T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by YoMomma »

"The last F-16 rolled off the line at Fokker's Schiphol plant on February 27th, 1992. It was #J-021 (#89-0021), and was the last of 213 examples delivered to the KLu."
Fokker went bankrupt in 1996. Its now called Fokker Stork aerospace, they will be involved with cabling of the F35, but mainly assemble plane parts for military use but more so for industrial use.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by Balthagor »

YoMomma wrote: Nov 10 2018 "The last F-16 rolled off the line at Fokker's Schiphol plant on February 27th, 1992. It was #J-021 (#89-0021), and was the last of 213 examples delivered to the KLu."
Fokker went bankrupt in 1996. Its now called Fokker Stork aerospace, they will be involved with cabling of the F35, but mainly assemble plane parts for military use but more so for industrial use.
Hmm, that's an interesting argument. That maybe we should remove the design as "lost" when the company left. I'm willing to consider that.

Noted.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by YoMomma »

Also consider that if you are removing air production GDP will even drop further and instead of 31k gdp/c its more like 50k gdp/c.
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by Nerei »

Balthagor wrote: Nov 10 2018
milivoje02 wrote: Nov 10 2018 ...A bunch of countries in game are producting A F 16,F15,Mig 29,Mig 25...And in reality they only buy aircraft that were manufactured in USA and Russia...
If this is the case, then you've found an error that we should correct and remove those designs. The F-16 for example should be known by the US, Belgium, Netherlands and South Korea at the start IIRC. Who else has the design?
That is not an accurate statement at least not with the F-15 and F-16.


Japan has access to the F-15C which in this case represents the F-15J.
The F-15J is an adaptation of the F-15C made as a partnership between MHI and McDonnell Douglas specifically for the JASDF. A large majority of the aircraft assembled at the Komaki factory near Nagoya from domestically produced components some of which differ from what is found in the F-15C. I will have to look up the exact numbers but of the 200+ Fleet operated by the JASDF around 80-90% was build at the Nagoya plant.
The upgraded or Kai model differs even more from what I remember.
Basically this is a derivative aircraft design where a Japanese company is doing a significant part of this work and being paid by the Japanese government to build aircraft in Japan from components produced in Japan. The only real alternative I can suggest to the current setup would be to have it as a separate design available to region group J.
Note this also covers the in-game F-15CJ Recce Eagle.
In general nearly all aircraft in service with the JSDF is at-least produced in part locally. The exception tends to be large aircraft based on Boeing passenger jets such as the KC-767, E-767 and VIP transports.


The ROK is missing it's F-15K Slam Eagles.
The design should be know as a significant number of aircraft was produced locally with a decent number of locally produced parts. This is not just knock-down aircraft kits being assembled.


Israel does not know any F-15 designs it can produce nor does Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Singapore. Unless I have missed someone that should cover all of the F-15 Operators outside the US. I would so far say we have one nation (the ROK) that is missing a F-15 design that should be known in 2017-2020. We also have a couple of nations that needs some F-15's.


Now the question really is the F-15I and K both of which are modified F-15E available to Israel (I) and the ROK (K) region groups respectively.
Both are adaptations of the existing F-15E so they have that going for them and the F-15K is produced in part in the ROK from parts produced in part in the ROK. I would have to do more digging but my guess would be maybe to the F-15K and probably not to the F-15I.
The issue with aircraft like the F-15I though is that it is an export market aircraft only. The US should not build it for its own airforce but I am not sure Israel should be able to build it either.

Sidenote the US has the F-15I researched but not the F-15E. The F-15E really should be a known design as it the largest operator of the F-15 Strike Eagle variants.


I think that should cover all F-15 operators assuming none have been added to ahistorical operators. In general the F-15 does not seem terrible but some operators are missing their aircraft and the ROK should have the F-15K as a known design.



As for the F-16C I have not checked in detail who can build it as there is a lot to go through. Assuming it is cut down to the US and ROK that would mean there is definitely none that have the design that has not produced the aircraft.
The ROK should know the design as it has produced the KAI KF-16 which is a modified F-16 Block 52 produced under license which is still in service and fairly unlikely to be retired anytime soon.
Really this is the game going in a completely different direction than with say the F-35 as the KAI KF-16 is distinct from the F-16C Block-52 in many ways as there are parts replaced by domestic produced alternatives and again it is produced locally by KAI.

I am not sure it is as distinct from the F-16 block 52 as the Mitsubishi F-2 is from the F-16 Block 40 but it is somewhat different. Also yes if you include the F-2 as an F-16 it definitely was produced in Japan. Exclusively so even.


As for Russian aircraft I will not really comment in detail as it is not something I know much about but the MiG-25 being available to research for group Z seems odd to me.
Balthagor wrote: Nov 10 2018 Other regions can do the same by trading for the unit designs. I think our AI already does this but it could be tweaked to offer designs more often. As a player, I'm happy to ask for the designs I want. For AI regions we could make them request designs more often from other AIs if there is a belief that would improve gameplay.
I personally cannot remember ever having seen the AI buy unit designs. I might have missed it but my guess would be that if it does that it is probably quite rare. To me it does seem like a good idea for the AI to be more willing to do this as it would help alleviate the issue of some region groups not having that many designs.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 481
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes
Location: Belgrade, RS

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by milivoje02 »

I noticed too that AI never buys anything neither unit nor technology. AI Forces only units from Tex tree. Developer they know what they did,they have my personal support(because I bought the game because it's very good ) and I do not want to offend them. how do you imagine units in 2025 and 2030? Is it here that I only have space for the existing untis or for the futuristic too.
Basically I have to agree with everyone.I hope I have not offended anyone.I will ask a few questions not to offend. Which selection of the state in Europe received the E group ? Are they getting the NATO country?Member States of the European Union and candidates. I ask because I see that different countries can devolope F 18.
Why does not have a USA base in Europe (Kosovo,Bosna,Italy)?
Why does the US never attack any country in Europe? Even when some of the European countries attack it? never comes with a unit to the ground of Europe?
why merchant marine persistent executes suicide(literally they go directly to battle ships they do not even try to avoid them)
Why helicopter SA 341/SA 342 Gazelle It's not found inventory of Serbia? There are 60 pieces in the Serbian Army,
and all them are production is domestic factory with buying French licenses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_Gazelle) (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_A ... e#Aircraft)
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 511
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by dax1 »

Balthagor wrote: Nov 10 2018

[...] For AI regions we could make them request designs more often from other AIs if there is a belief that would improve gameplay.
yes, pls...since SRCW I dont' see happen that in my game..it should happen only if allied.
Con forza ed ardimento
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by YoMomma »

Only a couple of regions buy units and keep them, alteast in 2017..2020... Cameroon, Congo, Mozambique and Netherlands. Those 4 countries have cloose to 2k units (mainly WW2 units like artillery, infantry and air defence) in a 5 year old GC, SW or W2020 game, as long they alive they buy units, i have seen 10k and basicly i never play longer then 10 years because of speed. There are several reports found about that on the forum from not only me. Another problem with this is that you will find tanks from South Africa or Israel and if you check those countries, they hardly have tanks of their own.

AI doesnt trade designs, i play MP all the time solo, never seen this. But yeah this should only happen to allies.

I also agree that US should have military bases all over the world and get involved in the world besides annexing America.

This is so messed up. Everything that i accused BG of is confirmed in this topic. Totally disconnected from their game not knowing what features work, are actually in game or how they work out. Incase Russia doesnt declare war for once, they will get owned anyway by this big blob of Germany or France after trading their units away. If they are warmongering all red sphere doesnt have good units because they are deployed. If you change 2020 because of me, i have to dissapoint you. I already copied all the files for my mod, for me it doesnt change a thing. I just wished i could turn of trading units all together between AI untill trading units between the AI is much better.

If you analyse this neutral, there is only 1 party who need good units to win. Same people that are for AI production facilities without limits or same people for AI building research facilities without limits, or AI trading their units away with no limits... Those who cant win playing with US or are tired playing US and wanna own the world with UK or South Korea or something. If Bigger only getting better, whats the point of 20k different units..
Gameplay 1st
Buzzbrad
General
Posts: 131
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by Buzzbrad »

After consideration, we are removing T group from Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo + Slovenia. Meaning they are only X group. I have gone through and adjusted some units to reflect this due to other feedback. This will be pushed with our next steam update.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 481
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes
Location: Belgrade, RS

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by milivoje02 »

Buzzbrad wrote: Nov 11 2018 After consideration, we are removing T group from Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo + Slovenia. Meaning they are only X group. I have gone through and adjusted some units to reflect this due to other feedback. This will be pushed with our next steam update.
Have you added some units to that group so that she could be competent in the 2020+ scenario ? Because the X group was first in Cold War scenario,so it does to me when then I get rid of the holes in navy, AA units, and hunters aeroplanes and they do not have rocket artillery.because there is no weapon in which T is a group in those fields.it was noticed when i played Cold War scenario with Yugoslavia.
you could add to group where Serbia is a rocket system Sumadia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumadija_ ... _launcher)). new weapon was presented last year on militery fair,look at link.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2393
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by Zuikaku »

dax1 wrote: Nov 11 2018
Balthagor wrote: Nov 10 2018

[...] For AI regions we could make them request designs more often from other AIs if there is a belief that would improve gameplay.
yes, pls...since SRCW I dont' see happen that in my game..it should happen only if allied.
Only if allied and only if no apropriate modern domestic designs of unit class are available ("modern" meaning 3 green dots or more). Also, unit market availability shoul'd be considered.
Please teach AI everything!
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 481
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes
Location: Belgrade, RS

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by milivoje02 »

If this is done and T group is removing from Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo + Slovenia,we'll get a huge emptiness in research invetory. Think about it if possible once again because of a player from the countries listed here. X group is very poor. X group is have no capital ship (in T group trhe is a Kresta 2 anda Grac) in eskort ship noting modern (T group was have option to research Warsava ),no Fighter planes( in T group mig 23) in Ear difence T group took 20 years to get to Sa 12 F Giant-g and X group is have none(There are nothing in the era of laser weapons ),There is no helicopter in X group ( u T goup tehere was a Mi 2 and Vampire),no recon units. No advanced rocket artillery in X group. I'm calling the devolopers take again for consideration seizure of the T group to these countries because if these countries have only units of the X group they will simply be very bad for the game. This is where the merged T and X group works well. X group alone for 2020 + scenarios have no units,let's at least insert units for these holes I mentioned. It was better to play when Serbia and Croatia were in the T group,honestly to tell you with these holes in X group and with knowledge that you plan to take away the T group,I really lose my wish to play . And the other players from the these countries will also feel the same. I expected improvement not the seizure of units.
I hope that they will take you back into consideration because this really looks bad and and it will not be interesting anymore for players from the countries where they were relocated.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by YoMomma »

Well welcome to the forum :D

Sooner or later i will prolly update my mod. One of the problems with my mod is i wanna adress W2020, GC2020 and SW2020. For SW2020 i still have alot to do. I totally dont agree with BG's philosophy of shattered US with perfect relations between the states, maybe not so much at start but defintely in a longer game (because of influence values in .CVP file). This is why you only see Texas declaring 1 war or something, maybe they continue further south of America.

I did alot of stuff on GC, and i need to see what i wanna keep for W2020. Then work on SW2020, so yeah. For example for GC so far i worked on red sphere nations like techs and map errors. So you will see a bit more balanced game, but still everyone will stay or become blue sphere if you dont do anything. I also added US bases all over the world, and in recent patch i had a very interesting game.. Basicly US and Germany tried to take over the world as Germany, but i stopped them when they touched my beloved ally Italy. Netherlands Itally alliance is OP.

Anyway that of the US bases i didnt upload yet, because if there are no requests for it, i rather just sync the rest of the mods before i publish anything. One thing i can promice tho, game speed will be ALOT improved. Just by removing spotting range from garrisons and adding them to cities, IC and MC. TY evildari.. RIP
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by Nerei »

Okay I tried to look through region group X a bit and while I still think ultimately western balkans belong in it I would say wait until it is functional in post 2020 before doing that which I currently think is a bit of a stretch to call it that. Remember this is the future that you people are largely making up. You got all the handwaving magic you need here and if anything the go nuts conquering the world should be post 2020.


Just a quick note to start off:
X does have a capital ship (DD-87 Arkhangel). Except for exceptionally low combat time it is actually fairly decent too (Personally I consider that a crippling deficiency but that is another matter).

Sidenote: I have no idea why any capital ship would have a combat time of 6. That seems quite unrealistic. Did someone forget a 0? There is even escorts with a combat time of 4.

That said capital ships are not in my top 5 issues with Region group X. Just having one puts X ahead of some region groups. The ROK for one despite having an impressive real world navy has none and the one modern in J is so abysmally poor (or outright physically incapable) at everything but submarine hunting that it is hardly worth considering. With better combat time I would probably also take what X has over anything in C too.


The rest of the navy is odd. In futuristic patrol vessels it is not really much worse off than C.
It also does have 5 escorts and 3 submarines which is a bit on the low side compared to many region groups but could be manageable.

The problem is 2 of the escorts has very low combat time (10 and 4) which unfortunately are the ones with best combat stats. Underway replenishment is naturally an option but the best transport ships in region group X is less than half their speed. Also they have exceptionally low cargo capacity and you need over 20 to match one German Berlin replenishment ship. The AI will probably not do that effectively anyway so for the AI I would largely consider them useless. Ironically civilian cargo vessels are far, far better for this role though I would still just buy a design like the AOE-1 Sacramento (but the AI would both need to do that and use it effectively for them to work neither of which I have seen it reliably do).

Really the surface navy of region group X is probably going to be based around whichever of the other 3 escorts you like the most. Personally I am leaning towards F-224 Kara Kum over F-281 Baikal due to the greater combat range and it would be very situational for me to build anything else.
Not high marks to the surface navy from me.

The submarines are also all on the low side when it comes to combat time but that is fairly prevalent in general amongst futuristic submarines I find. They are forgettable but overall not terrible.

That said the navy is not the real problem as I see it. Ultimately the navy is a sort of a "good to have thing" maybe unless you are an island nation. If futuristic X was good in other fields I would happily write off substandard navy as a defining characteristic.



If we compare aircraft designs all that really puts say the ROK (K) ahead is the FK-1 Kyongsang if you go sufficiently far into the future but then again X has access to a strategic bomber which K does not. There is also the Eurofighters but I would largley say they are a mistake to have there.
L (The DPRK) is probably also comparable to X in many ways on aircraft.
Really X is not in a good position on aircraft but it is not alone there either.

Could more be added? Definitely. Transport aircraft seems like an obvious one as there is nothing at all (and not just in post 2020 so there literally is nothing to develop at all). Some ground attack aircraft and maybe multiroles might not hurt either.

I definitely consider aircraft more of an issue than the navy but again not the greatest problem.


The real place I think X is needing attention is on the ground.

Looking at the current designs there is no artillery more advanced than B-52K1 Nora and there is no air defences with a greater range than the SA-2. There is actually only one multi-hex air defence system design that is not over half a decade old in 2017. The ANLOS is not amazing at medium air attack either so you probably still want some SA-2. Yes a 1957 SAM still has relevance in region group X in 2020. For the AI it will probably continue to be so as again I cannot remember having seen it buying any designs.
It does not have that many anti-tank units but it is not unique there.
You can also say that tanks and especially recon is anaemic at 4 and 2 futuristic designs respectively.
A few deficiencies is fine but maybe except for infantry it feels deficient allround. I would definitely say ground needs some work.

Things like artillery and air defences are not really something I consider luxuries but basic equipment especially when we go into the future where you got all the handwaveium you need to make it at least functional and you can probably get away with at least adding X to a few designs (just please, please try and not pick something that screams "we did this for balance").


So yes I do agree more work could be done for post 2020 Region group X which should ideally be done before anything is moved.


Okay that is my not very scientific look at futuristic X.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by YoMomma »

Ok thanks for that.

Not sure who its used for, since whole discussion was about improving region group and all we got was resistance after agreeing first, but yeah. It gives me a direction of what to do and maybe which unit to improve on.

6 or 60 will prolly be same number after being cashed. The unit database can be very confusing, altho you will find lots of errors if you look things up. Like speed of tanks and infantry vehicles. But yeah maybe this was done so they can escape in time, and then i dont wanna fix it hehe
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

Post by Nerei »

All the units I highlighted are from BG's fictive future and what I am highlighting is that there is some basic holes and bad designs in BG's depiction of that future.

Serbia needs tank in 2035? Sure why not it if effort is made to actually make it a realistic functional unit.
Giving India F-22A raptors to give it better air defences in the 1990's by finding an extremely vague reason or giving say Denmark the design for an aircraft that it currently not producing and is never going to produce locally due to it buying a few of these aircraft that are almost entirely produced and entirely assembled in another country is something else entirely.

Basically I accept the former but reject the latter of the examples above and I am fairly certain that is also what Zuikaku was saying.
Yes that means I do not object to adding fictive equipment to region group X. I have actually said that several times if you bothered to read what I typed. I am arguing against throwing a whole lot of existing gear into region groups based on extremely tenuous arguments "because balance" which is basically your school of design.


Edit: Also no 6 does not become 60 when compiled. It does not become 0.6 either. Why would it?! You might as well have a fighter jet with combat time 4 become 40 or 0.4?
I can also tell you that DD-87 Arkhangel has a listed combat time of 6 in-game. The values are carried over.

Further I can tell you that I am using the asset manager to look up values so no I am not accidentally looking at the wrong number. It is clearly telling me what the values are and when I check them in-game they match.
Last edited by Nerei on Nov 13 2018, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”