WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby throwaway » Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:02

urogard wrote:
Mike wrote:Extra rounds gotta count for something. Like 5 to 10 points more.

There's no data to support that claim.
Alternatively, how many points do you think is 170 supplies are worth?

Let's not start listing up inconsistencies in Arty pricing, that's at least 2-3 pages of text with PACT having a 2:1 ratio of overpriced howitzers.

Image
How do you feel about this data, which is a direct coincidence of ammo capacity's influence on salvo length?

Image
You know, I thought that eugen being asked by forumgoers to "buff" the paladin into a shorter salvo for harder counterarty was an exaggerated myth, but maybe some of the masterminds behind that are still with us and posting here.
Last edited by throwaway on Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:09, edited 1 time in total.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:08

M110 requires far less micro because it only pops off 2 rounds. If you que up move orders you will get out of the way of counter battery fire with a few seconds to spare. Pion/Malkas require babysitting in case of counter battery fire.


I usually fire off 1 or 2 rounds with the 2S7, that's enough to take out any unarmoured target. It's fine if you have LOS - uncorrected fire is usually a waste of ammo. I don't use it for smoke or barrage so the aim times don't matter as much. Having said that, I no longer use the Gvozdika or any of the cheaper arty except the NK 130mm, which is decent.

Yes, let's conveniently ignore 15sec shot reload these howitzers have over 4 / 8 rounds, while all have 30sec salvo reload (and the 35sec aim time).


I can deal with long salvoes, long aim times are a problem.

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby throwaway » Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:12

Steamfunk wrote:I can deal with long salvoes, long aim times are a problem.


It is unfortunate that you lose any effective rof advantage if you try to switch targets after firing a bit.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:30

throwaway wrote:How do you feel about this data, which is a direct coincidence of ammo capacity's influence on salvo length?

Please elaborate on your actual argument.

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby throwaway » Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:43

You pay for not only extra ammo but extra fire rate and salvo length. With the long aim time of 10he, you lose that benefit if you switch targets, and firing more than 2 against a jeep is overkill, but maybe you're willing to pay extra if you're shooting an enemy that isn't guaranteed to move after the first two shots (small town, or maybe even the reinforcement point).

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:56

throwaway wrote:You pay for not only extra ammo but extra fire rate and salvo length. With the long aim time of 10he, you lose that benefit if you switch targets, and firing more than 2 against a jeep is overkill, but maybe you're willing to pay extra if you're shooting an enemy that isn't guaranteed to move after the first two shots (small town, or maybe even the reinforcement point).

Wonderful argument. Now all that's still missing are the actual numbers.

How much markup is the extra ammo?
Why should this markup be a flat 30 pts for Malka (2 extra rounds, 40% of the price) and Pion (6 extra rounds, 33% of the price)?
And why is there no such strong markup for other arties?
Because I haven't found any justifications for these prices in this extent, hence why they are all inconsistencies in arty pricing.

By your logic BKAN should cost something like 170 points then (please calculate actual BKAN/Paladin price based on your parameters and post it so we can compare it with my calculations, and post the formula so we can see how it compares with other arties).

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby throwaway » Wed 31 Jan 2018 17:12

urogard wrote:Wonderful argument. Now all that's still missing are the actual numbers.

How much markup is the extra ammo?
Why should this markup be a flat 30 pts for Malka (2 extra rounds, 40% of the price) and Pion (6 extra rounds, 33% of the price)?

Where are your numbers? You're the one challenging the status quo. I won't accept anything more primitive than a support vector machine.

urogard wrote:And why is there no such strong markup for other arties?
Because I haven't found any justifications for these prices in this extent, hence why they are all inconsistencies in arty pricing.

By your logic BKAN should cost something like 170 points then (please calculate actual BKAN/Paladin price based on your parameters and post it so we can compare it with my calculations, and post the formula so we can see how it compares with other arties).


Because a lot of these numbers were put there because they needed to initialize the field before compiling, or from historical documents, and then never thought about again. I'm not out to argue that the entire arty tab is balanced, in fact I thought I made it clear that I think the BKAN is out of line (and should stay that way, scandi needs **flavor**).

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 31 Jan 2018 17:42

By your logic BKAN should cost something like 170 points then


You pay for Bkan in terms of supply, maybe that's the deal? I don't think there's anything else to compare it to, except the Vasilek (which is a mortar so different rules apply).

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby HrcAk47 » Wed 31 Jan 2018 18:32

Urogard, you're in way over your head. Please, I'd advise you to stop posting. Just play the game if you prefer, but stop arguing about balance.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Wed 31 Jan 2018 19:27

throwaway wrote:
urogard wrote:Wonderful argument. Now all that's still missing are the actual numbers.

How much markup is the extra ammo?
Why should this markup be a flat 30 pts for Malka (2 extra rounds, 40% of the price) and Pion (6 extra rounds, 33% of the price)?

Where are your numbers? You're the one challenging the status quo. I won't accept anything more primitive than a support vector machine.

Already posted them on the previous page.

Malka/Pion have identical stats (accuracy, HE, aim time) to M109/A2 and should therefore be priced identically (70/90 pts) with the same availability 4/3.
The current price difference is a discrepancy that requires correction.
That by definition means that my claim includes the part about RoF and Ammo having no effect whatsoever on the price in the current setup, because there's no data to support that fact, at least I couldn't find any relevant data (caesar vs nora-b, anything else requires cross-comparison over multiple units and regression analyses which you're refusing to do for some reason).

If you want to make the counter claim that RoF and Ammo does have an effect on price, then you better be able to clearly show that that's true.
And your single comparison between 2 arties where there's half a dozen stat differences (speed, range, ammo, rof, accuracy, price) is insufficient to be able draw all the conclusions you're inferring from that comparison.

Also don't get confused about making claims along the lines of "Arties SHOULD pay more for more ammo carried". Whether or not they should isn't up for debate, I believe they should as well. However the way EUG designed howitzers ignores this stat and that's a very simple fact.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests