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, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Zuikaku »

Nerei wrote:
May 25 2020
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.
Are you not confusing T-55 Enigma with Assad Babil. Enigma had decent survivability and there are known cases where it survived multiple hellfire hits.
On the other hand, Assad Babil was a trash in every way.

During the battle of Khafji one unit is reported to have survived several hits from MILAN missiles (which can knock out a T-72M1 frontwise) before being dispatched by a helicopter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55 ... iants#Iraq

Whilst it is generally accepted that Enigmas could survive some hits from ATGMs, they could, however, not survive hits from AMX 30s, or an AC-130 gunship strike:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/t-55-enigma/
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, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

Can we treat a tank unit or an infantry unit according to the characteristics of one tank or one armored vehicle when they will perform in the game like company if they are tank unit,and like batalion if the are infantry. There will be maneuvers and the search for better conditions for action in a smaller or larger terrain of 16x16 km.
And on the battlefield we will hardly see so many formations developed exclusively from one type of armored technique. And by that logic of curent unit structures every collision between armies resembles to Battle of Prokhorovka(which would be an interesting scenario for the campaign ww2).
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Balthagor »

to that last comment, we did try and build stats with a thought to the "support" elements that exist in a battalion. A tank battalion would have some air support elements, maybe some mortars? I think?

(this is me trying to remember decisions that were made in 2004-2006...)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/76387507@N06/7249720212) i find some information for structure of Infantry motorised batalion. Although on a modern battlefield, a good part of infantry units have smaller drones for reconnaissance and action. Moarts,snipers they often resolve conflicts.
And land mines? how possible is their implementation? They are an essential aspect of defensive warfare.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Balthagor »

Land mines were considered before and rejected, they aren't really used in 16km x 16km spaces outside of North/South Korea.

The problem with the battalion structure, is every country is different. We only support one standard size.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed

Post by sparky282 »

milivoje02 wrote:
May 17 2020
These speeds are reduced in the Suprem Ruler Ultimate( only for Mikayon and Suhoy ). In Suprem Ruler 2020 the highest values ​​for all(world wide) aircraft speeds were entered. .
I think what's written above goes to show it wasn't just Mikayon and Sukhoi but in fact every jet in the game I guess they most likley went with low level top speed hence the low ratings

Hopefully, things get update to be more consistent in the next version doubt we will see any wide sweeping changes to this version now if any
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
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. :-) ?+
Personally I find it interesting that there is only one variant of the Leopard 1 (the A4). That was produced roughly a decade after the A1 model and it is the first tank Germany gets after the E-50. Also it is fairly close to the introduction of the Leopard 2A1. Given however that we only have the 2A3 of the early models of Leopard that does leave a gap between them as that is over half a decade later than the initial production version of the Leopard 2. It's actually a bit funny how we get as many early Panzer II-IV models from 36-39 as we do get Leopard tanks.

One of the reasons for the renaming was that the abysmal Iraqi performance with their export T-72 or local lookalikes where making export sales difficult.

In general if you want examples of relatively new tanks with autoloaders outside Russia and France's Leclerc you probably want to go to eastern Asia. The PRC pretty much exclusively uses autoloaders (though getting reliable information can be hard) as does the before-mentioned ROK K2 Black Panther. The Japanese Type 10 also uses an autoloader and japan in general have gone with autoloaders since the end of the cold war (the exception being the Type 16 Tank Destroyer).
Iran also appears to go with autoloaders but it tends to be hard to find reliable information about them. Also looking at vehicles like the Karrar I am not sure they have really gotten beyond the "copy others" phase of tank design.

I have actually never really used the map editor but if you want a decent place far from land there is always point Nemo. You can also call it "Risen R'lyeh" or something. The southern Indian ocean is probably likewise a good spot.
Zuikaku wrote:
May 26 2020
Nerei wrote:
May 25 2020
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.
Are you not confusing T-55 Enigma with Assad Babil. Enigma had decent survivability and there are known cases where it survived multiple hellfire hits.
On the other hand, Assad Babil was a trash in every way.

During the battle of Khafji one unit is reported to have survived several hits from MILAN missiles (which can knock out a T-72M1 frontwise) before being dispatched by a helicopter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55 ... iants#Iraq

Whilst it is generally accepted that Enigmas could survive some hits from ATGMs, they could, however, not survive hits from AMX 30s, or an AC-130 gunship strike:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Iraq/t-55-enigma/
The problem with the enigma above all else is that it is a crude construct using primitive materials. Sure it is not comparable to the Syrian civil war where additional armour might be concrete blocks or spent shell casings but it is still not good. The craftsmanship is not exactly great and likely neither is the materials used.
This is not exactly the Saddam Hussein version of the Leopard 2 Revolution for the T-55.

Sure it might have better protection than the Asad Babil but that is not really saying that much.
Also we should keep in mind that the Asad Babil is likely made in workshops similar to those that made the Enigma armour kit. Really the saving grace of the Enigma is that it was build on a few decades old tanks and not something Iraq built in the late 1980's

Sidenote: Speaking of the Asad Babil to the game it is notably better protected than a 1st and 2nd generation Merkava as well as the M1 Abrams. That is quite absurd.


Going by the tank encyclopedia article some Enigmas did not even feature rubber sheets in the add-on armour meaning it is basically just spaced steel plates. Chances are a simple cage armour might be better in a lot of cases then.

Also apparently ATGM hits can knock the added armour off the vehicle meaning each hit might very well make a large part of the vehicle vulnerable. In that case each of these huge blocks can be thought off as ERA.

Said article also states that while it might survive a hit by a Milan it is probably not something you should count on. It is entirely possible the vehicle in question that survived multiple hits where just really lucky. The problem is the sample size is small and overall documentation is lacking.

The article conclusion likewise states that the enigma is not comparable to coalition vehicles such as the AMX-30 yet in-game it has better hard attack and ground defence than the AMX-30 meaning in a duel it would likely win. Also it is as good in protection as the best the US can throw at it in 1991 meaning the saving grace for the M1A1 when fighting Enigmas are the higher hard attack.


Ultimately however the Enigma is only incidental to my core argument. I could just as well have picked a Pz 68 and compared it to a Challenger I. Like the Enigma vs the M1A1 Abrams the Pz 68 has a amazing ground defence compared to the Challenger I. It actually beat the far more modern and arguably far better protected Challenger I by 2 points in (36 vs 34) and 7 points in close defence (24 vs 17). I could also compare the ground defence of the aforementioned 1st and 2nd generation Merkavas to a Basic T-55, T-62, the entire Patton or Centurion line and they would lose in pretty much all cases.

Speaking of the Centurion it is also a good example. The Olifant 1A despite basically retaining the protection of the 1940's Centurion from which it is based beats anything used in Desert Storm in ground defence as well as the mk.III Merkava and M1A2 Abrams. It's descendant the Olifant 2 is even better as ot beats anything real-world Israel, the US, Britain, France, Japan or Korea has. The best German Leopards only beat it by 1 point in ground defence. For the record it also retains the Centurion era armour though with composite armour bolted onto it.
I can actually seriously argue that an upgraded 1950's Centurion is one of the best protected real world vehicles in the game.


Yes the Enigma makes perfect sense when compared with the 1958 T-55 design as it gains 3 ground defence which in that situation is perfectly logical but that is part of the problem and why this is not an easy problem to solve. The enigma makes perfect sense against some vehicles but are horribly broken against others when compared to the real world. It is not just change it X points and the issue goes away. Likewise the Olifants are perfectly fine when compared to the Centurions from which it is derived compared to modern MBT's like the Merkava, Leopard, Abrams or Challenger lines it is horribly broken in ground defence.
Really a lot of stats appear to have been set in a vacuum with it only being compared to closely related designs and not how it stands compared to the wider set of designs. That might work if there is a master template system but chances are there where not and a lot of designs where originally defined with little comparison between them and the problem just propagated from there.

Sure we can make the argument for game balance but if that is the argument we can look at other designs like the Sejong the Great class destroyers that completely obliterates the category air defence warship as this 2006 design is basically the best in the category followed by the 1990's Arleigh Burkes. Yes that includes all fictive, futuristic warships. A Balancing factor though is that it is a notable worse submarine hunter than say a 1971 Kresta II for some unknown reason.

So going back to my original argument that we cannot determine any fundamental logic based on stats like ground defence I think that argument stands. Actually the more I look at the unit database the more do I think it holds.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by milivoje02 »

About batalions. Battalions are composed depending on the military doctorate for the country's defense(offensive).
Ideally, an infantry armored vehicle would carry 3 infantry units,rifle unit,anti tank unit and moart unit and deploy them in combat. Although in that case one unit would be divided into 4. And I don't know how much capacity the game's engine is to withstand so many multiplication units.
I look at the cities in the game and have been thinking for some time how much capacity there is to expand the urban combat? Each city has 6 places for facilities,perhaps the combat could expand there. To take each place separately,and the mobilization of the city garrisons can be distributed among them in that case.

About Mig and Suhoy speed,I compared the change in value in Suprem Ruler Ulitamte to values Suprem Ruler 2020.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by sparky282 »

These are all lovely ideas but short of adding them in ourselves I doubt any more will be done to this version this is why I have my own .unit database that I edit along the way

With the use of the Editor its pretty easy
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Zuikaku »

since I added the enigma I bear responsibility for it's stats. Somewhere on my storage disc I believe i still got some US evaluation data of T-55 enigma testing and intelligence. Although it is crude upgrade they were quite impressed with it. Think I read somewhere that one vehicle even survived Hellfire hits.
I'll take a look at the data once more and try to correct it.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Nerei »

The problem with the Enigma is there is no good answer. It should be notably better than the T-55 as it does offer increased protection. It should however also be notably worse than say the M1A1 Abrams.
Unfortunately the T-55 already is nearly as good as the M1A1 meaning both requirements are more or less impossible. If we use the M1 instead for the argument it is physically impossible as the T-55 has 9 points (or 45%) higher ground defence than the M1 Abrams.

Looking at the T-55 vs the Enigma in a vacuum I could easily see it being notably better than a 3 point upgrade as that is just under a 10% defensive boost. Problem is that will make it a super-tank better protected than a lot of far better vehicles.

Dropping the stats of the T-55 and taking the Enigma down with it is not really an ideal solution either as that will just make it notably worse than the Centurion family amongst others which also feels wrong.

Really I am not arguing for changing the enigma specifically as I do not think there is any good answers to what its stats should be. I just picked it to illustrate a problem with the designs of the game as a whole in part due to already looking at Desert Storm.
The problem is systemic and likely predates ultimate quite a bit.

This is why I have given up on posting unit errata where I cannot find a specific number like weights or cargo capacity. For combat stats if I look in 20 different places for an answer I likely get 5-10 different answers.
I once tried to design a Maya class DDG. Depending on where I looked I got air attack strengths that varied by like 200 points and sub attack strengths that varied by over 500 points. Likewise I have given up making unit designs.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1984
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by SGTscuba »

I assume its probably an issue of having worked backwards on the timeline, and then having to get these units to fit, without having to go back and adjust all the original units.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 501
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by evildari »

Balthagor wrote:
May 26 2020
to that last comment, we did try and build stats with a thought to the "support" elements that exist in a battalion. A tank battalion would have some air support elements, maybe some mortars? I think?

(this is me trying to remember decisions that were made in 2004-2006...)
there seems to be a lack of a definite decision how battalions (or even other organizational level) are represented:

is it really just x amount of ie. Merkava tanks
or should it be rather a tank unit with their main units as strong as that Merkava tank, and have some other support elements.
But then there are also explicit transport, recon, artillery and different air units and for repairs its just a drive to the next barrack or land at airbase.

So i guess its rather the first option, its just the described unit and i make my own organization with the infamous CTRL+number grouping, only to see them minutes later all over the continent and not in one place unless locked out of computer control.
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)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by Nerei »

I am not really sure supporting elements are statted into it. It is hard to judge for ground attack as that is what a tank does itself but if we look at air defence for most vehicles it is not exactly high. Yes it adds up for say 44 vehicles but 44 Mk.IV Merkavas have about the same low air attack as 6 dudes with FIM-92D Stinger MANPADS. Likewise the 54 vehicles of a Namer unit might only have maybe 10 MANPADS to split between them and that is assuming the crew is unable to use any other weapons against low flying targets.

For Artillery I will also say the stats really do not indicate much in the way of anti air support. Basically the AA strength of a M270A1 MLRS would almost be achieved by one of the aforementioned dudes with a Stinger MANPADS.

Really if there are any support elements included in say tank units they really are limited at least as far as air defence is concerned.

Personally one thing that bothers me with the current implementation that we have things like man portable ATGM or MANPADS battalions (and given how the soft attack of say the M-47 Dragon is comparable to 1920's infantry despite being 45 10 man units I can only assume the unit is mainly armed with ATGM's).
These seriously should be attached to existing units such as infantry or APC units.

Likewise I would like to attach recon, AA and possibly bridging and supply units to a tank unit instead of having 44 Merkavas milling about alone and having to bring along a bunch of extra units to fulfil these roles properly. It means most of my engagements tend to approach division level just to ensure my armour is properly supported.

Really having some sort of mixed battalion system would be nice. The unit database could still be usable if such a system where added to Next Gen as really vehicles are statted individually.
SGTscuba wrote:
May 27 2020
I assume its probably an issue of having worked backwards on the timeline, and then having to get these units to fit, without having to go back and adjust all the original units.
I am not going to go to the lengths of installing 2020 to check but I am fairly certain some of these are from back then.
E.g. I would very much be surprised if both the M1A1 Abrams and T-55 where added later given how prolific they are today. I would also assume the T-54-2 which has 28 ground defence is a 2020 original as quite a few regions have it.

Likewise I would also assume the Leopard 1 is from back then given that Australia have one and they retired it long before ultimate was released. Also it is still in service with a few armies.
The Leopard 1A4 is interesting in this case as it has the same ground defence as a M1A1 yet in reality has absolutely terrible armouring. An upper glacis of 70mm steel is not impressive though angling will make it more effective.
Basically the Leopard 1 is from a time where armour where deemed to rapidly go obsolete with the advancement of say ATGM yet it can play equal with tank carrying several times that thickness of composite armouring.


If we compare to other games of the series then it is worth noting that the Panzer IV line of vehicles over 5 years are gaining the same in ground protection than there are going from a 36 tonne early 1950's tank to a 57 tonne late 1980's tank. Yes the ground defence difference between a 1938 Panzer IV C-F to a 1943 Panzer IV H is comparable to that going from a 1951 T-54-2 to a 1988 M1A1 Abrams.
Also it is worth noting that going from 7 to 11 tends to give more than going from 28 to 32 so I personally consider the stat increase for the Panzer IV better.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Mig's speed, Unit stats balancing ideas

Post by sparky282 »

Nerei wrote:
May 28 2020

I am not going to go to the lengths of installing 2020 to check but I am fairly certain some of these are from back then.
E.g. I would very much be surprised if both the M1A1 Abrams and T-55 where added later given how prolific they are today. I would also assume the T-54-2 which has 28 ground defence is a 2020 original as quite a few regions have it.
Nearly all the modern-day stuff is 2020 original from what I remember that's the era I play in and I don't remember a huge amount of updates to the DB for ultimate
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”