Should there be a tech-level stat?

[rezaf]

As some might know, I'm currently working on some scenarios concerning the Spanish Civil War.
This war lasted from 1936 to 1939, and I'm having a really hard time modeling the low-tech units used there as compared to WW2, despite the war coming to an end in the exact year WW2 started.
For example, the Nationalists use some very weak italian tankette, the L3/33. It's a good deal worse even than the PanzerI. The Republicans use the Renault FT tank constructed and fielded in WW1, for which the same holds true.
But the PanzerI has a soft and hard attack of a whopping 1. How do I model ANY unit worse than a PanzerI in these circumstances?
Short of redesigning the entire equipment file to adjust the relative strengths, I mean.

I think a good solution would be the introduction of a tech-level column in the equipment file.
To make it fully backward compatible, the column should be optional, and if it wasn't there or empty, each unit would automatically get a tech level of 100.
Otherwise, if I were to make, say an Abbesinian war scenario, I could have Ethiopian units of various strengths clearly differencing then from one another, but their tech level would be set to, say 50 (just making this number up), so even a Str 10 Inf from that tech level could not hope to defeat a polish Str2 WW2 Infantry unit.
I could create SCW units of varying strengths, but set the tech level accordingly to keep a distinctive power level.

I think, given a thought out formula, this would allow modders to create units from various eras while keeping the same equipment file, and other modders could pit these units against each other and get predictable and distinct results.
Especially WW1 era units, which were often actually still put to use in WW2, are a likely suspect for employing such mechanic - a WW1 elite fighter, bomber or artillery piece could be created that would rule the opposition in any WW1 based scenario but be properly ineffective against any WW2 era equivalent.

I'm curious what other folks, especially fellow modders, have to say about this topic...
_____
rezaf

[Xerkis]

I know I have seen some units with negative attacks – usually in the air attack slot.
What would happen if you put negatives in the pre-WW2 units? Would they react properly with each other but then hopelessly out gunned against the WW2 units?

Just an initial thought to try.


What you’re asking for is a bit of a rewrite to the code. Not that it can’t be done – but would it be worth it?

[TheGrayMouser]

I know I have seen some units with negative attacks – usually in the air attack slot.
What would happen if you put negatives in the pre-WW2 units? Would they react properly with each other but then hopelessly out gunned against the WW2 units?

Just an initial thought to try.

The negative values just mean the unit can only "passively" fight a combat in that slot type, so a negative in air attack mean they use that value as a postive when being attacked by an air unit, but cant "seek out" an airunit to shoot at on their active turn.

[rezaf]

What you’re asking for is a bit of a rewrite to the code. Not that it can’t be done – but would it be worth it?

I'm pretty sure the actual combat calculations aren't spread across the source code but concentrated in one place, so it'd be essently only tweaking a single formula, introducing an additional multiplicator. It SHOULD be relatively trivial to implement.

As for it being worth it ... answer my question: How do I depict a tank that is worse than a panzer1 using the current stats?
_____
rezaf

[TheGrayMouser]

What you’re asking for is a bit of a rewrite to the code. Not that it can’t be done – but would it be worth it?

I'm pretty sure the actual combat calculations aren't spread across the source code but concentrated in one place, so it'd be essently only tweaking a single formula, introducing an additional multiplicator. It SHOULD be relatively trivial to implement.

As for it being worth it ... answer my question: How do I depict a tank that is worse than a panzer1 using the current stats?
_____
rezaf

Hmm, couple things although not necasarily ideal: reduce initiative ammo/fuel levels defense values etc Also, set them in the equipment file to have less than 10 sp's max , maybe 5 ??

[Xerkis]

What you’re asking for is a bit of a rewrite to the code. Not that it can’t be done – but would it be worth it?

I'm pretty sure the actual combat calculations aren't spread across the source code but concentrated in one place, so it'd be essently only tweaking a single formula, introducing an additional multiplicator. It SHOULD be relatively trivial to implement.

As for it being worth it ... answer my question: How do I depict a tank that is worse than a panzer1 using the current stats?
_____
rezaf

Not necessarily. It depends on how the rest of the code is written. Sure this new column might only be used in one formula – but the file itself is used all over the place for many reasons. You would be changing the file size by adding a column to it – that new column needs to be handled even if the data in it isn’t used at the time. But again – this depends on how the code was originally written; this may not be an issue but it needs to be considered. Also again, it’s not imposable to do, just that the benefits from it wouldn’t necessarily justify the hours needed to make the change… although (thinking out loud here) you could add a new “tech” file that only needs to be accessed when making the calculations. But obviously the down side of that is you now have a second file that needs to be maintained.

To answer your question on how to do this:
Having the stats of pre-WW2 units isn’t an issue when they are segregated and only interact with other pre-WW2 units. Make a base line and go from there. You only have an issue when you want WW2 units and pre-WW2 units interacting. How often is anyone truly going to be doing that? Rewrite code just for one small possibility? Sorry – but with all respect to you and your great work I’ve seen – I don’t see how that would be worth the effort – no matter how small of an effort it might be.

[rezaf]

You would be changing the file size by adding a column to it

The days of coding in assembler are long over, so I'd presume definitions are in ONE file of the sourcecode, and combat calculations in another ONE file.
Handling an optional column in the equipment file should be equally trivial, as there should be ONE function interacting with it you'd need to change.
Like I said, it should be very trivial. I say that as someone who knows how to program himself (though I only do humble business-related stuff).

Having the stats of pre-WW2 units isn’t an issue when they are segregated and only interact with other pre-WW2 units. Make a base line and go from there. You only have an issue when you want WW2 units and pre-WW2 units interacting. How often is anyone truly going to be doing that? Rewrite code just for one small possibility? Sorry – but with all respect to you and your great work I’ve seen – I don’t see how that would be worth the effort – no matter how small of an effort it might be.

Well, my whole conclusion was that VERY LITTLE effort is necessary, which I think it could potentially be worth.
And of course it only affects conflicts "around ww2", such as the Spanish Civil War or the Abbessinian War.
But disagreeing with that is obviously no disrespect to me, please take note that I'm asking the question in the thread title, as opposed to "WE NEED THIS! IMPLEMENT NOW KTHXBYE". I'd be genuinely interested in what other modders have to say about the issue.

With the current pace of the game's patch cycle, I'm convinced nothing will change in a LONG time regardless, so this is more or less a rhetorical discussion for now anyway.
_____
rezaf

[Xerkis]

All true rezaf – except for the fact that we know they have hardcoded some things in to the coding of the game. Something that has gone out way before what you mentioned and something that is never done.

So we can’t assume anything about how the file is laid out in the code or where it is tied in to it.
And I also say this as someone who has been programming for more years and in more languages than I care to count.

.............

Changing hats to be as a fellow modder (granted a fairly new one at that, but still working on it just the same) I understand the benefits that your idea would bring (I truly do) but just wouldn’t use it. At least not with what scenarios and campaigns I have been working on and one I want to work on.

Fair enough of an answer?

[rezaf]

Sure enough Xerkis.
I agree that IF it'd be a significant amount of work, it'd be not worth it. Can we agree on that?

Maybe a good alternative would be to lay bare the hardcoded modifiers for stuff like Unit-On-River or Rugged-Defense.
If these could be modified, somebody could just scale up the entire equipment file, if so he desired (chances are I could be that he), to come to the same result I have in mind.
The only think that prevents that now is that, to scaled up units, these hardoded modifiers would be nigh irrelevant.

But I'm sure you'll next reply that opening up those modifiers to modders would be too much work and entirely not worth it...
_____
rezaf

[Xerkis]

When you say “scale up” the e-file – do you mean like multiply all the values in question by 20 (or some number) thus the attack 1 is now 20?
Yeah that surely could be done – but I wonder what that would do to all the other mechanics of the game. I have no idea on that one… easy enough to test it out though. (would have to change prestige as well)

And as far as opening up those modifiers – the devs need to figure out where they want to go with this game (or where they want to allow us to go with it). Mod anything and everything – or mod nothing – or someplace in the middle? And what makes up that middle?
To change all that now – after initial design – it actually might not be worth it (didn’t want to disappoint you with not giving that answer ).
But that is something that really needs to be put in place long before the first line of code is written.
………. And I don’t mean to come down on the devs there (if it sounded like I did) just that it’s hard to switch a systems philosophy in the middle of coding; and especially after a release.

[VPaulus]

Gentleman, if you don't mind, I agree with both.
Both make valid points.

[El_Condoro]

I understand this thread is about tech levels but the original catalyst was about the weakness of the Pz I and II. I think they are ridiculously under-strength. Sure their HA will be very low but why is their SA so low? Anyway, in response to the actual purpose of this thread I believe a rethink of the unit stats is in order and perhaps modders can use unit experience to simulate the tech level. That assumes experience has a large enough effect, which I want to test for my own understanding anyway.

[Kerensky]

I understand this thread is about tech levels but the original catalyst was about the weakness of the Pz I and II. I think they are ridiculously under-strength. Sure their HA will be very low but why is their SA so low?

This is addressed in the patch BETA.

[Martin_Goliath]

What you’re asking for is a bit of a rewrite to the code. Not that it can’t be done – but would it be worth it?

I'm pretty sure the actual combat calculations aren't spread across the source code but concentrated in one place, so it'd be essently only tweaking a single formula, introducing an additional multiplicator. It SHOULD be relatively trivial to implement.

As for it being worth it ... answer my question: How do I depict a tank that is worse than a panzer1 using the current stats?
_____
rezaf

The attack value of a unit is used when calculating the effective attack value (call it A), and similarly the defence value is used when determining the effective defence value (D). Now, the hit probability depends only on their difference (A-D). In other words, if the attack and defence values of all equipment are shifted by the same amount, combat results should remain the same. Thus, one solution might be to do that and then put the crappy unit at attack 1, defence 1, or something similar. All this assumes that the attack and defence values are not used for other purposes as well.

[Xerkis]

What you’re asking for is a bit of a rewrite to the code. Not that it can’t be done – but would it be worth it?

I'm pretty sure the actual combat calculations aren't spread across the source code but concentrated in one place, so it'd be essently only tweaking a single formula, introducing an additional multiplicator. It SHOULD be relatively trivial to implement.

As for it being worth it ... answer my question: How do I depict a tank that is worse than a panzer1 using the current stats?
_____
rezaf

The attack value of a unit is used when calculating the effective attack value (call it A), and similarly the defence value is used when determining the effective defence value (D). Now, the hit probability depends only on their difference (A-D). In other words, if the attack and defence values of all equipment are shifted by the same amount, combat results should remain the same. Thus, one solution might be to do that and then put the crappy unit at attack 1, defence 1, or something similar. All this assumes that the attack and defence values are not used for other purposes as well.

I believe Rezaf is needing to go much lower than that with what he is planning on doing.

[Martin_Goliath]

I'm pretty sure the actual combat calculations aren't spread across the source code but concentrated in one place, so it'd be essently only tweaking a single formula, introducing an additional multiplicator. It SHOULD be relatively trivial to implement.

As for it being worth it ... answer my question: How do I depict a tank that is worse than a panzer1 using the current stats?
_____
rezaf

The attack value of a unit is used when calculating the effective attack value (call it A), and similarly the defence value is used when determining the effective defence value (D). Now, the hit probability depends only on their difference (A-D). In other words, if the attack and defence values of all equipment are shifted by the same amount, combat results should remain the same. Thus, one solution might be to do that and then put the crappy unit at attack 1, defence 1, or something similar. All this assumes that the attack and defence values are not used for other purposes as well.

I believe Rezaf is needing to go much lower than that with what he is planning on doing.

I think a shift can take you arbitrarily low if you like.

As an example, let's pick two unit s from the Poland scenario: Pz1B (soft attack 1, ground defence 6, initiative 2, strength 10) and polish infantry (hard attack 1, ground defence 6, intiative 0, strength 10). Other things being equal (no entrenchment, initiative die rolls=0, &c) the Pz1B will shoot first (A=1) against the infantry (D=6). A-D=-5, which means 21% kill, 7% suppression (check with Ctrl-click to find probabilities). With 10 shots, the most probable outcome is 2 kills. The infantry (A=6) against Pz1B (D=6) also means A-D=-5, and if 9 are unsuppressed to shoot back, this would mean 1 or 2 kills (not sure if 1.89 is rounded to 2 or cut to 1). In other words, a 2-2 exchange or thereabouts.

Making a shift of 5, the Pz1B will now have soft attack 6, ground defence 11 (initiative and strength the same), and the polish infantry hard attack 6, ground defence 11. The Pz1B vs infantry combat will play out exactly the same. Now we construct a new unit, Crap1, with soft attack 1, ground defence 6, initiative 2, strength 10. Attacking the infantry, Crap1 would shoot first, but with A-D=-10, resulting in 12% kill, 6% suppression. So 10 shots will probably result in 1 kill. Shooting back, the infantry now gets A-D=+5, or 61% kill, 11% suppression. 6 kills from 10 shots, and a 1-6 exchange (at least that is the prediction).

So, if shifting attack and defence values does not affect other things, this maybe could be a way to open up for outdated equipment.

[Xerkis]

Goliath, I believe what you are saying is one of the things that Rezaf had suggested above. And as he mentioned, there might be other issue with doing that with regards to the game mechanics. But it could be the only possible solution at the moment.