, it does not work with the way the game engine runs. In game, high spotting strength means you see a unit, low means you do not. The distinction between an AWACS and a UAV is not as much that you will or wont spot a battalion of land units, it is that the AWACs would report â€œtanksâ€ and with the UAV they would know that they are facing Leopard 2A3s with green camo. We have no differentiation on the quality of spotting only if it is or is not seen.
THe Orion Sub detection problem you refered to, can be solved by rebalancing the stealth rating and scanning strength of units. Because Orions have a Medium radar range (compared to Awacs) their detection strength could therefore also be stronger.
Actually, this does not work. I know weâ€™ve been somewhat vague about how spotting and stealth works, but itâ€™s not that weâ€™re trying to â€œhide the formulasâ€, it is that George is about the only one that knows precisely how it all works. Iâ€™ll try and use this example to explain somewhat.
The spotting strength of the P-3 is one of the best examples because I spent a bunch of time balancing that unit. I did controlled tests with it
. The P-3 has a spotting range in game of 145km based on the APS-137 it carries (real world stats say 222km but we have clipped the range of all the long range radars, but thatâ€™s another discussionâ€¦) However, the APS-137 could not find a sub unless it jumped out of the water like a whale. For sub detection it uses the APS-116, which can only find a sub within 48km. So, we gave a spotting range of 145, but a spotting strength of 270. Because subs have a stealth of at least 180, at 145km the Orion sees ships, aircraft and land units, but not until it is within ~50km does it spot any subs. Slightly farther if the sub is moving/shooting. Try it out, youâ€™ll see what I mean. There would also be an affect on air spotting, stealth craft like the SR-71 or F-22 would be seen much later if we decrease the spotting strength of the AWACS units unless we decrease the stealth of those aircraft which would mean they would get spotted be land units and perhaps even by empty hexes, something already being debated elsewhere. Same problem if we decrease the spotting strength of the ships, they would be unable to see subs at the appropriate range or incoming aircraft.
Because Surface ships have their scanning strength also reduced (because of their long range), The stealth rating of subs can effectively be reduced also and still remain equaly hard to detect.
But we canâ€™t do this, if we decrease the stealth strength of subs, recon units on land would start to see submarines. That was one of our tests used to determine the â€œrangesâ€ for the values given to the units. The ranges we picked where not just pulled out of a hat, George did put them through the calculations to figure out where about they needed to be.
I agree that it is possible to make changes to the stealth strength/spotting strength/spotting range of some of the units to get a better balance, but I still say it can only
be done one at a time with controlled testing. If you change one variable you have to try every possible combination in game where that variable will be used to see if youâ€™ve damaged another area of the game model.