Myne Unit making mathworks

[Argetnyx]

I have been working on taking real plane/tank statistics and turning them into civ-worthy numbers, they go as follows:

Land VehiclesSee below)
kg= weight in kg
mph= speed in mph
mm= bore of main gun in mm
T= number of turrets
A= thickest armoer in mm

Cost: (kg/1000)+70
Movement: mph/10
Attack: (mm/10+(T-1))+10
Attack (Howitzer): mm/10
Defense: ((mph/10+A)/10)+mm/10

Aircraft: (Unfinished)
lb: weight in lb
hp: horsepower of engines
lbt: thrust of engines in lb
km: range in km
c: cervice ceiling in ft
kph: speed in kph
mm: total bores of all guns in mm
E: number of engines
kg: weight of bombs in kg

Cost: (lb/1000+(hp+lbt)/100)+70
Range: km/200
Attack: (c/1000+kph/10+mm)/10
Defense: ((c/1000+kph/10+mm)/10)-(E-1)
Bombard: mm/20+kg/300
Damage: (mm/20+kg/300)/2

DON'T JUST COPY WHATS HERE, LOOK FOR MORE UPDATES BELOW.

 

[general-jcl]

It's a good idea. I've done the same thing but with different formulas in my Barbarossa scenario.
I think cost of the unit should be correlated to attack, defense, bombard values and special abilities (furtivitiy, ...) not to weight only. With your formula you can have light efficient unit and so heavy useless unit

 

[Argetnyx]

yes, ive been thinking of that, im trying to work in engine horsepower and gun bore. My problem is trying to make it fit for all tanks, its hard when you have the 3,000 kg CV-33 on one end and the 188,000 kg Maus on the other.

 

[Argetnyx]

Oh, yeah, another thing; if anyone has any suggestions, I would really love to hear them.

A good research site http://www.wwiivehicles.com/

 

[Argetnyx]

It's a good idea. I've done the same thing but with different formulas in my Barbarossa scenario.
I think cost of the unit should be correlated to attack, defense, bombard values and special abilities (furtivitiy, ...) not to weight only. With your formula you can have light efficient unit and so heavy useless unit

The whole point of cost (in my view) is the amount of resources and skill needed to build the unit, adding in special abilities just defeats the purpose of it.

 

[Madeira]

I've thought of that for tanks, airplanes and ships too, and im currently using a formula for calculating unit costs. One problem is finding all the necessary data for all the units we put in a mod

 

[Argetnyx]

One problem is finding all the necessary data for all the units we put in a mod

the ships are even harder

 

[Argetnyx]

V2

Atk=((W/P/-10)+A+R/S+w)/20+G/10+10-h

Def=(A+G)/20+10-w-h

Key:
W= Weight (kg)
P= Power (hp)
A= Armor (mm)
R= Range (km)
S= Speed (kph)
w= Width (m)
G= Gun (mm)
h= Height (m)

Mods:
Long gun length= G=+10
Howitzer= G=-10 (Atk), G= +10 (+10 more if in a turret) (DeF)

 

[timerover51]

V2

Atk=((W/P/-10)+A+R/S+w)/20+G/10+10-h

Def=(A+G)/20+10-w-h

Key:
W= Weight (kg)
P= Power (hp)
A= Armor (mm)
R= Range (km)
S= Speed (kph)
w= Width (m)
G= Gun (mm)
h= Height (m)

Mods:
Long gun length= G=+10
Howitzer= G=-10 (Atk), G= +10 (+10 more if in a turret) (DeF)

Hmm, I have some formulas from various sources, some of them better than others. Probably the best source for a ship formula that I have found was developed by Fletcher Pratt, for use in his naval war game. It is a very good one. Planes and tanks are a bit harder.

I am a bit busy this weekend, since it is my 40th high school reunion, but I will try to post the Fletcher ship formula next week. It is fairly predictive of actual combat results, and you could adapt it to cover cost as well, with maybe a little tweaking.

For WW2 tanks, you really need to look at gun velocity, crew size, equipment, and horsepower to weight ratio as well. A high-velocity gun required a larger turret ring diameter than a low-velocity weapon, which drove up weight, and in turn meant a more powerful engine, and normally more armor to protect the larger and more valuable vehicle.

For aircraft, you need to look at things like type of engine, i.e, liquid verses air-cooled, as that had a major influence on toughness and survivability. Same with things like self-sealing fuels tanks, presence of armor, wing loading, type of engine supercharging, along with a bunch of aerodynamic factors. For example, a P-51 had a 20% chance of returning from a mission if it suffered any damage at all, while the P-47 had a 40% chance of returning from a mission if damaged. Because on ground attack missions, an aircraft had a much higher likelihood of damage, the P-47 was much preferred as a fighter-bomber. One reason for the continued production of the P-40 throughout the war was its immense toughness and ability to take damage, similar to the P-47. And none of the includes electronic equipment, particularly radar for night fighters.

Production efficiency also varied, with the US and UK being the most efficient at producing hardware, the Germans about 75% as efficient, Russians unknown, the Italians about 50% as efficient, and the Japanese about 25% as efficient as the US. That is hard to adequately reflect in the game, unless you play around with the government setting and worker efficiency. The US and the UK also turned out very well equipped units, the Germans were about as good, while the Russians, Italians, and especially the Japanese tended much more for the bare-bones approach.

Electronics played a larger and larger role as WW2 went on, and are the major cost factor now. To have an accurate formula, you would need to crank that in too, as a late-war ship was normally far more capable than an early war ship, while night fighters were non-existent at the start, and absolutely vital at the end.

I will see what I can do to work up some formulas, but hopefully, this will be of help to the rest of you.

 

[Argetnyx]

I'm working on it (still).

Planes and tanks are a bit harder.

Ignore the planes for now, those conversions are bad.

The only updated tank formulas are attack, and defense. I don't use the other ones anymore, except movement.

I'm still working on the cost one, but here is the current version.

C= Crew
G= Gun (mm)
MG= Machine Gun (mm)
A= Armor (mm)
P= Net HP (hp)
T= Turret Traverser (Hand=1, Electric=2,Hydrolic=2)
S= Suspension (Complex=+2, Overlap=+2, Simple=+1)

Cst=(G+MG+A)/10+P/100+T+C+S+80

 

[tom2050]

C= Crew
G= Gun (mm)
MG= Machine Gun (mm)
A= Armor (mm)
P= Net HP (hp)
T= Turret Traverser (Hand=1, Electric=2,Hydrolic=2)
S= Suspension (Complex=+2, Overlap=+2, Simple=+1)

Cst=(G+MG+A)/10+P/100+T+C+S+80

It looks good, but Machine Gun's were quite inexpensive compared to the main Tank Gun armament... would something such as G+A+(MG/x)/10 make more sense? (with x being divided by 2 or 3).

In order to simulate the overall factory production of various countries as timerover51 mentioned, the easiest way to do so would be to multiply the your cst formula by a 'Country Production Multiplier' (CPM) in the end.

For example:
US=1
Britain=1.2
Germany=1.25
Italy=1.5
Japan=1.75
Russia=? (Russia near the end of the war, had extremely high output), so someone could adjust the rates for all countries per year accordingly.

Cst=((G+MG+A)/10+P/100+T+C+S+80) x CPM

So for Italy (1.5 is the CPM):
Cst=((G+MG+A)/10+P/100+T+C+S+80) x 1.5

Just some ideas.

Tom

 

[Argetnyx]

It looks good, but Machine Gun's were quite inexpensive compared to the main Tank Gun armament... would something such as G+A+(MG/x)/10 make more sense? (with x being divided by 2 or 3).

The previous version didn't even include secondary arms (MG's). Maybe I should keep them out.

For example:
US=1
Britain=1.2
Germany=1.25
Italy=1.5
Japan=1.75
Russia=? (Russia near the end of the war, had extremely high output), so someone could adjust the rates for all countries per year accordingly.

I think Germany should have a higher output than that! Their tanks were hard to make, while the American and Soviet ones were relatively simple(r). The British really wern't that productive though... They ended up building tanks in heavy railroad factories, many engines and tanks were actually made in America, or Canada.

Good idea though...Might use it.

 

[Argetnyx]

I'm having troubles in deciding what different types of tank will be represented by in Civ.

My current idea is:
Self-Propelled Gun - Artillery
Assault Gun - Artillery & Offense
Tank-Killer - Artillery, Offense, Defense ( ? )
Close-Support - Artillery, Defense

Any suggestions?

 

[tom2050]

The previous version didn't even include secondary arms (MG's). Maybe I should keep them out.

I think Germany should have a higher output than that! Their tanks were hard to make, while the American and Soviet ones were relatively simple(r). The British really wern't that productive though... They ended up building tanks in heavy railroad factories, many engines and tanks were actually made in America, or Canada.

Good idea though...Might use it.

I was basing it off Timeover's production percentages, just as example though. Keep in mind, that the lower the number to multiply by means higher output. So in the end, Germany's units will have a higher base-priced than Soviet units once ran through the Cost formula. Then the base-price could be adjusted by the countries production factor for the given year.

I'm having troubles in deciding what different types of tank will be represented by in Civ.

My current idea is:
Self-Propelled Gun - Artillery
Assault Gun - Artillery & Offense
Tank-Killer - Artillery, Offense, Defense ( ? )
Close-Support - Artillery, Defense

Any suggestions?

In the current WW2 mod I'm working on (yet to decide on a name), I included the above but with some minor differences depending on the model.

Self-Propelled Guns - I used as artillery units, armor and bombard dependent on the units stats
Assault Gun - large caliber artillery pieces, meant to support infantry by direct fire with high explosive ammunition. Since Assault Gun's are designed for infantry support, I made their Attack not strong enough to Easily knock out other tanks, but strong enough to take out Infantry. Gave them Artillery as well, with high ROF and low Bombard (this increases chances to score Infantry hits, but not against tougher targets).
Tank Destroyer - High Defense, Low Attack, No Artillery, Def Bombard. Used this for units such as the StuG IIIG (which was more TD than Assault Gun), but low attack because the Stug III had a limited traverse and was in an enclosed superstructure, thus these types were best suited on defensive (same with most casemate style structures). TD's with a turret are given mid-Attack.
Close-Support - I'm assuming you are referring to an Infantry Support (Britain used Infantry Tanks). The roles of these are similar to Assault Gun's. Whereas Britain Cruiser Tanks, had more of a regular tank role.

Tom

 

[timerover51]

The previous version didn't even include secondary arms (MG's). Maybe I should keep them out.

I think Germany should have a higher output than that! Their tanks were hard to make, while the American and Soviet ones were relatively simple(r). The British really wern't that productive though... They ended up building tanks in heavy railroad factories, many engines and tanks were actually made in America, or Canada.

Good idea though...Might use it.

German tanks were hard to make, which is why Germany produced so many assault guns that were also used by armored units. German tank output was not that great compared to either the US or Russia, especially if you subtract out the Mark 1 and 2 production. The Panther and both the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 had major problems with engine reliability, and the Germans never produced sufficient spare parts for the vehicles that they had. Virtually all parts production went to new production. The Germans used the Czech PzKpfw 38(t) extensively, having 2 Panzer divisions equipped with it for the French invasion.

As for US tanks being simpler, I have no idea where you got that idea. The Sherman tank was the only tank in WW2 equipped with a gyrostabilization system for the main gun in a attempt to allow it to shoot accurately while on the move. In actual practice, even today, tanks stop in order to shoot. All US tanks were equipped with radios, unlike most Russian and Japanese tanks, the suspension systems were considerably improved, and water jackets were added to the shell racks in an attempt to improve survivability. As for building tanks in locomotive works, where do you think that the US also build its tanks? The British did receive a lot of tanks from the US through Lend-Lease, but all British tanks were powered by engines produced in Britain. Canada did produce one tank that was similar to the Sherman, called the Ram, but that was used either for training or was converted to carry a 25pdr gun as a self-propelled artillery piece called the Sexton. That was the equivalent of the US Priest 105mm self-propelled howitzer.

With respect to production, both the US and UK adapted its tank production to mass production techniques, so as to allow unskilled labor to produce them using specialized tools. The Germans never went that far, depending on skilled machinists using general purpose tools to produce the vehicles, which was one reason why there was a shortage of spare parts. The Germans also used some slave labor, which aside from being less efficient, also resulted in a fairly significant rate of sabotage. The sabotage problem carried over into the German aircraft industry, an example being the first ME-262 acquired intact by the Allies was flown by a defecting pilot once he was sure that his family was in an area captured by the US. He could not retract the jets landing gear on the test flight he was performing when he defected. The landing gear being down worked two ways, good and bad, the good being that a lowered landing gear was a sign of surrender in WW2, the bad being that the additional drag slowed him down and increased fuel consumption so that he barely made it to an Allied field.

As for Japanese tank production, that was simply laughable.

 

[Argetnyx]

What I meant by 'simpler', was that they were easier to make. The British did not have many specialized tank-producing factories, and they did not have a large automobile works like the Americans, about the only heavy industrial base that they had to use was the rairoad factories. The Canadians did build British tanks, like the Valentine. The Germans were the first to put radios on (almost) all of their tanks. The Germans also did have mass production techniques, unlike the French, who still built all of their machines by hand.

 

[Argetnyx]

Self-Propelled Guns - I used as artillery units, armor and bombard dependent on the units stats
Assault Gun - large caliber artillery pieces, meant to support infantry by direct fire with high explosive ammunition. Since Assault Gun's are designed for infantry support, I made their Attack not strong enough to Easily knock out other tanks, but strong enough to take out Infantry. Gave them Artillery as well, with high ROF and low Bombard (this increases chances to score Infantry hits, but not against tougher targets).
Tank Destroyer - High Defense, Low Attack, No Artillery, Def Bombard. Used this for units such as the StuG IIIG (which was more TD than Assault Gun), but low attack because the Stug III had a limited traverse and was in an enclosed superstructure, thus these types were best suited on defensive (same with most casemate style structures). TD's with a turret are given mid-Attack.
Close-Support - I'm assuming you are referring to an Infantry Support (Britain used Infantry Tanks). The roles of these are similar to Assault Gun's. Whereas Britain Cruiser Tanks, had more of a regular tank role.

My WWII scenario is very advanced, but incomplete. Many of the units were made by Wyrmshadow (no surprise there), but the stats are not all updated.

 

[Argetnyx]

Any suggestions on my scenario? For some reason, I can't start threads (or type up messages, or commenton anything outside of a thread, or change my sig.)

 

[tom2050]

I haven't had a chance to thoroughly review it yet, I did take a quick look, and it looks good. A large variety of units, good city placement. I will take a closer look later tonight, and give some thoughts. One thing I noticed was this: it appears that helsinski is going to get demolished by Soviet Russia. If this is set 1939, the Finnish Mannerheim Line should be in place, which is where some of the fiercest fighting took place between Finland and Russia; and where Russia took great losses due to a variety of factors. It wasn't until around Feb-March 1940 Russia was able to break through the Line.

Tom

 

[Argetnyx]

Even when I play as the Soviet Union, I can't tackle Helsinki. The longest game I've played was Soviet, and by the time I started a new one (due to it being completely updated), I still hadn't captured Helsinki, and that was in 7-10 turns (can't remember exactly).

It would be cool to share it with everybody, but it has so many added units that everybody would have to work a long time to get them done. It's no fun without Wyrm's units, because then they're all the same.

Oh yeah, if the colors look wierd, that's because I am using an alternate civ-color palette, I don't remember who posted it, but it's in the main download database (somewhere).