Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

All major European powers are given access to region code "E". France can research from "FE", UK from "ME".
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Aragos »

bvb wrote:FWIW, when I mentioned prices I meant the unit file itself ;) I finally put together a few specific examples, but it is pretty much a class wide issue of nearly all AT, recon, & many AA units from preWW2 tech up to ~1960.

#So currently an 8 ton M8 Greyhound costs 6 times as much as 32 ton M4 Sherman. An M10 tank destroyer nearly 3 times that of a 76mm armed Sherman. A ZIS-3 towed 76mm AT gun costs ~4 times more than a T-34 tank. Historically, M8 cost a fraction of the Sherman (~1/3 IIRC, would have to do some book digging), an M10 TD was marginally less expensive than the Sherman (~20% cheaper than the M4A3 (75mm) ).

Just one specific from the transports, but again this disparity exists with many of the earlier transport vessels:

20303 LST-511 $40m This is ~4 times the price of a Fletcher class destroyer (17126, $11.2m) which displaces nearly 50% more than the LST, has much more expensive machinery, armament, complex hull form, etc. Even something like 17728, Baltimore class heavy cruiser weighing in at 13,600 tons to the LSTs ~1,600,is much cheaper at $26.3M.

If the seemingly odd prices are strictly for in-game balance, so be it. That as time goes on and the positions reverse I assumed that wasn't so of course. Eg into the '60s a BRDM-2 recon unit costs ~40-50% instead of 500% of a comparable year MBT, an AT-3 Sagger ATGM team ~1/10th the price of a T-62 or T-64, etc. Much more believable prices of the various units relative to one another as the years go on.

Regardless, thanks for looking into & expanding the unit files. As of update 3 we only ( :evil: ) have ~4,500 units, so of course we still demand more. :D

This is a very interesting comment/observation.

Perhaps there is some way to code in a "discount" for older weapons. Example, Country A develops a new tank (Tech Level 100) that cost $1M each. They also have designs for a Tech Level 44 tank, like the Sherman, valued at $200K each [just for argument sake; I'm not using real # here]. Logically, if Country A wanted to keep building TL 44 tanks, it could do so at a much cheaper rate than building TL 100 tanks--older technology, less complexity, less training and so forth. If the US in 2013 wanted to build Sherman M4's (or Russia T-34's), they should be able to do so at a fraction of the cost. Perhaps a way to add a "tech level credit" that lowers older techs value and cost (keeping the player from selling plans to the M4 Sherman in 2013 at the same cost as if they had sold them in 1943).

I would also add one last observation. The cost of the equipment is minor compared with the cost of training personnel and maintaining the equipment, well into the last 20 years. It has only been since B-2 bombers, F-35s, etc. that the cost of the gear has outpaced the cost of using and maintaining it.
bvb
Colonel
Posts: 274
Joined: Aug 28 2008

Re: Unit Errata

Post by bvb »

That "discount" already exists to a large degree. ;) In the unit file itself prices go up as time goes on. Granted the game will apply internal variables to this, but generally in say, 1985, an M4 Sherman is still going to be drastically cheaper than an M1 Abrams.

What I'm pointing out is the first 10-20 years of the game world having the pricing of same year gear relative to one another being inverse from the real world.

Put another way, suppose a Chevy Cavalier cost $15k, while a Chevy Corvette of the same model year cost $40k. But, in game the Cavalier costs $150k , the Corvette still $40k. Currently in game, up to ~1960 or so, most recon/AT/AA are $150k Cavaliers when compared to the same model year Corvette (IE Infantry, Tanks, artillery) .
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

Balthagor wrote:All major European powers are given access to region code "E". France can research from "FE", UK from "ME".
:oops: wasn't aware of this...
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
bvb
Colonel
Posts: 274
Joined: Aug 28 2008

Re: Unit Errata

Post by bvb »

Another for the Soviets: should begin with the designs/blueprints for unit # 17178 DD-30bis Skoryy.

19 under construction as of Oct 1949, 9 already launched, first one commissioned Oct 25 1949. Soviets do start with 4 ships, but no design to build more, it must be researched currently.

* you have them listed with dates in the OOB file's notes. Imagine the USSR not having the design in game just got lost in the sea of data. :)


*added

Unit # 10177 IL-10M has no spot type set so has a zero detection range/capability. Probably should be type 20, same as previous IL-10, Tu-14 & other non-radar equipped aircraft of that period.
User avatar
Chesehead
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 637
Joined: Apr 19 2009

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Chesehead »

I noticed the F-12A interceptor has 30 for the fight time, which I think is high for an aircraft.
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

Why are ZSU-23-4 Shilka (ID5310) and SA-3 Goa (ID5607) researchable by E region code (Europe, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece)??? HUH
I've seen that with update 3 you added E region code to a lot more units that didn't have it before and I would like to hear what was your reasoning (if it is not a problem) as some of them like those two mentioned were not historicaly built/researched by countries in E region code. :wink:
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 416
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Anthropoid »

No idea if this is at all valid for military hardware but . . . remember when CD players first came out? They were substantially less sophisticated _and_ their cost was about 20x higher. As a technology gets better established, maybe the cost to produce it, and related but more sophisticated versions gets cheaper?
bvb
Colonel
Posts: 274
Joined: Aug 28 2008

Re: Unit Errata

Post by bvb »

These bombers have their combat radius as their range, should be at least double for in game range

12145 B-47B Stratojet
12150 B-47E Stratojet
12172 B-58 Hustler -This also has fuel capacity of 82 in game. Should be higher. It couldn't take off with a full load, but something ~300 should better reflect a combat loadout. Total physical capacity (including fuel in weaps pod) ~400 barrels.


*just fuel.
12141 B-36D Peacemaker In game fuel capacity is 42. Should be ~500 (~20k gallons, models and exact loadout varied, up to ~30k w/ minimized defensive armament) In any event, 42 is 1/2 the B-17's in game fuel load. ;)


General combat stats of some of the WW2 aircraft are also quite high. I don't have the specific numbers on hand, but P-38s, P-47s, P-51 (I think), and some of the Bf-109s (G-10, K, etc) come to mind. They meet or significantly surpass the combat stats of many of the 1950s combat jets (F-86, Mig-15bis, etc), and are x2+ the values of many of their WW2 contemporaries. Eg I saw several 20+ values, while the F-86 is ~17 or 18 low & med alt air attack.
Last edited by bvb on Jan 28 2013, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 416
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Anthropoid »

bvb wrote:These bombers have their combat radius as their range, should be at least double for in game range

12145 B-47B Stratojet
12150 B-47E Stratojet
12172 B-58 Hustler -This also has fuel capacity of 82 in game. Should be higher. It couldn't take off with a full load, but something ~300 should better reflect a combat loadout. Total potential capacity tanking after takeoff would be ~400 barrels.


*just fuel.
12141 B-36D Peacemaker In game fuel capacity is 42. Should be ~500 (~20k gallons, models and exact loadout varied, up to ~30k w/ minimized defensive armament) In any event, 42 is 1/2 the B-17's in game fuel load. ;)


General combat stats of some of the WW2 aircraft are also quite high. I don't have the specific numbers on hand, but P-38s, P-47s, P-51 (I think), and some of the Bf-109s (G-10, K, etc) come to mind. They meet or significantly surpass the combat stats of many of the 1950s combat jets (F-86, Mig-15bis, etc), and are x2+ the values of many of their WW2 contemporaries. Eg I saw several 20+ values, while the F-86 is ~17 or 18 low & med alt air attack.
I think some of these issues should be looked at in the Soviet arsenal too. For example, Yak23-Flora, which was essentially abandoned after a few hundred were built, is an all around better aircraft than Mig-15 Fagot, which was famously the main jet used in North Korea.
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

Anthropoid wrote:
bvb wrote:These bombers have their combat radius as their range, should be at least double for in game range
12145 B-47B Stratojet
12150 B-47E Stratojet
12172 B-58 Hustler -This also has fuel capacity of 82 in game. Should be higher. It couldn't take off with a full load, but something ~300 should better reflect a combat loadout. Total potential capacity tanking after takeoff would be ~400 barrels.
*just fuel.
12141 B-36D Peacemaker In game fuel capacity is 42. Should be ~500 (~20k gallons, models and exact loadout varied, up to ~30k w/ minimized defensive armament) In any event, 42 is 1/2 the B-17's in game fuel load. ;)

General combat stats of some of the WW2 aircraft are also quite high. I don't have the specific numbers on hand, but P-38s, P-47s, P-51 (I think), and some of the Bf-109s (G-10, K, etc) come to mind. They meet or significantly surpass the combat stats of many of the 1950s combat jets (F-86, Mig-15bis, etc), and are x2+ the values of many of their WW2 contemporaries. Eg I saw several 20+ values, while the F-86 is ~17 or 18 low & med alt air attack.
I think some of these issues should be looked at in the Soviet arsenal too. For example, Yak23-Flora, which was essentially abandoned after a few hundred were built, is an all around better aircraft than Mig-15 Fagot, which was famously the main jet used in North Korea.
Agree with ref Yak-23 and it has been adjusted on my working copy mdb. B-47series was recently adjusted - again, my copy only so far (but if there is to be another BG game, it will be there).

Will review all B-36 and B-58 bomber fuel listings - am sure I have the correct numbers (both were built on by BG long-ago).
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

Post by geminif4ucorsair »

bvb wrote:Another for the Soviets: should begin with the designs/blueprints for unit # 17178 DD-30bis Skoryy. 19 under construction as of Oct 1949, 9 already launched, first one commissioned Oct 25 1949. Soviets do start with 4 ships, but no design to build more, it must be researched currently.
* you have them listed with dates in the OOB file's notes. Imagine the USSR not having the design in game just got lost in the sea of data. :)
*added

Unit # 10177 IL-10M has no spot type set so has a zero detection range/capability. Probably should be type 20, same as previous IL-10, Tu-14 & other non-radar equipped aircraft of that period.
Two subjects here:
1] IL-10M Spot 1 rating - this will likely get "10"...the visibility of either pilot or rear gunner does not warrant what several aircraft with bubble canopies (which IL-10s do not have), are rating at "10". Otherwise, generally aircraft with limited visibility from the cockpit or other supplements [radar, etc.] remain at Spot 1 rating "7".

2] "Costs" - as several posts note, there are some weird differences in unit equipment costs (example above of M8 Greyhound, LST-511, etc. [and I have changed a whole host of others].

Most of the problems stems from two issues:
#1 - Most of these higher costs were set by BG during SR-GC (2020), an attempt to represent what these units would costs
at that time
......

#2 - insufficient processing [development] time between release of SR-GC and SR-49, allowing insufficient time to make changes relative to 1949 year for these units - resulting in some
hold-overs
from SR-GC still being listed.

These are being corrected in my version of the mdb - form which BG downloads - but these are not part of Update 3 [due to its release date]. Other comments made on the Forum are being looked into regarding other unit performances, costs, etc. - when or if they become available will be up to BG.
User avatar
Chesehead
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 637
Joined: Apr 19 2009

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Chesehead »

Couple units missing I believe. Not sure if they were mentioned before.
1. Pershing Missile- Missing both Pershing I and II missiles. Primary tactical missile for the US from the 60's to 80's. II had the range to hit moscow from W. Germany. Also could throw in its launcher which I belive was based off the M113 and would be a "hard" target. It was light enough to be moved around by CH-47's.

2. B-70 Bomber- Advanced into protoype phase but cut due to SecDef hating airplanes in the 60's. Would serve as the replacement for the B-52. 2 version could be included, the bomber and then a strategic recon version.

3. XF-108- Long range interceptor/escort. Cut due to bomber mainia during the 50's. Would have served as the follow on to the F-106 series.

4. MTB-70- Joint project with Germany and US. Canceled due to cost issues, and I believe would have spawned a series of vechiles such as SPAAG's etc..

5. Skybolt ALBM is missing as well. Would also be researchable by Britian as they were going to use it. Instead, canceled due to cost and replaced in UK by the Polaris system

6. I also think you could include the Soviet version of the B-70, the T-4/SU-100. Slightly smaller then the B-70, but same role.

7. M-50 bounder does not appear to be in game as well. Built into protoype form but canceled in favor of ICBM's.

8. Little unsure on this, but is the M-4 Bison in game? I don't recall seeing it, and it was one of the first generation Jet bombers for the USSR.


All I can think of right now. Might add some more if I catch them.
bvb
Colonel
Posts: 274
Joined: Aug 28 2008

Re: Unit Errata

Post by bvb »

In the missing department, I'd also throw in the cold war era Bradley IFVs (M2 Inf, M3 Rec (& A2 upgrade). Currently only the A3 & A4 exist in game, using the same tech requirements as the M1A2 & M1A3 IIRC, so still represent much later development. Apart from the Abrams, those 2 systems represented the bulk of the combat power of US mechanized forces once they were fielded large scale as the 80s rolled on.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

missing should be posted elsewhere. This thread should be for errors of units that are in the game.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Issues & Support”