Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

Going to comment a bit more on odd naval surface attack (NSA henceforth) values for world war 2 era capital ships as yes there are a lot of those.
4 of them are already covered above so here is a bit of focus on a few more.


Tre Kronor (ID 17738) 1943
This is a swedish light cruiser with 7 6in cannons and 6 21in torpedo tubes. That is not that impressive armament for a cruiser and certainly does not justify NSA of 670.

The late 1930's De Zeven Provinciën Class (ID 17719) has 8 of the exact same guns and it has a total NSA strength of 460 (but it lacks torpedoes). It really should not be higher than this. Honestly it should probably be somewhat lower than this for both vessels as that is comparable to vessels with somewhat more impressive armament.

The late 1930's Whichita class cruiser (ID 17711) with 9 8in and 8 5in cannons and mid 1930's Mogami (ID 17547) with 15 6in, 8 5in cannons and 4 24in torpedo tubes are 420 and 410 respectively.
CA-32 New Orleans (ID 17688) with similar armament as Wichita is 430.
There is also the 1940 CL-55 Cleveland (ID 17726) which has a NSA strength of 460 and it carries 12 6in and 12 5in cannons.
1932 Takao (ID 17533) with 10 8in, 4 4.7in and 8 24in torpedo tubes again with NSA of 460.
There is also the mid 1930's British Town class (ID 17709) with NSA of 405 and that is with 12 6in, 8 4in and 6 21in torpedo tubes.
Then there is Ning Hai (ID 17114) with 370 NSA and that is with 6 6in cannons and 4 21in torpedo tubes.

Personally considering this I would say Tre Kronor and De Zeven Provinciën Class should probably be in the high 300's.
I would probably also argue for a boost for Town and Mogami. Maybe also Takao. Compared to the other examples here though it is not that bad.


Chapayev Class (ID 17730) 1950
680 NSA for 12 6in cannons, 8 3.9in and 6 21in torpedo tubes. Sure it is a 1950 design but still that is excessive.
The somewhat better armed Sverdlov has a NSA of 500 which does not seem crazy (main gun layout is identical but secondaries are better on Sverdlov). It definitely should be below Sverdlov. The armament of Cleveland is somewhat similar with Cleveland having a better secondary cannon armament but Chapayev having torpedoes. Setting it similar to Cleveland (460) is probably not going to be insane.


La Galissonnière Class (ID 17214) 1944
I am assuming this represents post-refit as the date annd tech requirements fit unlike the construction dates as the first vessel was laid down in 1931 and commissioned in 1936. Having the refitted vessel without the original is an odd choice though.
Also the NSA of 670 is quite high for 9 6in, 8 3.5in cannons and 4 21.7in torpedo tubes. The refit does not really do much there either as it was for AA armament.
Basically the ship is contemporary to the Mogami but noteworthy less armed so it definitely should be below that. It should also be lower than Town.

Around 400 NSA especially if Mogami and Town is increased a bit probably is not insane. It definitely would be better than it is now.


Duguay-Trouin-class (ID 17210) 1944
Like the La Galissonnière Class the year looks wrong. Duguay-Trouin was laid down in 1922 and commissioned in 1926. The vessel was refitted in 1944 yes but that involved "removing" the torpedo tubes and the tech requirements include tech 1325 (Intermediate Torpedo Designs). Also having the refitted ship without the original seems odd. In any case the stats are wrong
The armament of 8 6in, 4 3in cannons and 12 22in torpedo tubes does not really justify a NSA of 620 which is comparable to a 1944 Montana class battleship.

Considering that there are more modern destroyers with more, heavier torpedoes that score less than 200 in NSA I would probably not consider the 12 torpedoes that great a game-changer in NSA. In terms of cannons it has less and is older than Wichita or New Orleans that are in the low 400. Their size is also smaller. Maybe slightly better than Ning-Hai with age being a minus (the guns are 1920's era) but overall higher armament compensating for it (e.g. 380ish).


To summarise:
Tre Kronor (ID 17738) and De Zeven Provinciën Class (ID 17719) probably high high 300's (over 370) NSA.
Chapayev Class (ID 17730) probably around 460 NSA.
La Galissonnière Class (ID 17214) probably around 400 NSA or a bit less (definitely lower than Mogami and Town but higher than Tre Kronor). Consider using it to represent the original vessel instead of the post refit vessel.
Duguay-Trouin-class (ID 17210) probably NSA around 380. Consider using it to represent the original vessel instead of the post refit vessel.

That said though this is really just band-aid suggestions to try and get some extremes more in-line with the rest of the game and it certainly is possible to argue for different stats using other vessels as comparison. Really capital ship naval surface attack is a complete mess for this time-period.


Also wow I just looked at great war era UK ships. Sheesh that is quite the mess also.
arakan94
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Oct 10 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by arakan94 »

If you want to balance the units, then perhaps a "point system" should be created, which would assign attack values based on armament and fire control.. It would stop this ad-hoc stats and create more diverse upgrade paths instead of just one broken OP ship you keep for 50 years..

Something like:
2in = 1 attack
3in = 3 attack
4in = 5 attack
5in = 7 attack
...
And then multiply the value by number of guns - 6 3in guns would mean 18 attack

Missiles would have constant attack and number of launchers would be modeled by initiative.. Number of available missiles by combat time?
Harpoon Block II = 500 attack
...
Or are all the anti-ship missiles modeled as cruise missiles?

Quality of fire control and technology of ammunition could then be a modifier to total value:
Manual - 1x
Primitive - 1.1x
Early WW2 - 1.25x
Late WW2 - 1.5x
...
Modern - 2x
Future - 3x

Range would be probably set to the weapon with largest range.. Ships don't have any close attack against ships, do they?
It would be awesome if units could have multiple attacks against same type of targets but with different values and ranges.. Heck, it would be nice if each weapon had ammo counter of its own - if ship spends all of its AA missiles, it should still have plenty of ammo for cannons, etc.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

Anti-ship missiles assuming they can be intercepted with say CIWS would be missile units.

The problem as I see is that this will be a gigantic task. Rebalancing attack strength likely requires rebalancing defence stats. That probably requires rebalancing surface attack strength for aircraft and ASM's.
We are probably also going to change things enough that submarines will need to be reworked.

That is assuming it is possible to work out values that everyone likes.
How high should a 5in cannon be rated compared to an 11in cannon? How many 5in should equal the 11in that sort of thing.
Then there is the characteristics of individual cannons. Should that be counted? Sovietskii Soyuz and Iowa both carry 16in cannons from around the same time but their performance is not identical to say the least.
Also what cannons do you consider and how? Say pre-dreadnoughts will benefit quite a lot by having their secondary cannons counted fully which would probably make them disproportionately strong against dreadnoughts.
How do we represent Torpedoes? This can mean a lot especially for light ships like destroyers and when redoing this stat should be considered.
Torpedoes in particular is one of the reasons I have a hard time doing this as yes it really should be separate from cannons and the way combat works is less than ideal for torpedoes.


Then there is actually implementing it. Lets say we want to balance Capital ships, escorts, patrol vessels and submarines like that. That is over 1400 units to run though. Adding carriers and sea transports pushes it well over 1700.
Aircraft and missiles might add another 500-750 units to that list.


I am not sure we can count on BG having the time to help with this with them having Galactic Ruler to work on and all.
That said BG are the people that made pretty much every single British pre-dreadnought significantly better than HMS Dreadnought to the point some are almost comparable to super dreadnoughts...


There is also the issue with the AI. Even with a good modifier Arleigh Burke will probably still have worse ground and surface combat stats than Gearing and guided missile cruisers almost certainly will suck in these stats compared to world war 2 capital ships.
I cannot say how the AI will handle this situation. It is possible it will keep picking world war 2 vessels which would be a problem.


All of this is not to say I am against the idea. I really am not. I am just not sure it is feasible to do. The reason I am just doing band-aid suggestions to the worst offenders is that is manageable.

I actually once started to look into rebalancing stats but ended up ditching the idea.
The sheer number of units with problems as well as having to basically try and figure out more fluid values like sub attack and protection makes it a very time consuming project.
Then there was trying to figure out a proper way to represent submarines in the first place as the implementation BG picked has a few problems such as modern submarines being super long range snipes or diesel boats being honorary nuke boats rendering nuke boats significantly less relevant than they really should be.


Finally just to stick close to the unit errata title here is "All pre-dreadnoughts should not have a speed of 16" France edition.
Values are just taken from wikipedia as that is probably good enough. When I did the German edition Wikipedia and my other sources where usually pretty darn close to each other.

Basically these speeds are should be more appropriate.
Captain Prat (ID 17465): 33.9
Charlemagne (ID 17327): 33
Bouvet (ID 17334): 33
Republique (ID 17336): 33
Danton (ID 17340): 35
Pelayo (ID 17467): 30-31
arakan94
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Oct 10 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by arakan94 »

Yeah, it would be colossal task..

And the whole missile unit system is problematic as well - Arleigh Burke can have 8 size-3 missiles (Harpoons or Tomahawks).. IRL, it has 8 Harpoons and up-to 90 Tomahawks (those 90 spaces being shared with SAM and anti-sub missiles).

It would be nice if missile system was expanded into some sort of ammo system but in the least, Arleigh Burke should have space for more missiles - at least 60 instead of 24.
Micheal Berg
Captain
Posts: 102
Joined: Jun 19 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Micheal Berg »

Micheal Berg wrote:
Aug 21 2019
Please can you add 3 missing British Nuclear Attack Submarine designs to the game. They have all been build, and served with the Royal Navy over 30 to 40 years.

Dreadnought class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)
Valiant Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant-class_submarine
Churchill Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill-class_submarine

In game, the first SSN available to Britain is the 4th one they build and operated (Swiftsure Class)

Thanks
MB
Please add this before you end work on the new patch!!!! This really breaks playing as the UK in the Cold War Era.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

arakan94 wrote:
Nov 23 2019
Yeah, it would be colossal task..

And the whole missile unit system is problematic as well - Arleigh Burke can have 8 size-3 missiles (Harpoons or Tomahawks).. IRL, it has 8 Harpoons and up-to 90 Tomahawks (those 90 spaces being shared with SAM and anti-sub missiles).

It would be nice if missile system was expanded into some sort of ammo system but in the least, Arleigh Burke should have space for more missiles - at least 60 instead of 24.
There is some logic to how missile capacity is set for different vessels. It is at times however either quite flawed or lacking.
The logic behind vessels such as the Arleigh Burke is that "it carries 8 Harpoon missiles" which means 8x3 (harpoon is size 3) give a total capacity of 24
Yes to the best I can find BG totally missed that part of the mk 41 VLS cell supporting both Harpoon and tomahawk missiles.

If we look at say Slava and Kirov BG did basically multiply total missile capacity with the size of the missiles. It should also be said that for surface ships those two have over twice the capacity of any other non-fictional vessels (ignoring the obviously buggy Luda I).

Flight I Arleigh Burkes using the same logic as was applied to the Slava and Kirov Arleight burke should have 90 x 4 + 8 x 3. That is 384. 24 points higher than the next highest unit which is 100 above all else. It gets better though. Ticonderoga got 122 mk 41 VLS cells and 8 harpoon missiles. That is a total of 512.

Naturally setting a Ticonderoga to 512 would be a bit extreme but having them at 24 is really quite silly. Assuming 1/3 of them was dedicated to harpoon sized missiles would give it around 40 x 3 + 3 x 8 = 144. That is quite close to Kirov.


I would be nice though if max missile size was not tied to total missile capacity. It would make it possible to distinguish between ballistic and cruise missile platforms.


Also just to report a bit with missileptscapacity:

DDG-051 Luda I (ID 17377) has a capacity of 240. The standard missile armament for this vessel is 16 SS-N 2 Styx. These have a size of 3. That means a total capacity of 48. This also identical to the DDGH-051 Luda II (ID 17395) that have similar armament.

K31 Visby (ID 18428) currently has a capacity of 32. Real world armament is 8 Harpoon ASM which each has a size of 3. Total capacity should then be 24.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

Nerei wrote:
Nov 24 2019
DDG-051 Luda I (ID 17377) ...capacity of 48.
K31 Visby (ID 18428) ... capacity should then be 24.
Did these. Appreciate the concise details :)
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

Balthagor how would you treat VLS cells like the US produced mk 41 and mk 57?
Currently you do not take them into account at all which severely affects the missile payload of vessels like the Arleigh Burkes or Bunker Hill. Just doing like you have done with Slava and Kirov though will give some fairly high values like say Bunker Hill hitting 512 total.
Going with around 1/3 of the cells for cruise missiles with a size of 3 or 4 tends to lead to results more in line with existing vessels (the very high end but really they can carry a lot of missiles).


Also to take a few additional vessels:
BBG-61 Iowa (ID 17940). Current missile capacity is 52. Assuming cold war armament the ship would carry 32 Tomahawk missiles (size 4) in 8 mk 143 armoured box launchers and 16 Harpoon (size 3) in 4 mk 141 launchers. That is a total of 176 (36 Higher than Kirov which is the current highest real world capital ship).

NOTE: The yearavailable does not line up with this armament as it was added in the 1980's but the BBG designation indicates it is equipped with guided missiles (which the missile capacity stat also strongly points towards). The 1961 year available in general does not really fit as the Iowas where barely active between their deactivation in the late 1950's and reactivation under regans 600 ship fleet plan in the 1980's. Most appropriate date would be 1982.

Current tech requirement is 1648 (Military Vessels '61). 1688 (Naval Force Production '79) would probably be more accurate.
If you change yearavaliable you probably also want to change the price as it would be somewhat favourable for the 1980's.


CGN-38 Virginia SM-2 (ID 17774) Current missile capacity is 40. Post conversion armament was 8 Tomahawk missiles (again size 4) in 2 mk 143 armoured box launchers and 8 harpoon (size 3) in 2 mk 141 launchers. That is a total size of 56.


CGN-36 California Class (ID 17766) Current capacity is 16. Both pre and post refit the vessel carried 2 mk 141 quad harpoon launchers. That is 8 harpoon missiles (size 3) for a total capacity of 24.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

Nerei wrote:
Nov 25 2019
Balthagor how would you treat VLS cells like the US produced mk 41 and mk 57?
I honestly don't remember, the decisions on those stats were made during either SR2010 or SR2020 development so you're taking sometime between 2004-2007. I do remember VLS being a thing, but that's about it.

I'll look at those other two IDs...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Micheal Berg
Captain
Posts: 102
Joined: Jun 19 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Micheal Berg »

Micheal Berg wrote:
Nov 23 2019
Micheal Berg wrote:
Aug 21 2019
Please can you add 3 missing British Nuclear Attack Submarine designs to the game. They have all been build, and served with the Royal Navy over 30 to 40 years.

Dreadnought class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)
Valiant Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant-class_submarine
Churchill Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill-class_submarine

In game, the first SSN available to Britain is the 4th one they build and operated (Swiftsure Class)

Thanks
MB
Please add this before you end work on the new patch!!!! This really breaks playing as the UK in the Cold War Era.
Bump
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

Those 3 subs got added.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Micheal Berg
Captain
Posts: 102
Joined: Jun 19 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Micheal Berg »

Balthagor wrote:
Nov 27 2019
Those 3 subs got added.
Thanks Balthagore, will be looking out for them once the final Update is out :D :D
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

SSN-637 Sturgeon (15604) submarine has a speed of 28kph, should be 28 kts (52kph).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sturgeon_(SSN-637)

SSN-595 Skipjack (15581) submarine - Skipjack is SSN-585 - It should have a speed of 37kph at least instead of 30kph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skipjack_(SSN-585)
Of course, searching the SSN-595 gives a Permit class submarine (Plunger) which also gives a min speed of 37kph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Plunger_(SSN-595)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

Unit "Centaur" (16032) class carriers only have a unit capacity of 1 squadron, this should be at least 2 given the previous carrier to it (10000t lighter) the Colossus class had squadron of 2. The cargo capacity is also only 2k as opposed to 2.2k for the lighter ship.

Wikipedia says only 26 aircraft but I believe this is the final capacity that Viraat could handle, not the initial 1953 fit out. Hermes carried 37 aircraft into the Falklands for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur-c ... ft_carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

The Centaur can carry 26 aircraft. that's about 1.4 Squadrons. Rounds down to 1...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”