Zuikaku's mod

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 416
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Anthropoid »

YoMomma wrote:Altho i find it very interesting to see you guys discuss, mainly what i care about is some sort of game balance, and if you play 2020 alot you know now you finally get the change to compete with Russia. Usually Russia was out of the picture in 1-2 years. Now theres finally a small change to compete with a strong Russia (as long they dont loose all their units as merchant marines).

US and Germany has many examples of units being stronger then 4th-5th generation units later on, so why Russia can't accomplish the same? Because it keeps alot secret? I see the same in Chinese unit designs, they all suck, even the futuristic ones. Not 1 single good IFV or tank. I bet if that happened to US we would see a complaint every other day and it would be fixed within 2 updates.

To me it is not realistic that China and Russia are gone by 2021, while they are the main regions investing alot in military. Besides whats the fun left then? Killing other nato members?
I dont know alot about units, but after 2500 hrs in 2020 era's i know alot about game balance, and right now it may be satisfying to some US players, or maybe even German, but it is very unrealistic. Till Zuikaku launched the T14-15, finally some tension and competition while playing as my own country in a realistic way.

Try Egypt in the 2020 scenario :D
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

Nerei wrote:I guess the problem is we are trying to translate something very complex into a single number.
Well, this is one of the problems encountered.
The other is that many units have inadequate tech levels (some rail gun tanks have 112 or 116 tech level)

Anyway I'll revise T-14 in the near future since some of your suggestions seems to be right and was not intending to create supertank monster. I see hard attack, ground defense and close defense as most problematic stats.

but also, I do not intend to make T-14 to be equal to some upgraded 3rd generation tanks whose designs date from the '70s or '80s.

To be honest, I expected more complaints on J-31 or J-15 which were even more difficult subjects to research. :D

YoMomma wrote:Altho i find it very interesting to see you guys discuss, mainly what i care about is some sort of game balance, and if you play 2020 alot you know now you finally get the change to compete with Russia. Usually Russia was out of the picture in 1-2 years. Now theres finally a small change to compete with a strong Russia (as long they dont loose all their units as merchant marines).

US and Germany has many examples of units being stronger then 4th-5th generation units later on, so why Russia can't accomplish the same? Because it keeps alot secret? I see the same in Chinese unit designs, they all suck, even the futuristic ones. Not 1 single good IFV or tank. I bet if that happened to US we would see a complaint every other day and it would be fixed within 2 updates.

To me it is not realistic that China and Russia are gone by 2021, while they are the main regions investing alot in military. Besides whats the fun left then? Killing other nato members?
I dont know alot about units, but after 2500 hrs in 2020 era's i know alot about game balance, and right now it may be satisfying to some US players, or maybe even German, but it is very unrealistic. Till Zuikaku launched the T14-15, finally some tension and competition while playing as my own country in a realistic way.
Actually I don't even try to get game balance. I'll be hating to see Shermans balanced with Panthers or T-72s with Leopard 2s. I try to be as realistic as possible, but with new weapons like T-14 it is almost impossible to achieve since most of it's real characteristics are unknown. And then we get what we get based on producer's claims and/or propaganda. So, weird results are possible.
Please teach AI everything!
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Zuikaku wrote: Actually I don't even try to get game balance. I'll be hating to see Shermans balanced with Panthers or T-72s with Leopard 2s. I try to be as realistic as possible, but with new weapons like T-14 it is almost impossible to achieve since most of it's real characteristics are unknown. And then we get what we get based on producer's claims and/or propaganda. So, weird results are possible.
Yes i understand that, and im fine with a little nerf of T14, just don't nerf it too far, it is designed as modern urban warfare tank. Others have to come up with an answer, that's not the T14 fault or your fault.
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Nerei »

I have not looked at the J-20 or J-31 maybe I should ^_^

Also I guess the word "balance" is not ideal. That might give allusions to everything should be identical. Maybe a more appropriate word would be consistency. If we say have defined that around 75 hard attack is the realm of electro-thermal weapons then basically nothing be it US, German, French, Russian or any other equipment should break this line significantly unless it carries such weapons or better. You can naturally bend this a bit if say a vehicle has a very high reliance on ATGMs and very little on guns it should be less dependent on this.

As for game balance I would argue that the T-14 very much breaks this. Yes it fixes a situation for Russia but it is fixing it in the same way bilge pumps are fixing the perforated hull of a sinking ship. Russia has serious problems yes and so does China. One of the biggest I guess is the AI getting nuts declaring war and then getting all their units stuck somewhere in Siberia or Western China leaving them defenceless. China and Russia needs fixing but fixing them with units maybe 30-40 years ahead of their time is to me at least not the way to go.

If it turns out BG has made Electro-thermal chemical weapon equipped tanks far underperforming and the T-14 is in the right range the solution is not to just have it outperform what should be objectively better equipment but to boost that to realistic (in this fictive world anyway) levels.
Also in this case vehicles like the Weygand should be just as good. Again if brand new vehicles are in this range all brand new vehicles should be in this range. Not as being identical but close to each other.


As for German and US equipment being broken. To me the best solution is to bring that back within realistic ranges instead of breaking more equipment maybe in part to compensate for broken equipment.

I have personally not looked much at either Germany nor the US as I do not play those much and I rarely fight them either. If you got any names of broken equipment I can only suggest you bring up the names so they can get an overhaul.
The same with say Chinese equipment that significantly underperforms. Find their names so they can get fixed, just not to the point where it is beyond vehicles several generations ahead.

I am not saying the T-14 should be nerfed to the point where Leopard 2A4's outperform it or anything like that. It should be good as in better than Leopard 2A6's and their friends. How much exactly is a very good question and one that is hard to answer and likely will require some subjective judgements.
However it should not even get close to beating say a JP-2A1 Katze, the Migdal 1 or other future tech vehicles like them (also seriously BG "cat"?).
If Russia would then need something to counter the JP-2A1 the obvious solution is a new, fictive vehicle. It is already in the realm of science fiction so it is fair game to invent something.

Keep in mind that in the SRU world the JP-2A1 "is" the answer to the Armata. Actually it likely is the answer to the T-99 which would be the Armata 2.0. That one in turn might very well be an answer to one of the JP-1 versions which in this universe might have taken the role of the MGCS (maybe not the initial JP-1 but perhaps an upgraded version of it).

JP-2A1 > T-99 > T-14. What the stats should be is the hard question but railguns outperforms electro-thermal that in turn outperforms conventional cannons. That is the logic the game runs on (and arguably the real world will also) and that logic should be respected no matter what.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Okay to start of:
F-111G Aardvark
What do you guys think of this '71 tactical bomber? Better question is, what stat is right?
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Nerei »

I'm just going to cover most of my research here. If you want to further adjust my suggestions that should make it easier.
That means another wall of text. ^_-

First off the F-111G was designed as a strategic bomber (labelled the FB-111A). It is basically an enlarged version of the F-111 intended to replace aircraft such as the B-58 Hustler.
Note that "designed" in this case means a quick modification to fill a role the US felt they where lacking in until proper designs could fill it properly (like the B1 ended up doing but we will get to that).

Until 1990 it actually served as a nuclear deterrence with the strategic air command after which it ended up as a trainer as it was deemed unnecessary after the introduction of the B1. It was here it was rebuilt as the F-111G (actually only about half the fleet of 76 was rebuilt and only about 1/3rd of the planned numbers where built in the first place).
I cannot really find any references to the US actually using it as a tactical bomber.
The other models of the F-111 did serve that role though mostly as interdictors, tactical attack aircraft and the like. Australia also used the F-111G and I am pretty sure they did use them as tactical bombers. They got them from surplus US stock to supplement to their ageing F-111C fleet.

One major changes made for the FB-111 I can find was increased range so change the 4800km there to around 5400km. If we assume it has had the planned engine upgrade it will be upwards of around 7200km

That said the actual maximum takeoff weight was not much higher than that of the E/F version and it was an enlarged airframe so I will assume most of that increased weight is the larger airframe and more fuel. That is also to say I have a hard time finding actual numbers for the payload of the G model. That is probably down to it being first and foremost a nuclear bomber (e.g. nuclear weapons and drop tanks is the important bit not how many 500 lb bombs it can carry) and after that it was just a trainer. Finding numbers from the Royal Australian Airforce is also proving difficult.



For the more subjective values I have tried to use planes such as the Panavia Tornado and Su-24 as well as the E/F reference. That is mainly the attack values as things like speed and range are fairly hard, non debatable numbers (note I am also suggesting changes to the E/F version).

For hard and soft the Tornado is 60/60 the Su-24 is 72/34 and the E/F is 82/60
The F-16C is also fairly comparable to the Tornado so unless I am just picking horrible the this reference for planes with a payload of around 8000kg is approx 60/60.
Not sure why the Su-24 is that low in soft attack though it is a general purpose bomber (at least the quick search I did did not turn up any noteworthy anti-armour weapons used on it). It should probably be comparable to the Tornado or F-16.

Looking at a plane with some other payload we have the SU-17C with a payload of around 4000kg at 42 soft and 50 hard and the A-4UK Skyhawk with 40 soft and 45 hard.

Hard to find anything directly comprable to the F-111 in terms of payload and age but we can also look at the Tu-22M that has a payload of 24000kg is roughly contemporary.
It has an attack rating of 170 soft and 144 hard.

Now the F-111 has a somewhat higher payload capacity than the other planes (other than th T-22m naturally) so it should arguable have higher attack stats (around 4000-5000kg and 8000-9000kg vs 14000kg).

As said the maximum takeoff weight between the F-111E/F and G versions are not that different and the F-111G has a larger airframe.


Now I admit I am not that great an expert on the typical mission carried out by the different US aircraft during the cold war but I cannot really find any reference for the F-111 being used in an anti-armour role. Interdiction appears to be important which I would say should be fortress attack and most weapons listed are for that role or general purpose bombs.

To me the significantly higher hard attack value is representative of planes like the A-10 thunderbolt or Su-25T which are both built as tank destroyers and given I cannot find any reference of the F-111 being used in that role I say we more or less equalize those values.
Using that we can probably say something like 75/75 would not be completely off for the E/F variant. We might want to increase the fort attack value up towards this for the E/F variant though. Again the F-111 was amongst other things intended as an interdictor.

The thing is it is the G variant was technically created when the US rebuilt their FB-111's in the late 1980's so should we rebrand it as a late 80's plane?
That is something that I will say is entirely down to how we implement it. BG kept it as an early 1970's plane so if we also do that the stat increase over the E/F variant should be marginal. Maybe 5 points or so if even that much. If we do that the fort attack value of 76 is probably good as is though.

If we consider the rebuilt extensive enough to be a late 80's plane we can probably bring it up somewhere in the mid, maybe even high 80's for both hard and soft attack. Fort attack would go up to similar values.


The close air attack of the F-111G is a bit high so it should probably be lowered own to a level comparble to that of the E/F version which is to say 60. It is also fitting with other aircraft like the Tornado and Su-25.
Values like air and ground defense does not appear crazy when compared to most other planes of that era so probably just keep that. Airspeed and the like are also within the acceptable. Being originally a nuclear bomber with several hardpoints and large possible payload weight I guess the missile carry capacity is also acceptable.

So for the E/F maybe give it roughly 75 in soft hard and fort attack instead of what it currently has.
For the G variant if we consider it a 70's plane give it again roughly 75 in fort, soft and hard attack. If we say late 80's maybe 85 in all of them.
If you want to argue that the main role of the F-111 in the tactical role is interdiction I guess we can cut a bit off soft and hard attack.
No matter that lower close combat attack to around 60 and set range up towards 5200-7200 depending on if you think it should have a significant engine upgrade or not.

I might have missed something and as mentioned cold war US aircraft like the F-111 is not what I know most about so I might have missed something. If anything looks crazy or you think there might still be something wrong let me know (ideally also with what stat you think it is) and I will try and dig a bit deeper.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Ok fair enough. You see i see it under tactical bomber, it got better soft and hard attack then the F-22 (plane of 35 years later), is cheaper then F-16 and way better. Then i think why i never heard of this miracle bomber. Russia's best tactical attack bomber got 59 soft attack you see.

If you say it is strategic bomber i guess i can live with your values. But shouldn't it be a bit more expensive? It is just weird you know, out of service in 1990, but very important plane in game even 50 years later.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

T-14 is toned down for the next update.

I'll look into F-111. But you are right. F-111 showed less then stellar performance in ground attack missions. Actually, it was a bitter dissapointment in every role it performed except anti radar missions. It had very serious problems with ground targeting radar and sights. So, expect soft and hard attack values to be toned down.
Please teach AI everything!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Nerei »

I am fairly sure the F variants performed fairly well during Desert Storm and most sources I can find points towards it having a good success rate for its missions flown during that conflict. Looking at numbers the US force of roughly 65 F-111F apparently managed to destroy upwards of 1500 Iraqi armoured vehicles during the conflict. At one point nearly 100 in one day. To me that is not bad. It might also be why BG gave it high hard attack values.

It had some problems during the initial deployments in Vietnam but that was not the later versions.

The problem with price is how SRU scales that by time (that is to say I think it does not scale it nearly enough). The price of the F-111 and F-16C are both okay-ish for the time they where built. The E/F version might actually be too high.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Ok then i would like you guys to check on some IFV
BTR-05: Can't find any information on the internet?
BMD-4: Not in database? Maybe BMP4A?
Kurganets-25: It is in database but not connected to a tech? I can't find it in game.
XA-360 AMV: can you guys pls take a look at this one? I see operational range and speed to be wrong, other seem to be right? Is it really that good? Kind of an issue cause whole eastern europe can research it pretty easy. Yes it is exported but apperently not to those country's. Yes i know region code of units..

And lastly Spetsnaz (modern version) for Russia missing/not researched. Not sure which one there are a cpl in database.

PS i see you add alot but not to the GlobalCrisis.CVP.
I better update all your changes in my mod, cause now i have to check 3 games, my mod, bg game and your mod, so sry if you already fixed some of it.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 416
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Anthropoid »

Possible alternate perspective on the F-111.
http://youtu.be/6EvQzXVaNqw?t=95
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

I can't really see what you changed in the tech file (.TTRX) of your mod.

I only see changes in medical techs which BG made in 9.0.73 (you have old values) and 1 more tech in the original file, Trump ideology.

Did you make any changes?
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

YoMomma wrote:I can't really see what you changed in the tech file (.TTRX) of your mod.
this is from my previous changelog:
1553 "lightweight radial engines" tech is now renamed and retexted to => "lightweight aircraft piston engines"
1620 "turbo prop prototype" tech is now renamed and retexted to => "improved aircraft piston engines"
1621 "advanced turbo prop prototype" tech is now renamed and retexted to => "advanced aircraft piston engines"
"turbo prop prototype tech" moved to position 1830
"advanced turbo prop prototype" moved to position 1831

The BGs made this changes part of stock game two updates ago.

I'll check the rest. Missing and unconnected units shoul'd be fine since I have tested them and they worked, at least when I installed full mod. Maybe you can not see some units in the stock campaign since some units and techs are set as researched in my mod. did you tried to install all files from the mod and recache?
Please teach AI everything!
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Zuikaku wrote:did you tried to install all files from the mod and recache?
Nop im updating your mod in my mod right now that was wrong i guess im up to date with data on BG but not you. Got some fixes and updates for modern maps ill publish soon.
Gameplay 1st
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Allright im up to date.

Great IFV's for Russia, thanks :)
Gameplay 1st
Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”