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

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

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

Postby Mike » Thu 1 Feb 2018 05:29

Steamfunk wrote:
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).


The Bkan is a unique type of system I believe. Had its rounds feed from a magazine so it could burst fire 14 or 15 rounds really quick.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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 » Thu 1 Feb 2018 19:03

Mike wrote:
Steamfunk wrote:
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).


The Bkan is a unique type of system I believe. Had its rounds feed from a magazine so it could burst fire 14 or 15 rounds really quick.

I agree, I think EUG meant, from a balance perspective, to not count BKAN in the howitzer group but a unique unit similar like the ATACMS.

That's why I wouldn't try to include it in any howitzer pricing debate but I can understand if people want to include it there.

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 » Fri 2 Feb 2018 00:12

Steamfunk wrote:
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).

You're barking up the wrong tree.

You should ask throwaway why he thought BKAN vs Paladin is a sensible comparison in the first place. To me there's no logic comparing two units which have nothing in common.
throwaway wrote:


I've merely shown the numbers why, if we follow his own logic, we'd end up with a BKAN 1C costing 170 points instead of the current 130. But that simply shows that his RoF theory is wrong, and literally nothing else [We can't say BKAN has correct or incorrect price, we can't say which other stat is a factor in pricing. We cannot draw any other conclusion based on that].

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 » Fri 2 Feb 2018 03:10

We're talking about what units should cost. You can make arguments from precedent but you are wrong to expect that everyone is posting with the intent of formulating a system of law based in interpreting random eugen pricing. Regarding the statement that BKAN and Paladin have nothing in common, I will just say that you have a special way of thinking that differs strongly from mine. Finally, all your "showing of numbers" has been verbal argumentation.

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 » Fri 2 Feb 2018 13:47

throwaway wrote:Regarding the statement that BKAN and Paladin have nothing in common, I will just say that you have a special way of thinking that differs strongly from mine.

"I am thinking differently than you, but I won't tell you how."
Ok, sound logic for replying on forums in the first place I guess. :roll:
throwaway wrote:Finally, all your "showing of numbers" has been verbal argumentation.

If you have no intention of posting your numers to support your side of the argument then just say so right from the start and be done with it. Don't keep hiding behind the idea of moving the goalposts all the time.
Urogard wrote:Malka/Pion have identical stats (accuracy, HE, aim time) to M110/A2 and should therefore be priced identically (70/90 pts) with the same availability 4/3.

Pion 10HE/35 secs aim/4550m dispersion = 3/2 avail + 100 pts
M110 10HE/35 secs aim/4550m dispersion = 4/3 avail + 70 pts

Malka 10HE/35 secs aim/3640m dispersion = 2/1 avail + 120 pts
M110A2 10HE/35 secs aim/3640m dispersion = 3/2 avail + 90 pts

MSTA-S 7HE/10 secs aim/4550m dispersion = 2/1 avail + 130 pts
K9 Thunder 7HE/10 secs aim/3640m dispersion = 2/1 avail + 125 pts

You're posting an awful lot despite showing no data to support your claim of:
throwaway wrote:You pay for not only extra ammo but extra fire rate and salvo length.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

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

Postby Razzmann » Fri 2 Feb 2018 13:50

He posted hard data in the first post of page 18...

Also your whole argument of what Eugen wants units to be balanced around is utter trash when 80% of balance changes do not even originate from them.

Also the whole "Bkan is completely different from the other howitzers and should not be used in compariyon" lol. Get real dude.

And even if we consider that everything Eugen did is on purpose and not them being inconsistent / not bothering to balance more stuff...
How about you show us data that RoF/Salvo length and ammo do not increase the price of 10/9 HE howitzers. You consider the Bkan something "special" like the ATACMS, but you use the 7HE/10s aim time howitzer "data" of RoF / ammo on 10/9 HE and 35s aim time howitzers that fullfill a completely different role, instead of seeing them as a diffeeent class of units?

Vobule may have not chosen the best words, but he was completely right....

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

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

Postby Steamfunk » Sat 3 Feb 2018 00:49

The original Wargame EE spreadsheet gives a damage/price ratio based on ROF, AP and accuracy for units both stationary and on the move. Arty ROF is/was independent of salvo length and I assume this plus the damage value dictates the price per unit, the problem is the arty mechanic is completely different now. Long salvoes aren't for the 2S7 but they were or still are a draw for lower calibre units like the Abbott and Gvozdika.
Last edited by Steamfunk on Sat 3 Feb 2018 01:02, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Sat 3 Feb 2018 00:57

Razzmann wrote:He posted hard data in the first post of page 18...

No, he posted 2 pictures which show no pattern of anything and then asked a question. He didn't even state any premise or conclusion, just a plain question. We still don't know his position.

Razzmann wrote:Also your whole argument of what Eugen wants units to be balanced around is utter trash when 80% of balance changes do not even originate from them.

Last time I checked, authorship of the idea is irrelevant because EUG is the one implementing the things they believe falls into their idea of "balancing".

Or do you now want to attribute RPK-74 DPS to me alone because I was the one who opened half a dozen threads and forced 50-60 pages of discussion after the patch that reduced RPK-74/LADA RPK DPS/suppression to below RPK levels, as well as claiming that EUG deciding to fix that DPS had nothing to do with how EUG wants units to be balanced?

Your argument of authorship determining EUG agreement with balancing in their own patches is utter trash.

Razzmann wrote:Also the whole "Bkan is completely different from the other howitzers and should not be used in compariyon" lol. Get real dude.

Your point being?
I get that you don't agree with someone's opinion, but either provide arguments or don't post that you disagree because that implies you don't know yourself what your stance is and/or why you're willing to believe it.

We got the Vasilek which carries a 50% (15 pts) price premium for its "special ability". And it's sure as shit not because of its grandiose displayed RoF of 20 r/m when other 3HE mortars have only 10% less RoF. That's even less RoF difference than 7HE arties with 3640m dispersion have (because according to throwaway, displayed RoF is apparently a balance factor)

Razzmann wrote:And even if we consider that everything Eugen did is on purpose and not them being inconsistent / not bothering to balance more stuff...

Well, that's a pretty bold claim to even imply everything EUG does is on purpose while we have a sticky thread outlining over a hundred inconsistencies on NATO side alone and probably around a hundred more for PACT.
So until you can provide hard data that price discrepancies in similar units are actually intended as opposed to simply being discrepancies which EUG hasn't come around fixing, I'll assume occams razor:
urogard wrote:The current price difference is a discrepancy that requires correction.


Razzmann wrote:How about you show us data that RoF/Salvo length and ammo do not increase the price of 10/9 HE howitzers. You consider the Bkan something "special" like the ATACMS, but you use the 7HE/10s aim time howitzer "data" of RoF / ammo on 10/9 HE and 35s aim time howitzers that fullfill a completely different role, instead of seeing them as a diffeeent class of units?

Mortars are surely a different class of units than howitzers, yet they ignore ammo count in their pricing [M125 / Podnos] | [SM-82 M-60PM vs FV432(M)]. They even ignore armor differences [Telakrh 71 vs YP-408 PW-MT] | [Telakrh 66 vs Makmat] | [ShM vz85 PRAM-S vs PzMrs M113].
7HE fast firing Howitzers not only ignore ammo count [caesar vs nora-b] but rof and speed as well (actually even range) [paladin vs ondava].
Slow firing 5HE, 6HE and 7HE howitzers allow no reasonable conclusion due to contradictory data (some arties suggest a pattern while others refute it, but you're welcome to show otherwise, my post is long enough already)
Slow firing 9HE howitzers behave irregularly as well. First a significant increase in accuracy and range carries huge premium [M107 vs Romach] but then later a much larger increase in accuracy, ammo count and rof and a small reduction in range carries a very small premium [Romach vs Koksan]. Accuracy is clearly important, so increasing it will increase price. But unless range is a massively important stat for the pricing of slow firing arty (close to being the single most important stat price-wise), then the koksan price cannot be affected by ammo count and rof. All of this assumes that the M107/Romach/Koksan has actually the correct prices as opposed to having some inconsistencies.

So we have the data that 3HE, 5HE and 6HE Mortar pricing doesn't care about ammo count (rof is 100% standardized).
We also have the data that fast firing 7HE Howitzer pricing doesn't care about ammo count or rof.
Data on slow firing howitzers is inconclusive.

For the sake of argument, let's assume your premise of 10HE howitzers being a different class of unit holds true.
#1 We know that in EVERY CLASS the combination of accuracy and caliber carries a high correlation with price.
#2 We found 2 classes of arties on different ends of the spectrum (mortars and fast aiming howitzers) where we know that ammo count and RoF carries no weight in the pricing scheme whatsoever.
#3 The middle of the spectrum (slow firing howitzers) allows for no definitive conclusion based on available data.

Now we can draw 2 possible conclusions:
- Every class of arties uses the same parameters to determine price without exception. And since neither mortars, nor fast-aiming arties use ammo count or RoF as pricing factor, slow-aiming arties consequently do not use this either.
=> Arties which do not follow this pattern are inconsistencies (which we have already established to be a regular occurence in the RD armory).

- Every class of arties uses accuracy and caliber to determine price. But unlike mortars and fast-aiming arties, slow-aiming howitzers are an exception to this and also use ammo count and rof (or whatever else) for their pricing.
=> This exception is not easily visible because the arties that do not follow this pricing pattern are inconsistencies (which we have already established to be a regular occurence in the RD armory).

I'll go with occams razor on this one because it doesn't require a weird exception to be put in place for the pricing scheme to make sense (either ammo count and rof is always a factor in pricing or it never is, as opposed to just sometimes).
Razzmann wrote:Vobule may have not chosen the best words, but he was completely right....

Vobule hasn't posted in this thread, unless you mean his ad hominem in the other, then yes. That was truly a pinnacle of human logic and argumentation.

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 » Sat 3 Feb 2018 00:59

Steamfunk wrote:The original Wargame EE spreadsheet gives a damage/price ratio based on ROF, AP and accuracy for units both stationary and on the move. Arty ROF is/was independent of salvo length and I assume this plus the damage value dictates the price per unit, the problem is the arty mechanic is completely different now and all the old Pact units have long salvo times..

Well in EE if I remember correctly, howitzers became more accurate with each shot they fired without interruption, so firing longer salvos carried tangible benefits.
Unlike in RD

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

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

Postby hansbroger » Sat 3 Feb 2018 01:00

Probably the one thing I would change would be a move to a Russian/SD LoS indicator for units and a compression of the capability gap between SF, shock and line inf.

Anything else is nitpicking but the one thing that bugs me the most is just how prevalent SF are in this game. I'd much rather the spotlight be on units like RMC, airborne troops and the like, the semi-elite yet conventionally structured and employed.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests