Tank attack values

Have a feature request for SRCW? Post here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

Been thinking, why do some tanks with an 120/125mm gun have an hard target attack value in mid 40s, say M1A1, Leopard 2A3 or J-90 while T-64, T-72 and T-80U tanks have values from ~35 to 40. While the Challenger I with a main gun has an 120mm gun with but an hard target attack value of 40.

Without going into general tank diskussions on defense their defense. I'm interested in the tank attack values and why certain eastern & british and western tanks differ so much and what factors bg might have taken into account(incase i'm missing something in my research). :-)
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Zuikaku »

Hullu Hevonen wrote:Been thinking, why do some tanks with an 120/125mm gun have an hard target attack value in mid 40s, say M1A1, Leopard 2A3 or J-90 while T-64, T-72 and T-80U tanks have values from ~35 to 40. While the Challenger I with a main gun has an 120mm gun with but an hard target attack value of 40.

Without going into general tank diskussions on defense their defense. I'm interested in the tank attack values and why certain eastern & british and western tanks differ so much and what factors bg might have taken into account(incase i'm missing something in my research). :-)
I think that database was checked and redone for SR1936.

so, hopefully, there will be no more Pz38(t)s with higher attack values than Pattons or PzIVhs
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

I have an independent database, which I will adapt to SR1936 if possible, so i'm interested in the reasoning, so I can determine how the reasoning is and if I need to change mine, as it currently seem ilogical. If there is an logic which I can I might do it :wink: .
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Zuikaku »

Hullu Hevonen wrote:I have an independent database, which I will adapt to SR1936 if possible, so i'm interested in the reasoning, so I can determine how the reasoning is and if I need to change mine, as it currently seem ilogical. If there is an logic which I can I might do it :wink: .
Gun, ammo type used and fire control maybe?
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

thats what i'm trying to findout , and how much each component weighs on the total final score. you would think the projectile being of relativaly minor importance since a bigger caliber, thus bigger projectile. But then im not atleast yet up to speed on the penetrability of sovjet/post-projectiles vs western ones. Also eastern tanks have the ability to launch atgm missiles which i wonder if is factored in :)
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Kellick
Captain
Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 16 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Kellick »

Hullu Hevonen wrote:thats what i'm trying to findout , and how much each component weighs on the total final score. you would think the projectile being of relativaly minor importance since a bigger caliber, thus bigger projectile. But then im not atleast yet up to speed on the penetrability of sovjet/post-projectiles vs western ones. Also eastern tanks have the ability to launch atgm missiles which i wonder if is factored in :)
I was about to bring up the ATGM, but that also makes even less sense, because their (mother Russia) values are generally lower than everyone elses.
While we're talking about the Russians, anyone have any ideas why their Airborne IFV are type 3 or have any good ideas on what their stats should be if they were made into type 0 (or copied and added to type 0). And bringing that up makes me start to wonder, what all is the real difference between some of the SP-AT units, IFV and even MBT? I would think anything that has stabilizers (I'm looking at you modern MGS systems) shouldn't have the move and shoot penalty, but then is it an anti-tank or a tank at that point? I imagine main gun size is the main seperator between IFV and tank (and of course if it is designed to carry infantry or not...although some tanks can).

I was just talking to Balthagor about unit stats in general. This stuff isn't easy by any means. I've been at it for years and I still can't get it down to a science. I know you and a few others have too.
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

Well I made an standard, that 120-129mm guns should do between 40-60 damage while 100-109mm 25-39, unless otherwise mentioned. Found no apparent data on such an big infiriority gap between some Russian tanks and western. went trough all the tanks in my database. :-)
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Kellick
Captain
Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 16 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Kellick »

Hullu Hevonen wrote:Well I made an standard, that 120-129mm guns should do between 40-60 damage while 100-109mm 25-39, unless otherwise mentioned. Found no apparent data on such an big infiriority gap between some Russian tanks and western. went trough all the tanks in my database. :-)
Those are pretty big ranges. I think they should be tighter for a given weapon system. A 120mm gun is a 120mm gun is a 120mm gun. Ammo differences between countries would be better accounted for by techs with damage bonuses, since theoreticly if you could get it (i.e. research the tech) then you wouldn't need a new tank to use it.
Also at the tank gun and howitzer size, how significant is the difference between the eastern slightly smaller caliber weapons and western ones?
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

Kellick wrote:
Hullu Hevonen wrote:Well I made an standard, that 120-129mm guns should do between 40-60 damage while 100-109mm 25-39, unless otherwise mentioned. Found no apparent data on such an big infiriority gap between some Russian tanks and western. went trough all the tanks in my database. :-)
Those are pretty big ranges. I think they should be tighter for a given weapon system. A 120mm gun is a 120mm gun is a 120mm gun. Ammo differences between countries would be better accounted for by techs with damage bonuses, since theoreticly if you could get it (i.e. research the tech) then you wouldn't need a new tank to use it.
Also at the tank gun and howitzer size, how significant is the difference between the eastern slightly smaller caliber weapons and western ones?
I would say almost none, in addition to the ammunition aspect, I took into account the varians that BG seemed to be using the tank with highest tank attack value and still had had a 120mm gun hit 60, while lowest 105mm hir 20(increased to it 25), so BG seems to be using roughly 20 per calibre level(if we can call it that). Also I accounted for the timespan in those ranges, the ranges are wide, but you have to take into account that the guns them selsves also renew
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Kellick
Captain
Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 16 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Kellick »

Well an idea I've been toying with lately is that atk and def increases should only come when there is a tech change (new prereq) to justify them.

So the 120mm gun on all the tanks that use it should do the same damage. Even though we may have a couple upgrades to that particular unit in the interim they should be limited to say lower cost and buildtime (efficiency of maturity of design) better speed/range/fuel efficiency (performance tuning from field experience) and possibly very small improvements to atk and def (also from performance tuning from field experience).

It really depends how much more powerful one thinks the next generation of units should be from the last as well as the end-state (if we start with tanks with 10 atk at the begining of the tech tree and end with 200, main tank armament becomes 20x as powerful over the possible course of history...which is roughly where it is at now with the U3 file, and this is just looking at tanks for the moment). Ground def on them runs from about 5 to 100...again armor becomes 20x better, and the main tank gun is about 2x as powerful as the tank armor it and it's contemporarys would have (assuming an even distribution, which I doubt it is). Relevance is your AI opponents may be lucky to make it to TL120 while you are at the end of the tech tree.

Hmmmm....a quick look gives about 2 to 1 your atk to their def, and a 1 to 1 their atk to your def....I'd hate to be the other guy, but that probably isn't a bad balance (and if the AI prioritized research like most players do they wouldn't be about to get the ass-whuppin they are about to get)

The overall scale doesn't seem too bad, at least comparing tanko a tanko. Infantry ground def (hard targets only) go from 8 (1st Marine Corps AAV) to 89. Which is about right since the IFVs armor should be close to its contemporary tank. The hard atk topend on inf is about equal to the topend tanks land def, so we are just barely penetrating their armor. Which is probably pretty reasonable since if the IFVs had the same firepower they would be a tank, and then there would be no point in tanks.

Tanks soft attack runs up to 150. High end inf hovercraft have about 80 def, warrior adv/elite II 56...they're going to get crushed by tanks of their TL in the open field, which they should.

Seem like good ratios. So overall the balance there isn't bad, it's just everything in between, mainly units of same tech having huge differences between each other in many places.
I can identify 6 distinct tank weapon techs off the top of my head (actually a spreadsheet, but it was made for 2020...and discounting metal storm because I hate it) haven't had time to go through CW tech yet, but say we came up with 10, and we got 20 pts hard atk per and 15 pts soft, that would give us 200 and 150 at final tier. Also gives wiggle room in between for minor upgrades/quality differences. Another way to look at it would be roughly 2 pt hard and 1.5 soft per TL (since the tech tree doesn't run the full 1-200, more like half that, which would give us a new weapon system every decade or so).

Sorry I tend to ramble. I think of new stuff as I write. I've been at this a long time without discussing it with anyone else, so I guess I am long overdue for a sanity check :roll:
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

Kellick wrote:Well an idea I've been toying with lately is that atk and def increases should only come when there is a tech change (new prereq) to justify them.

So the 120mm gun on all the tanks that use it should do the same damage. Even though we may have a couple upgrades to that particular unit in the interim they should be limited to say lower cost and buildtime (efficiency of maturity of design) better speed/range/fuel efficiency (performance tuning from field experience) and possibly very small improvements to atk and def (also from performance tuning from field experience).

It really depends how much more powerful one thinks the next generation of units should be from the last as well as the end-state (if we start with tanks with 10 atk at the begining of the tech tree and end with 200, main tank armament becomes 20x as powerful over the possible course of history...which is roughly where it is at now with the U3 file, and this is just looking at tanks for the moment). Ground def on them runs from about 5 to 100...again armor becomes 20x better, and the main tank gun is about 2x as powerful as the tank armor it and it's contemporarys would have (assuming an even distribution, which I doubt it is). Relevance is your AI opponents may be lucky to make it to TL120 while you are at the end of the tech tree.

Hmmmm....a quick look gives about 2 to 1 your atk to their def, and a 1 to 1 their atk to your def....I'd hate to be the other guy, but that probably isn't a bad balance (and if the AI prioritized research like most players do they wouldn't be about to get the ass-whuppin they are about to get)

The overall scale doesn't seem too bad, at least comparing tanko a tanko. Infantry ground def (hard targets only) go from 8 (1st Marine Corps AAV) to 89. Which is about right since the IFVs armor should be close to its contemporary tank. The hard atk topend on inf is about equal to the topend tanks land def, so we are just barely penetrating their armor. Which is probably pretty reasonable since if the IFVs had the same firepower they would be a tank, and then there would be no point in tanks.

Tanks soft attack runs up to 150. High end inf hovercraft have about 80 def, warrior adv/elite II 56...they're going to get crushed by tanks of their TL in the open field, which they should.

Seem like good ratios. So overall the balance there isn't bad, it's just everything in between, mainly units of same tech having huge differences between each other in many places.
I can identify 6 distinct tank weapon techs off the top of my head (actually a spreadsheet, but it was made for 2020...and discounting metal storm because I hate it) haven't had time to go through CW tech yet, but say we came up with 10, and we got 20 pts hard atk per and 15 pts soft, that would give us 200 and 150 at final tier. Also gives wiggle room in between for minor upgrades/quality differences. Another way to look at it would be roughly 2 pt hard and 1.5 soft per TL (since the tech tree doesn't run the full 1-200, more like half that, which would give us a new weapon system every decade or so).

Sorry I tend to ramble. I think of new stuff as I write. I've been at this a long time without discussing it with anyone else, so I guess I am long overdue for a sanity check :roll:
Yeah, think about stuff like this often, I have sometimes asked my roomate by mistake and which is basically my opposite in everything a question "hmm what is the penatrability of a T-62 gun on..." and I notice he has that "Say what?" stair :lol:

Atk def values are often not balanced, think it is justified in the case of many tanks, like the Soviet/Russian monkey models or in the case of T-72 vs T-80. Unlike the atk values, the def values are harder to define, since a big part of surviving in a tank is of what shape it is. The swedish stridsvagn 103 think it was called, actually is one of the lowest tanks and doesn’t have a turret, which has + on the def side but drawbacks on the atk. This also applies to APC & IFVs Their shapes often makes them more vunerable than their tank cousins, but thats because they have to ferry more people than tanks and need the space or are designed for tasks like Urban Warfare, where a vehicles shape doesn’t matter as much. Generally western tanks tend to be heavier and bigger than the Russian counter-parts, Russia utilise lighter but also effective armouring, like explosive reactive armour among others. Think its the GMT Hunter something tank that has an atk of ~100, but it's drawback is the smaller combat time it has :D . Countries tend to put more research into their tanks def values and when their armour become unpenetrable to 120mm guns, someone will up the calibre, last time it was Russia, which will trigger a chain reaction and lead to other countries investing in the same.

One other aspect that I've thinking on lately is, what features of a tank gun really effect the atk it does, American tanks have usually 4 men while Russian has 3 and thats because the Russian tanks have an autoloader. In drawn-out multi hour intensive combat, the Russian solution would be best, since to my understanding it loads slower than a human loader, but a human loaders performance would fall in long hours of constant work.

I've wanted to get in there make big changes, but the drawback of messing up is that the database becomes unbalanced :-?
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Kellick
Captain
Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 16 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Kellick »

GMT Stormhunter is the metalstorm tank. I remember when metalstorm was first developed it was all the rage, but I haven't heard anything about it since. It was developed for unmanned static defenses though iirc, not tanks and helicopters.

Didn't think about the profile affecting def. Makes sense though. Then of course there is the fact that some designs only have strong frontal armor, while others have good all around. Of course there's no way to simulate that at the btn level. I thought reactive armor was more for close combat (TUSK and the like). I guess I need to read up on it again; it's been a while.

Slightly off-topic (since we were talking about tank guns). AA is something definitely imbalanced, especially the higher tech.
While the BVR ranges are realistic, because of the way the game handles combat I think they don't function very realisticly.
Missiles can miss, and they can be shot down. The AA missiles however, since they are intrinsic attacks never miss.
Also even though the range on that missile may very well be 173km, that is it's range once it is launched and locked on, I somehow highly doubt (any ex-fighter jockeys out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong and tell me I don't know ****, because I am speculating here) that anyone is launching from that far away, and since intrinsic attacks are instant they effectively travel at the speed of light. Jacking up the missile def goes too far the other way, since it makes anti-missile AA ineffective. I think lowering the range would be a fair compromise. It would also make interceptors actually have to go out and dogfight (does anyone even do that irl anymore?) instead of just briefly circling their airfield to fire and then landing again. So realistic or not, I think it would be good for game balance.

Granted a lot of my heavy testing and observation is with FOW off (I never play an actual game without FOW, but then I am too busy caring about my own forces to see the big picture) which of course negates all stealth, so I am not sure if the low-initiative of the landbased LRAA and the fact that the interceptors even if they have good reaction time still have a delay to take off (pretty sure they do anyway) and fire I don't know if that balances itself out. Since cruise missiles are fast and stealthy by the time they get spotted and fired on the AA might be rendered totally ineffective if their range is cut (which is also why I keep high initiative, long combat time SRAA at the brigade level still, even though the US Army no longer does).
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

From my understanding the ranges are the longest point they would fire an AA missile, I don't have that much knowledge about AA units hit probabilities etc. Much of air combat today is BVR, but aircraft are still equiped with short range and machine guns.
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Kellick
Captain
Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 16 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Kellick »

Hullu Hevonen wrote:From my understanding the ranges are the longest point they would fire an AA missile, I don't have that much knowledge about AA units hit probabilities etc. Much of air combat today is BVR, but aircraft are still equiped with short range and machine guns.
You're right. I did some more research. The scary thing is the Russians have even longer range BVR missiles today than what the made up end of the tech tree units have.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is really possible (well it's possible, but the results wouldn't be satisfactory, which is probably why BG didn't do it) to make SAM and AAA missiles into missile units and take the intrinsic attack away from those types of AA and interceptors, but then there is no way you could force those units to load only those types of missiles or keep other units from loading them.
Hullu Hevonen
General
Posts: 3602
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
Contact:

Re: Tank attack values

Post by Hullu Hevonen »

Kellick wrote:
Hullu Hevonen wrote:From my understanding the ranges are the longest point they would fire an AA missile, I don't have that much knowledge about AA units hit probabilities etc. Much of air combat today is BVR, but aircraft are still equiped with short range and machine guns.
You're right. I did some more research. The scary thing is the Russians have even longer range BVR missiles today than what the made up end of the tech tree units have.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is really possible (well it's possible, but the results wouldn't be satisfactory, which is probably why BG didn't do it) to make SAM and AAA missiles into missile units and take the intrinsic attack away from those types of AA and interceptors, but then there is no way you could force those units to load only those types of missiles or keep other units from loading them.
I think I experiemnted earlier in SR2020 by adding missiles with AA attack values, it crached the game :-( . I remember to have read somewhere, that the Russian AA batteries where superior to the patriots, but that they didn't have as good of an radar. Though I don't remember where I read it.
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRCW”