Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by Zuikaku »

There is no rate of fire in unit database.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by milivoje02 »

Zuikaku wrote:
May 17 2020
There is no rate of fire in unit database.
You know very well what I'm talking about. You mean that 1 tank grenade in Hard Attack value can have a bigger hit than 3 tank grenades in Hard Attack value. 3 to 1 is the difference between automatic charging and manual charging.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Mig's speed

Post by Balthagor »

milivoje02 wrote:
May 17 2020
You know very well what I'm talking about...
Don't assume and don't be rude. There is no need to answer like that.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 501
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by evildari »

Zuikaku wrote:
May 17 2020
There is no rate of fire in unit database.
maybe the devs can enlighten us - what the initiative entry in the .units file means

for consistency checks: nothing beats loading the unit file in a real spreadsheet calculator program and look there with filters.
ie how do the stats look for:
a) the family of a unit like all F-14 aircrafts
b) how do unit compare using same or similar technology (usually good enough source for game would be janes yearbooks)
c) just a reminder costs are also an important stat (nowadays one think its the most important one...)
At that amount of units, just using the released mod tools alone would take an insane amount of time.
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Mig's speed

Post by SGTscuba »

evildari wrote:
May 17 2020
Zuikaku wrote:
May 17 2020
There is no rate of fire in unit database.
maybe the devs can enlighten us - what the initiative entry in the .units file means

I thought initiative was the firing rate, therefore mortars have a high one to match high fire rate compared to howitzers.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by milivoje02 »

Balthagor wrote:
May 17 2020
milivoje02 wrote:
May 17 2020
You know very well what I'm talking about...
Don't assume and don't be rude. There is no need to answer like that.
I'm sorry. but I got the same narrative from the same member of the community when there was a discussion about the tank m 84 ab1. And there no one gave him guidance in expression as I received now.
I do not support infantile expression, but I hope that the rebuke will not be exclusively for me.
And I hope the members of community will enterd a little more mutual respect in expression.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by Nerei »

SGTscuba wrote:
May 17 2020
evildari wrote:
May 17 2020
Zuikaku wrote:
May 17 2020
There is no rate of fire in unit database.
maybe the devs can enlighten us - what the initiative entry in the .units file means

I thought initiative was the firing rate, therefore mortars have a high one to match high fire rate compared to howitzers.
It is just as much who gets to attack first if the wiki is to be believed. So while rate of fire might be a factor so would anything enabling target detection and acquisition. Speed might also be a factor that could be considered for initiative.
E.g. I would expect a super-heavy tank to have a lower initiative than a medium tank as the mobility of the medium tank better allow it to decide when and how the engagement starts

It would also depend on the type of unit. For battleships I would not consider rate of fire important for initiative at all except maybe for world war 2 US ships and even then it is mainly down to fire control anyway. For artillery it would be more important.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by milivoje02 »

Nerei wrote:
May 17 2020
SGTscuba wrote:
May 17 2020
evildari wrote:
May 17 2020

maybe the devs can enlighten us - what the initiative entry in the .units file means

I thought initiative was the firing rate, therefore mortars have a high one to match high fire rate compared to howitzers.
It is just as much who gets to attack first if the wiki is to be believed. So while rate of fire might be a factor so would anything enabling target detection and acquisition. Speed might also be a factor that could be considered for initiative.
E.g. I would expect a super-heavy tank to have a lower initiative than a medium tank as the mobility of the medium tank better allow it to decide when and how the engagement starts

It would also depend on the type of unit. For battleships I would not consider rate of fire important for initiative at all except maybe for world war 2 US ships and even then it is mainly down to fire control anyway. For artillery it would be more important.
In tank unit in the game there is more then one tank in unit,in one unit of ship there is a one ship. If tank unit have a 176 personal or 132 that means there will bee a more than one tank in that unit. Which means that not everyone will be destroyed by a single grenade in mutual fire.
And those that have a manual charge will fire fewer grenades than those that have a auto charge. And of course to take into account the penetrators and their highest values ​​for all tanks, and not for someone to take medium values. And in the case of tanks with auto-loading, the defense against ground units is reducted due to their exposure to enemy fire. But their advantage was not taken into account when it came to actions (shooting) on enemy armor or infantry.
YaYo7
Lieutenant
Posts: 91
Joined: Feb 07 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by YaYo7 »

I use data in my edited dafault.UNIT such as: max speed, empty weight, max move range for all aircrafts. Yes, this is not optimal, but such data is easier and faster to find.
Some data that I use:
MiG-29S
  • Cost = 22 million
    daystobuild = 6
    Weight = 11.2 t
    Speed = 2450kmh
    MoveRange = 1500km
    Initiative = 6
    CombatTime = 6
    LowAirAtt = 45
    MidAirAtt = 55
    HighAirAtt = 0
    AirAttRange = 70km
    GroundDef = 45
    AirTacDef = 45
    AirRefuel = no
Su-27S
  • Cost = 30 million
    daystobuild = 8
    Weight = 16.3 t
    Speed = 2500kmh
    MoveRange = 3900km
    Initiative = 5
    CombatTime = 10
    LowAirAtt = 43
    MidAirAtt = 53
    HighAirAtt = 0
    AirAttRange = 90km
    GroundDef = 43
    AirTacDef = 50
    AirRefuel = no
MiG-31B
  • Cost = 35 million
    daystobuild = 9
    Weight = 20.67 t
    Speed = 3000kmh
    MoveRange = 2500km
    Initiative = 4
    CombatTime = 8
    LowAirAtt = 39
    MidAirAtt = 45
    HighAirAtt = 16
    AirAttRange = 160km
    GroundDef = 46
    AirTacDef = 36
    AirRefuel = yes
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

Every plane in the world has the option to carry an extra canister with fuel to increase range. So that too could be inserted as an option.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by milivoje02 »

YaYo7 wrote:
May 17 2020
I use data in my edited dafault.UNIT such as: max speed, empty weight, max move range for all aircrafts. Yes, this is not optimal, but such data is easier and faster to find.
Some data that I use:
MiG-29S
  • Cost = 22 million
    daystobuild = 6
    Weight = 11.2 t
    Speed = 2450kmh
    MoveRange = 1500km
    Initiative = 6
    CombatTime = 6
    LowAirAtt = 45
    MidAirAtt = 55
    HighAirAtt = 0
    AirAttRange = 70km
    GroundDef = 45
    AirTacDef = 45
    AirRefuel = no
Su-27S
  • Cost = 30 million
    daystobuild = 8
    Weight = 16.3 t
    Speed = 2500kmh
    MoveRange = 3900km
    Initiative = 5
    CombatTime = 10
    LowAirAtt = 43
    MidAirAtt = 53
    HighAirAtt = 0
    AirAttRange = 90km
    GroundDef = 43
    AirTacDef = 50
    AirRefuel = no
MiG-31B
  • Cost = 35 million
    daystobuild = 9
    Weight = 20.67 t
    Speed = 3000kmh
    MoveRange = 2500km
    Initiative = 4
    CombatTime = 8
    LowAirAtt = 39
    MidAirAtt = 45
    HighAirAtt = 16
    AirAttRange = 160km
    GroundDef = 46
    AirTacDef = 36
    AirRefuel = yes
Contribution and confirmation data for mig 31 (https://youtu.be/h_w_0zUs9ac )
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

Leopard 3 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjuEh_-9yvA)
Armament: 120 mm / L55 smoothbore cannon, 12.7 mm machine gun, 40 mm grenade launcher and 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun.
Armor: All -around armour against modern ATGW Anti-Tank Guided Weapons and RPG Rocket Propelled Grenades threats.
Accsessorise: Collective NRBC system, power pack preheating, crew compartment heater, a fire extinguishing system, electric bilge pumps, thermal imaging system, auxiliary power unit, crew compartment cooling system, panoramic sight for the commander.
Speed:70kmh
Range:450km
Crew:4
Here is a specification just in case you decide to insert it.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Nerei »

milivoje02 wrote:
May 25 2020
Leopard 3 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjuEh_-9yvA)
Armament: 120 mm / L55 smoothbore cannon, 12.7 mm machine gun, 40 mm grenade launcher and 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun.
Armor: All -around armour against modern ATGW Anti-Tank Guided Weapons and RPG Rocket Propelled Grenades threats.
Accsessorise: Collective NRBC system, power pack preheating, crew compartment heater, a fire extinguishing system, electric bilge pumps, thermal imaging system, auxiliary power unit, crew compartment cooling system, panoramic sight for the commander.
Speed:70kmh
Range:450km
Crew:4
Here is a specification just in case you decide to insert it.
That is the Leopard 2 Revolution. Whoever made that video got that mixed up with the MGCS.

Revolution has nothing to do with the MGCS. It is an upgrade kit intended for cold war era vehicles like the Leopard 2A4. I am fairly sure KMW has no plans to build any of these as despite being a fairly extensive upgrade are still inferior to the 2A7. It really is something they made to make money on all the cold war era Leopard 2's still in service.

Also it should be said the weapon on that vehicle is the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 not the L55. You can tell on the distance between the muzzle and fume extractor as well as overall length of the cannon.
The L44 was discarded in favour of the L55 on the 2A6 onwards

You can see the difference here on a Leopard 2A5 (last version to use the L44)
Image
And a Leopard 2A7
Image

It should also be said that the video is from 2016. France and Germany only signed the framework agreement on what is to become the MGCS (or Leopard 3 if you will though being a joint project with France I have my doubts it will be named that) late last month.

The problem with the Revolution is that it is an upgrade kit which is hard to represent in a game without vehicle upgrades. I am not even sure by Jan 1st 2020 there where any vehicles upgraded with the revolution kit.
milivoje02 wrote:
May 17 2020
In tank unit in the game there is more then one tank in unit,in one unit of ship there is a one ship. If tank unit have a 176 personal or 132 that means there will bee a more than one tank in that unit. Which means that not everyone will be destroyed by a single grenade in mutual fire.
And those that have a manual charge will fire fewer grenades than those that have a auto charge. And of course to take into account the penetrators and their highest values ​​for all tanks, and not for someone to take medium values. And in the case of tanks with auto-loading, the defense against ground units is reducted due to their exposure to enemy fire. But their advantage was not taken into account when it came to actions (shooting) on enemy armor or infantry.
First off I would not really say autoloading tanks have any real systematic defence penalty. Any stat abnormalities are just as likely to originate from how BG set them.

Just compare the ground defence of the T-72M/M1 vs the M1A1 Abrams. 30 and 27 vs 32. I am 100% going to argue that a 1970's export model T-72 having 2 points less ground defence than a M1A1 Abrams is massively tilted in favour of the T-72 compared to reality. Heck that the piece of trash T-55 Enigma have the same ground defence as a M1A1 Abrams really indicates you should not judge too much on stats.


That said the question is still how much of a difference does an autoloader make.

The reason for rate of fire being less relevant for a battleship is not due to number of ships but that a loading cycle is usually faster than fire-control making corrections.
Basically the battleship might be able to shoot faster but chances are it does not want to shoot that fast.
A similar situation can happen to any type of vehicle.


The advantages of a high rate of fire is situational. In most cases you will not have a target rich environment with loads of good shots. If the enemy vehicle is dead after first shot and there are no other good targets then any increased ROF is wasted. Even if there are the question is if the commander can line up another target before the loader has readied the cannon for another shot.


The best I can find is that just to pass the US Army Tank gunnery skill test a loader needs to be able to load the cannon in less than 7 seconds. A skilled gunner can do better than that.
In most cases that is probably more than enough.
It should also be noted that puts it on par with the T-72's 2A46 main cannon that have a rate of fire of around 8 rounds a minute.
This is also fitting with claims I can find that IDF manually loaded Merkava tanks where able to match or outperform Syrian T-72's in rate of fire during the battle of Jezzine. Naturally this might be down to more than just how fast a vehicle can reload.

Yes the gunner will not be able to keep that performance forever but if we start considering fatigue then we also need to consider mechanical failures of the autoloader which tends to reduce the ROF to 0 a minute.
If possible the gunner and loader might also swap stations to alleviate fatigue. Fixing a broken autoloader might be hard and time consuming in the field if even possible.


Really if the loader is able to reload the main cannon as fast as the commander can line up new targets or assertain the status of the existing target then the rate of fire is "good enough" and increasing it will do very little.


Further if we want to include rate of fire we should also figure in what the loader can do other than load the main gun and what that means.

For a start he can assist the commander meaning he can better do what he is there to do which is command the vehicle.
That is probably an initiative bonus for the manually loaded vehicle.

We also need to consider that he is another set of eyes. Increased situational awareness and improved target acquisition would also be an initiative bonus if not a combat stat bonus.

He likely has some combat training meaning he can fight dismounted. That is a close attack and defence bonus I would say.
Like on the M1 Abrams he might have a roof mounted HMG. Typically he would also handle any coaxial MG. That is probably also a close attack and defence bonus. Maybe also soft attack.

There is also mechanical issues. Having another set of hands is a great help for say resetting lost tracks. I would probably consider this a small bonus to most offensive combat stats and/or initiative.

Yes modern technology like RWS or computers can alleviate some of this or or in some roles even do better but that is really just for quite new tanks like the K2. They certainly will not help a T-72M1 and in the end there are things only a human can do.

Autoloaders also have an advantage with heavier shells but for 105-125mm shells the loader is quite capable of rapidly reloading the main cannon. If vehicles like the MGCS go for a 140 or 150mm cannon then they will probably go with an autoloader simply due to shell weight.


For offensive stats I would personally consider target to be more important than just about anything else related to offence as long as the weapon is capable of killing the opponent.

Just look at Desert Storm. That is amongst other Iraqi T-72s with autoloaders against US M1A1 Abrams with manual loading. What loading system the tanks had meant little for the outcome. If it was a M256 or 2A46 main cannon did not really matter that much either beyond that the M256 was capable of killing T-72's.
What mattered was that the targeting systems the US tank commander had was leagues ahead of what his Iraqi opponent had. In many cases the Iraqi discovered there where Abrams nearby when a nearby Iraqi tank did a jack in the box.

Honestly if we want to consider autoloader rate of fire we need to properly consider situational awareness and targeting abilities and it will weigh 10 times higher.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

Nerei wrote:
May 25 2020
About Leopard manufacturer( https://www.kmweg.com/home/tracked-vehi ... ation.html) 2a7,2a7+,2a7++,3 I would like to see at least some variant of them in the game. Generally the Leopard 2a4 is the most common model from the Leopard 2 family and he is not in the game.
T 72 have automatic loader but manual fire control sistemy.
This means that the cannon must be manually turned towards the target. Which gives it infeeriority in the fight against more modern technologies. Therefore Abramas and m 84 were superior to this variant t 72 in Golf war. And In the fight against the US army, its superiority in the air, which is unquestionable, cannot be neglected. One of the main differences between t 72 and m 84 is that m 84 has an automated fire control system, which means it can lock the target faster.
Chassi of t 72 i think that she has experienced so many improvements that they cannot be counted. Do you know that the t 90 has a prototype mak T 72 BU?
I generally don't see how much far that chassis can be improved ... Probably that's why the Armata has a delay in development. because it is a completely new chassis.
As for k2, I'm not very familiar with South Korean tanks, maybe it wouldn't be a bad practice for someone to sometimes say that they are less familiar with something. let's say now I'm going to take your information as initial information when I start researching South Korean tanks.

Did you do anything with the map editor?
I'm looking for some good place in the middle of the ocean on the map to put the pirate state. Do you have any suggestion. :-) ?+
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”