Negative values in variants list for starting units

[Mark555]

Would it be possible to have negative values in the variants list for starting units to account for the units/class being worse than ‘standard level 1’ units?
E.g.
Light carriers/Converted = - deck space/speed/armour
Heavy cruiser fitted with 6” guns = -2 firepower
Swordfish biplane = -2 speed
just an idea

 

[Axe99]

It's a useful idea . It'd need to be a mod thing I'd think, but it'd be nice if modding allowed for negative values.

 

[wright1331]

Would it be possible to have negative values in the variants list for starting units to account for the units/class being worse than ‘standard level 1’ units?
E.g.
Light carriers/Converted = - deck space/speed/armour
Heavy cruiser fitted with 6” guns = -2 firepower
Swordfish biplane = -2 speed
just an idea

Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust the base values, instead of making the code take (-) values?

In your example,
Swordfish biplane = -2 speed
would it not be easier to give a +2 to the base value, and then just make the swordfish the old base value?

 

[Alexander Suvorov]

Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust the base values, instead of making the code take (-) values?

This would be rather different as all unit would have it whereas making the game accept negative values (if indeed it does not accept them already) would allow loads of variants. also, you'd have to pay for those variants with xp in the game, as opposed to it being part of the base unit. the concept of paying xp to decrease for example unit reliability, is really strange but whatever you want, who am I to tell you how to spend your xp.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Heavy cruiser fitted with 6” guns

 

[Mark555]

The idea was for the variant to be set up for free at the start of the game to take account of existing designs/classes rather than give everyone standard 0/0/0/0 level one units.

e.g. Heavy Cruiser 1 >10,000t base level (1922) 0/0/0/0

Admiral Scheer launched 33 -11” guns +2 firepower + 1 armour
Zara launched 31 -8” guns standard 0/0/0/0
Mogami launched 34 - 6.1” guns -2 firepower +1 speed
Refitted - 8” guns +1 firepower + 1 speed

Coding wise should be ok – variant values changes from 0 to +5 to -5 to +5
Need to set up starting (free) variants for each nation for the existing tanks/aircraft/ships if differ from base levels

The negative values allow for older/poorer designs than the base level 1

 

[jamoecw]

The idea was for the variant to be set up for free at the start of the game to take account of existing designs/classes rather than give everyone standard 0/0/0/0 level one units.

e.g. Heavy Cruiser 1 >10,000t base level (1922) 0/0/0/0

Admiral Scheer launched 33 -11” guns +2 firepower + 1 armour
Zara launched 31 -8” guns standard 0/0/0/0
Mogami launched 34 - 6.1” guns -2 firepower +1 speed
Refitted - 8” guns +1 firepower + 1 speed

Coding wise should be ok – variant values changes from 0 to +5 to -5 to +5
Need to set up starting (free) variants for each nation for the existing tanks/aircraft/ships if differ from base levels

The negative values allow for older/poorer designs than the base level 1

the 6 inch guns had better accuracy up until 1938 and a better fire rate over its 8 inch replacement. the big advantage of the 8 inch guns was the greater penetration. overall it would be nice to have cultural variations for the major nations (such as zeroes being made out of wood and thus performing different with different material costs), though i'd bet that such things would be made for the game via DLC.

 

[Mark555]

But the Japanese judged the 6.1” design so poor to rebuilt all 4 with 8” guns, the figures used were an example of how a ship can differ over a base 0/0/0/0 design.

As you said would nice to see variations in nations units - British aircraft carriers + armour - deck space etc..

 

[safe-keeper]

Wouldn't it be easier to just adjust the base values, instead of making the code take (-) values?

In your example,
Swordfish biplane = -2 speed
would it not be easier to give a +2 to the base value, and then just make the swordfish the old base value?

This. A Swordfish would be a level one or two aircraft, really archaic and thus with low stats to begin with. Level 1 is basically pre-WWII technology, like the German Grosstraktor tank prototype.

 

[Mark555]

but in the game a carrier based bomber is 1936 level - 140 MPH?

the mark 3 1943 did carry radar

 

[tommylotto]

How about a localization file for each variant level for each model? It would add tons of immersion. Instead of just CA firepower +1, you get "8"/50 (20.3 cm) Mark VIII", or whatever. Instead of just +1 engine for a Pz.III you have different engine models, like "Maybach HL 120 TR", or whatever. Paradox doesn't need to do all the research, just create the localization files, the modders will do the rest.

 

[Mark555]

Hi tommylotto

great - just hate all designs being level 1 or 2 etc. when designs speed/armour/firepower were - or +75%

 

[tommylotto]

I have to agree with wright1331. It is just important to get the various Level I models relatively right. Swordfish, slow. QE-class BB, very good armor and firepower for level I BB. Etc. Negative (-) variants might cause problems. So, you might as well just lower the base stats of the level I model so that it represents the worst example out there and just give all the other level I models a positive modifier.

 

[jamoecw]

But the Japanese judged the 6.1” design so poor to rebuilt all 4 with 8” guns, the figures used were an example of how a ship can differ over a base 0/0/0/0 design.

As you said would nice to see variations in nations units - British aircraft carriers + armour - deck space etc..

personally i think the 8 inch guns were as much a matter of more firepower as political agenda. the washington naval treaty limited guns on heavy cruisers to 8 inches or less, and the government wanted to build to the limit. the extra penetration was good, but the inability to reliably hit another ship at range (about 3% under ideal conditions originally) meant that the ship had to get close, but could take out a battleship if it did (which is tough to do given the firepower disparity).

i would like to see japanese tank being used by japan (fast light tanks that performed well against infantry and could handle the jungle terrain, but were poor against armour).

I have to agree with wright1331. It is just important to get the various Level I models relatively right. Swordfish, slow. QE-class BB, very good armor and firepower for level I BB. Etc. Negative (-) variants might cause problems. So, you might as well just lower the base stats of the level I model so that it represents the worst example out there and just give all the other level I models a positive modifier.

it amounts to the same for the base game, though once modding gets involved allowing for negative values should make it easier on the modders as they don't have to redo all units to match the new lowest level.

 

[Mark555]

hi tommylotto

fine - allow a 0 to +10 to give more design flexibility, rather than limit to - or +5
but some pre level 1 designs cannot be modelled if fixed at 0/0/0/0

HT1 Matilda II - max 16 mph

 

[Axe99]

hi tommylotto

fine - allow a 0 to +10 to give more design flexibility, rather than limit to - or +5
but some pre level 1 designs cannot be modelled if fixed at 0/0/0/0

I think for a deeper tech tree might be the answer for pre-level 1 designs. It needn't interfere with the UI (those models are unlikely to be built during the period of the game, but are instead pre-existing), and that way you can have low starting stats for older tanks, aircraft and ships.

 

[Mark555]

hi Axe99

agreed - just this is a simple system to give the basic out of box game flexibility if there is no base 1918 level 1's

 

[SchwarzKatze]

The idea was for the variant to be set up for free at the start of the game to take account of existing designs/classes rather than give everyone standard 0/0/0/0 level one units.

e.g. Heavy Cruiser 1 >10,000t base level (1922) 0/0/0/0

Admiral Scheer launched 33 -11” guns +2 firepower + 1 armour
Zara launched 31 -8” guns standard 0/0/0/0
Mogami launched 34 - 6.1” guns -2 firepower +1 speed
Refitted - 8” guns +1 firepower + 1 speed

Coding wise should be ok – variant values changes from 0 to +5 to -5 to +5
Need to set up starting (free) variants for each nation for the existing tanks/aircraft/ships if differ from base levels

The negative values allow for older/poorer designs than the base level 1

That particular example is poor because the difference of heavy and light cruisers is based solely on the caliber of their largest guns. All cruisers of the treaties' signatories must not carry a gun exceeding 8" in caliber, and cruisers are further divided into those carrying guns no larger than 6" (later 6.1") and those that do, i.e. CL and CA.

Even after the treaty expired, the principle still holds, and nobody disputes that Yūbari at 2840 long tons and Cleveland at 11744 long tons both belongs to the same designation.

But the Japanese judged the 6.1” design so poor to rebuilt all 4 with 8” guns, the figures used were an example of how a ship can differ over a base 0/0/0/0 design.

As you said would nice to see variations in nations units - British aircraft carriers + armour - deck space etc..

And no, the 6.1" wasn't particularly poor, it's because Japan wanted to build more CA, but their CA tonnage had run out so they build big CL that happens to be able to carry 8" in the same rings. When they wanted true light cruisers, they built the Agano which was much smaller than the convertible Mogami or Tone.

IMHO better examples would be Ise or Mogami's flight deck fitting after turret explosions which made them undergunned at their displacement.