Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
ArthurDesmond
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 14 2020
Human: Yes

Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by ArthurDesmond »

I've noticed that unit statistics are all over the place, in that: designs from the same tech group and later on are not infrequently inferior in all ways - including $ and MG cost - to earlier units. There are units available within the same tech group and tech level that are obviously superior in statistics and/or comparable in cost. Of course in the real world there are shady arms contracts and bureaucratic mistakes; it's not at all impossible to pay twice as much for an inferior version of a product. But in the real world units don't have objective statistics, since I know that certain units are inferior I will never myself build them and the AI probably won't either because they have poor pips. Which means that, despite being in the game, said units basically don't exist.

A more realistic version of arms acquisition would be that you have no idea WHAT statistics a unit will have until it's 90% researched, and its cost will be hidden by a random variable. If there were an internal politics model, military units would have a preference assigned to them randomly for internal political factions and - whether it sucks or not - you upset them if you don't buy it. That's why, in the real world, everyone doesn't have a super-efficient clone army of every other country. There are pressures other than military efficiency in play, in fact military efficiency is usually about 9000th on the list of considerations when buying a new weapons platform/porkbarrel vote buying scheme.

These alternate units would also potentially be more useful if the unit statistics were more detailed and/or there was more internal politics, but so far I have found that at a particular tech level there are one or two designs that are obviously superior and several others that exist for no apparent reason, because they're just as expensive but not as good.

China has NUMEROUS examples of this. There are versions of the MRLS and tanks with 'later' designations and design dates that are inferior in all ways, including being MORE EXPENSIVE. I know a lot of these were submitted by modders, etc. but without some cleanup of statistics or some reason to buy later/inferior units other than 'muhRoleplay' (I hate any 'role-playing' that is not induced by actual in-game considerations, that's theater drama BS that does not interest me). These newer units are just annoying, especially because there is no way to have multiple unit tabs open to compare their statistics (really, unacceptable given the number of unit designs that exist), as the only thing to 'do with them' is to look at them, find out they're trash,and exclude them from the list. It'd be better if they just didn't exist.

For about the first 20 years pf the CW game someone equipped with WW2 American and German designs is going to basically be superior to most of the countries with 60s-70s designs, because the latter aren't actually better statistically in many cases, they cost more,and many of their advantages (such as missile deployment) the AI is too slow at researching and too stupid to do right, anyway. There's also no reason I can see to research any bombing platform other than B36 and B52, as all other are more expensive and carry less.
Rosalis
Colonel
Posts: 417
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by Rosalis »

I agree, alot of units are just in the game, just because. The units that were added were from a modder called Zuikaku. I guess devs call that the community, but yeah. Sure they also asked to give ship designs in the forum. The ones from smaller countries were ignored tho. So yeah more power to the superpowers (most people come from UK and US). Some units are pretty good from Zuikaku, like the T14 Armata was his or the AA Buck. To blame inbalance on that fact is definetely not fair to him. He actually balanced alot, altho it was never his attention. What's wrong is the main tank game uses for Russia in 2020, doesnt even exist. 25 years ago, understandable, but if you bring out a new game..

Anyway the game is just inbalanced. Just because US was training a handfull of green barrets in 1957 doesnt mean it was the main infantry design for UK with stats from special forces in SR2020. In my USSR campaign UK had tens of them i think even earlier then 1957. Very hard to invade them, altho when you control the skies nothing really mathers. You must ignore 90% of the designs in the game tho. After a while you know what to look for. And then it will become very hard not to use that unit for another country too.

Costs, well recently i dont worry about it anymore. The main thing devs ever told about GDP/C, is every expense rises GDP/C. In my experience you should always build B2 spirits and stuff like that. 100's of 5 Billion patrol planes, ai doesnt even care as US. With all the content SRU provides, alot of details were lost from the origin, just to please the crowd. More starts, yeah right, but what do i know, i dont have to run the company.
ArthurDesmond
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 14 2020
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by ArthurDesmond »

Well hopefully this is sorted out a bit in the next game. But it is funny wrecking Missile cruisers with WW2 LCs because the AI didn't build missiles.
Rosalis
Colonel
Posts: 417
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by Rosalis »

Is it still funny if you realise ai doesnt build missile production sites (or naval for that mather), and the few that are available in CW most likely ai uses for nuclear missiles? They are not getting used as long you launch them manually and huge shortage of uranium results in almost none being produced anyway. Nuclear power? Never heard about them using uranium too.

I had enough after 1 ww2 game, but to everyone their own i guess. Maybe they should add more cheats for gamers instead of developpers. All in good fun right? Why not press 1 button and its all done.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by Nerei »

The issue is not designs added by Zuikaku or any other modder. The issue is there is no masterplan for the unit database. That is on BG and until that issue is solved there will be issues with the database. A lot of designs where added in a vacuum without any consideration for how all other designs are. Again that is on BG.
Part of the issue appears to be that existing units where not considered when designs where added for a new game.

It should also be said that a lot of the units with issues are not designs modders have added. Compare the 1950's T-55 to the M1 Abrams, M1A1 or 1st and 2nd generation Merkava and you will find that in statsitics like ground defence the T-55 is nearly as good as the M1A1 and better than all the others and there are a number of cold war designs like this. From what I remember the 1st generation Merkava is barely better protected than a tiger II and notably worse than the Centurions they replaced.

You can also compare some Aisan warships to western vessels. My favourite example would be the Japanese vessels. On their own their stats look okay but if we compare them to the US their stats suck in a lot of places. This is interesting as the weapons on some of these ships is basically entirely US meaning their stats should be similar. Really this appears to be an issue with BG adding these ships without considering the similarly armed US vessels.
It is also interesting to look at vessels like the Arleigh Burkes. They are among the best air defence warships in the game and that includes designs 50+ years younger than them. I am not going to believe BG did not add the Burkes.

Likewise just look at World war 2 warships their stats are all over the place. Their stats are odd to the point where there are 6in or 8in gun only cruisers are better at sinking battleships than Iowa.


Another issue is likely just lack of knowledge.
Perfect example of BG making mistakes is their planned adjustments for the Marut. They set the MoveRange to 1600 as FAS listed a range of 800km.The 1600 apparently being so the aircraft can get back. Problem is range is not there and back. That would be radius. Range is basically ground speed x air time. This is a common mistake but a rookie mistake all the same. There are plenty of those in the unit database where aircraft use radius, 2x radius, range or ferry range. Radius or ferry range will make a significant difference for aircraft.


Naturally as BG have said themselves they are game designers not historians or anything like that. While entirely fair it does however not change the issues with the unit database nor where it comes from.
All of this is why I am not all that confident it will be solved with the next game. They made these mistakes originally and if the Marut is anything to go by they are likely to make them still. Also rebalancing a 6000+ unit designs is probably beyond what we can seriously expect and I think they will reuse the database.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by SGTscuba »

Yes, I agree with Nerei that the database is quite wonky in places. Especially when it comes to WW2 DD's (all of Japans have only a 7km firing range whereas most others have 27 or 32km). Similarly, UK Frigates sometimes have really short ASW ranges despite having Helo's whilst other ships have 124km ASW range for the same reason.

Some units have the incorrect range or weight carry inputted (i'm looking at you SR45 Princess). This I think sometimes comes from the use of Wikipedia, some of the stats on there are mixed up and should be combat radius when they type combat range instead.

I think some of this comes from the database being built for SR2010/SR2020, and then having worked back all the way to 1914 without this having been planned into the stats.

I think it might be best for the new game to rebuild the database and go through it with a toothcomb.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
ArthurDesmond
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 14 2020
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by ArthurDesmond »

A shortage of uranium is a hilarious idea. Despite various legal obstructions to prospecting and refining the stuff, it makes up a percentage of many crust compositions, is fairly easy to locate and a little bit goes a long way. Expense is a serious limit to effective nuclear weapons and reactors, physical scarcity of radioisotopes is not. America can and probably does produce far more uranium than actually ever gets used to inert status. Radioactive waste is also viable fuel.

If units were a bit more consistent I'd be fine with some local variants or common models having inferior statistics, but there should be a logical in game reason to chose them: research costs would have to be a bigger factor, costs of troops training for more technical equipment, military and domestic popularity hits for using foreign knockoffs instead of our Peoples' Patriotic Patents. As I said, the idea of later units lacking some firepower due to doctrine and budget changes, or just being overpriced, is quite realistic in many cases. But it should be more deliberate and worked into some political or budget considerations instead of being chaotic due to sheer volume of data that hasn't been cross compared.
Rosalis
Colonel
Posts: 417
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by Rosalis »

Yea we will see what happens. I hope devs learn from all the negative reviews on steam from ww2 and SRGW instead of making a youtube video as the muppets on how stupid the negative reviews are.

I prefer a modern start, maybe the rest can return stronger and better when the foundation is actually back again. Unit stats are considered to important, so good to see we all agree on that. For the rest ill just keep my mouth shut to keep it on the topic. If countries were as isolated in real life tho, we would have WW3 behind us. In that sence the war declarations are actually pretty realistic. I would advise to check out some mods tho. And if you like them give some feedback. CW got a big mod i think.

Costs, well 1 b2 spirit might improve US economy, really who gonna mess with them, maybe a couple of more, eventually tho you should reach your max.

That being said you should always follow your own passion. I can imagine this game eats time to develop. If SRGW is most loved by the devs, then start there.
ArthurDesmond
Warrant Officer
Posts: 38
Joined: Jul 14 2020
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Statistics, Cost, and Time

Post by ArthurDesmond »

I want to see a focus on the interface and OOB/ROE system and a bit more event and political management. The tons of units can be added to special scenarios and by modders, a more refined and flexible core that allows easier management of complex unit deployments even if it started as just WW1 would be amazing. Let later scenarios and community stuff expand the content, as long as the foundation works well and is eas(ier) to manage. I think less of a focus on equipment-as-units and instead training infantry based on your doctrine and them getting stat changes based on which equipment is assigned. Functional company sized units, and support equipment, adding up to the unit. If this sounds like hearts of iron 4 that's not what I actually envision, instead doctrine techs would unlock unit types (Inf, Mobile, Tanks) and you give them so many tanks and APCs as required by the doctrine. This would require researching OOB of companies in real armies and figuring out some rough variants of units and equipment types for those particular companies (riflemen, air cavalry, etc.) whose final stats are added to by how much of any type of equipment is integrated. Max speeds overland and average tactical (rather than strategic) maneuver affecting combat outcomes, etc.

I essentially want some unit design that combines equipment and doctrine/organization, with stats affected by an interplay of both and the combat systems other features (terrain, RNG events caused by equipment and doctrine present). Countries with similar doctrine and level of training might get different results because their equipment doesn't work as well with a particular tactic, etc. But I don't think it needs to be some hyper complex Sim attempt like CMANO, just a reflection of how units are used rather than just how they're armed.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”