Vehicle size rebalance

User avatar
zeeyoo
Corporal
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon 11 Mar 2013 10:15
Contact:

Vehicle size rebalance

Postby zeeyoo » Tue 17 Jan 2017 10:59

Image
Image
Image

Here's some tables about tanks' size problem.

Strv 103 : Small with 62.10

Leclerc, K1 series, Kyu-maru shiki : Big with 60.14 ~ 64.89

Leo1, Nana-yon, T-72 Series : Medium with 56.9~59.3

so is there any standard for giving values about size? at that table Height * Width * Length value is seemed to main factor, then there's some question about Strv 103s, WWIIs Tanks. K1 seriesm Leclerc and KMS. they have almost same value with Leopard 1 series, but got big(even much lower height and width).

S-tanks and WWII ones can be explained with camoflague problem.

Then how about Leclerc, K1s and KMS? they have almost same HWL value as Leo 1s, with lower height which most affects at acknowledging. here Leclerc has a little difference with S-tanks, but the gap between Leclerc and M48s is much bigger.

Just give Leclerc, K1s and KMS medium size :P

and this size change may not greatly affect to balance, because the size's accuracy factor is pretty small(VS/S/M/B/VB : *0.85, *0.95, * -0, *1.05, *1.10)

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby molnibalage » Tue 17 Jan 2017 11:48

Generally heigth should the base.

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby Mister Maf » Tue 17 Jan 2017 13:49

I believe it is done by height first, individual balance concerns second, wild inconsistencies third.
Image

User avatar
Doinize
Lieutenant
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue 30 Jul 2013 13:14
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby Doinize » Tue 17 Jan 2017 14:15

In you compare H*W*L its actually not that inconsistent. Big is anything above 60, with decimal points rounded. Execption bring the Strv-103 with its turretless, flat design and a "stealthy" shape. For a tank...
Isherman and T34/85 being big is a bit stupid tbh, they arent. Isherman has a big gun, thats all the reasoning i can think of exept balance reasons.
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby urogard » Tue 17 Jan 2017 17:38

Doinize wrote:In you compare H*W*L its actually not that inconsistent. Big is anything above 60, with decimal points rounded. Execption bring the Strv-103 with its turretless, flat design and a "stealthy" shape. For a tank...
Isherman and T34/85 being big is a bit stupid tbh, they arent. Isherman has a big gun, thats all the reasoning i can think of exept balance reasons.

I agree, but for balance purposes I think for the size stat, the height parameter should be 40% indicative, the width another 40% and H*W*L the final 20%.

User avatar
Akkku
First Sergeant
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed 9 Nov 2016 17:03

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby Akkku » Wed 18 Jan 2017 09:53

I disagree with the metric you are using. Size doesn't affect visibility, it's merely a CTH modifier in WG. Thus you shouldn't count inert cross sections / volumes. The blue areas:
Image
Image
Image

Furthermore a CTH modifier is not some arbitrary value, which should be used for balancing(which is something you probably weren't proposing anyway), but rather a number determined by ballistic spread and the targets sizes. In other words it's about realism.

On the other hand i agree that inconsistencies need to be dealt with.
Because every fanboy will want his tank to get the best possible value, these matters shouldn't be resolved by popular opinion. Democracy/voting are not tools suited for testing hypotheses. This is a math problem.
Find the correct metric, compile the needed parameters for each vehicle and let an algorithm/ a formula do the rest.
Just like here.
President of Eugen

RedFive
Warrant Officer
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby RedFive » Wed 18 Jan 2017 18:10

Akkku wrote:Thus you shouldn't count inert cross sections / volumes. The blue areas:

I dunno, some of those blue areas seem like they could cause crits at the very least, by hitting fuel, sighting systems, etc. Plus the target remains fully functional right up until the last HP is gone, so hits to inert parts would seem to be reasonable, realism wise.

User avatar
Tamerlane92
Corporal
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 16:13
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby Tamerlane92 » Fri 20 Jan 2017 15:48

I think it have to be discussed. cuz Leclerc was medium, then it can be borderline of how much size is medium/big.

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby Mitchverr » Fri 20 Jan 2017 15:56

Did you take into account hydrolic systems for some of the vehicles such as the STRV 103 series?
Image

User avatar
Tamerlane92
Corporal
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 16:13
Contact:

Re: Vehicle size rebalance

Postby Tamerlane92 » Sat 21 Jan 2017 03:48

Mitchverr wrote:Did you take into account hydrolic systems for some of the vehicles such as the STRV 103 series?

Most people may already know there are only two small sized tanks and Strv-103 is one of them, and may know it have to be exceptional case.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests