Not sure if this has been posted here. I just saw this at the official forum.
These are FULL Unit Stats, Upkeep Costs, and Details for EACH Playable Unit in the Demo (3RD UPDATE: NOW WITH SPANISH UNITS).
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/42991
V.
Printable View
Not sure if this has been posted here. I just saw this at the official forum.
These are FULL Unit Stats, Upkeep Costs, and Details for EACH Playable Unit in the Demo (3RD UPDATE: NOW WITH SPANISH UNITS).
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/42991
V.
Good stuff :2thumbsup:. Thanks for the post.
I read some of the comments and laughed.
I'm suprised to see that 6-pounders have a whopping 30 firepower, and the 24-pounders to have 1400. What
I'm also suprised to see that the upkeep for a first-rate is only 400. RTW all over again...
Wow.
Long Riflemen: Range 125, Accuracy 60, Melee Attack 12, Defence 8, Cost 590, Upkeep 230.
British Line Infantry: Range 70, Accuracy 45, Melee Attack 10, Defense 15,, Cost 760, Upkeep 300.
Wait doesn't that mean the upkeep for Line infantry is only slightly less than that for a First rate ship crewed by over a thousand men? CA said fleets would be expensive!
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
You sure? I thought it was more like 126 or 168 for the 24 pounders.
Well it is a demo, I dont realy think CA felt they had to ensure a realistic price tag on the units cost for what is essentially the Beta version of the battles.
Come on now, you can't charge upkeep if your in the middle of an ocean can you!? supplies would cost alot so i expect recruitment cost to be very high (which it is) but im content with the upkeep, and more think its the infantry that need to be cheaper, not the boats that need to be more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I don't mind how its done so lang as boats are more expensive. If i remember correctly Britian could only aFford a certain amount of First raters and nearly bankrupted themselves trying to build more.Quote:
Originally Posted by 777Ares777
H.M.S Victory cost £50,000,000 to build. That is a fantastic amount of money and CA had better represent it in game.
The strength of light infantry is their accuracy, using rifled barrels at the sacrifice of rate of fire... So how is their reloading skill better than that of line infantry (30 vs 25)? You cannot reload rifled barrels faster than smooth bores. Is this a mistake?
I noticed that in the Light Infantry description text it says they are using smoothbore muskets, not rifles. Not all Lights were armed with rifles. The Long Rifle Men have a slower Reload of 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Curiously so do the Light Dragoons - who are using short smoothbore muskets. I realise reloading when mounted would be slower than reloading on foot, but there's only one stat. Is there any difference in-game (my laptop can't handle the demo)? Their Melee stats are better than Hussars, but what about when they're dismounted? Hussars seem to be redundant, especially as you get 50% more Dragoons for similar money who can also shoot. If they use the same Melee stats on foot they'll annihilate Light Infantry in a dismounted melee.
No____Rg__Ac___RL__Am_____MA__CB__DF__Mr______RC____UC
80____70__45___25___10_____10___5__15__10______760___300____Line Infantry
80____70__40___20___10______8___4__12___7______650___260____Hessian Line Infantry
80____70__50___35___10_____13___6__17__14______900___360____Guards
80____70__50___30___10_____13___8__13__14______880___350____Highland Infantry
45____70__50___30___10_____12___7__17__12______660___260____Grenadiers
45____80__55___30___15______5___3___6___7______450___180____Light Infantry
80___125__60___10___15_____12___4___8___8______590___230____Long Rifle Men
45____70__45___10___15_____11___7___6__10______720___340____Light Dragoon
30_________________________11___7___6___8______690___330____Hussar
No Number of men
Rg Range
Ac Accuracy
RL Reload
Am Ammunition
MA Melee Attack
CB Charge Bonus
DF Defence
Mr Morale
RC Recruitment Cost
UC Upkeep Cost
I was going to rant about Grenadiers being too cheap, but then realized that they only 45 men...
Some thoughts:
A) Ships are too cheap. A 2nd class Ship of the line having less upkeep than an infantry unit? Two 6th rate ships costing less than a single line infantry? (2x 140 vs = 1x 300)
B) There should be more spread in land unit prices between between regular and elite units. If the elite units are noticable more expensive, it brings up an interesting gameplay choice: "Do I go for class or mass?". At the moment I can't think of many reasons to build a lower quality unit as long as better ones are available for almost the same price.
Oh, just go for mass. They're paid to die; it's all they're good for. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanna
Yeah, the ships are ridiculously cheap... :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
What I found surprising is that the firepower of a ship is seemingly based entirely on the amount of guns carried. A ship with roughly 1/3 the guns of a ship of the line will have roughly 1/3 the firepower, not taking in to account that the smaller ship would carry smaller calibre cannon.
I really hated it when in RTW (And M2, come to think of it) no matter how many times you fought them, new ships would always pop up. I remember having a game where Carthage had completely surrounded sicily with admirals, and I couldn't kill them because they just wouldn't die. Lets hope ETW doesn't have this.
Her actual construction cost was around £63,000 and that was rather high because of several delays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
A full sized British infantry regiment of 1,000 men and based purely on daily pay for privates in late 18th century (not worrying about NCO and officer pay) would be more than £12,000 a year.
If we think of a unit in ETW as a regiment then the costs are not that much off. Scaling issues and hardware requirements means we should not worry about 1:1 scale between land and naval combat.
CBR
I was scaling up the 63,000 pounds figure in terms of todays money :2thumbsup:. Back then a pound was worth much much more than it is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Looking at Victory gives you an appreciation of how big these ships must have been though. They used an entire forest to build her. :2thumbsup:
Agreed, ships are ridiculously cheap. The initial cost is way to cheap, and the upkeep is way to cheap. Think about all that timber, cannon, food, crew, officers, etc. The first 6 frigates the USA purchased cost them $688,888.82 (NOT current USA dollars). The yearly upkeep was somewhere around $150-$200k, if I remember correctly for the crews and ships... That's just under $10 million dollars for the ships, and $2 million dollars for upkeep, if you take inflation into account.
Calmarac, I made some easier-to-read tables:
Infantry
https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/78/infantry.png
Cavalry
https://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9602/cavalry.png
Artillery
https://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4903/artillery.png
Ships
https://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1368/shipsf.png
Some things to keep in mind:
- These stats may not be final
- It does not take into account special abilities like stakes and grenades as well as environmental factors like forest bonus, etc.
- Unit costs are probably balanced with regard to a faction's relative strengths and weaknesses
I hope these aren't final.
- "Second Rate Ship: 320 upkeep"
- "Highland Infantry: 350 Upkeep"
What the heck?!?!
I guess (hope) someone will mod this things soon after release. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius86
Isn't changing upkeep simply a matter of finding the file and changing the number?
Thanks! That's much better :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
I'm sure some of these stats are off and will be different in the full game. We'll see soon.
e.g. 24 Lb guns range 100 - 6 Lb guns range 400
As for ship costs, it puts it into perpective for me to think that a single run-of-the-mill 74 gunner had as many cannon as a dozen land artillery batteries, enough for an army or two. Fleets should be very pricey indeed.
Maybe the Ship of the Line upkeep costs are low because of gameplay reasons. High upkeep costs mean fewer upper-tier warships. That means fewer meaningful epic naval battles and less fun. Given that SEGA/CA intends to make and market a game for the masses and not a historical simulation for history buffs, gameplay takes precedence over realism should a design conflict arise.
Of course, if you're still incensed by the low upkeep cost, by all means install a mod or make one yourself.
I think those were the guns from the land battle tutorial. Those were probably purposely nerfed so that they would focus on nearby enemies and not some routers far away while in fire-at-will mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmarac
The 24-lbers in the Brandywine battle had 4 guns per unit and much much longer range.
EDIT2: Apologies, I had neglected to include 24-lber Foot Artillery in the chart. Interestingly, they have the same costs as the 6-lber horse artillery. Looks like CA thinks the speed from horse artillery makes up for two fewer guns and tons less firepower.
The problem lies in the fact that historically ships were tremendously expensive, and you could practically cripple an enemy navy in a decisive naval battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
If ships are that cheap the A.I can spam build an entire fleet from scratch in no time. It will make it very difficult to decisively win the race for naval power.
You can still have naval battles without the huge Ships of the Line. There are plenty of smaller ships to use. This just seems like it will result in every ship being a 1st rater. Because at that price why on earth would you build anything else?
Regarding realism of SotL upkeep costs in general:
Like I said, SEGA/CA probably thinks having historically correct SotL upkeep costs would impair gameplay. They probably want epic naval battles to appear as frequently in a grand campaign as epic land battles. They know that the gamer is eager to play around with lots of upper tier SotL- not boring sloops and sixth rates. Sure, both you and the AI will inevitably produce historically incorrect numbers of grand fleets. But for the typical ADHD-inflicted gamer that is a blessing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding First Rates gameplay-wise:
Well because price, firepower and hull strength aren't everything. More likely than not their slowness will be reflected on the campaign map. That means you don't want First Rates chasing pirates and merchant ships. There will probably be significant availability, technology and build time issues as well. Also, according to the demo stats, the overall effectiveness/cost of First Rates appears to be inferior to that of Second Rates over a 50 turn time period. If we use the equation,Quote:
This just seems like it will result in every ship being a 1st rater. Because at that price why on earth would you build anything else?
Score = Men*Firepower*Range*Accuracy*Reloading_Skill*Hull_Strength*Speed/(Recruitment_Cost+50*Upkeep_Cost)/2.5E9
the following scores are obtained:
First Rate: 107.09
Second Rate: 109.95
Third Rate: 85.35
Fourth Rate: 43.06
I did not include the Sixth Rate because its demo stats reflected an uber-experienced ship. The number of guns is not factored in because firepower is dependent on the number of guns (about 15.6 firepower/gun). Manoeuvrability is "Low" for every 1st to 4th Rate.
Anyway, that calculation indicates that if price is an issue during those 50 turns, you'd want a mix of First and Second Rates for a grand battle fleet.
For Multiplayer, upkeep cost is N/A but the relative score is about the same; Second Rates are still the best.
Well I don't recall price but I do remeber that CA said at some point your best ships would take time to build and you could not just build them in a single turn.
So maybe despite the low costs they take a while to build.
They had better. Although I'm sure mods will change everything anyway :2thumbsup:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
I can say that VEM will certainly increase building costs, build time and upkeep costs for ships.
Good show! I shall definitely be playing your mod as much as possible. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Well here's a question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius86
What scale are we assuming E:TW land units are represented at? Obviously, we know that battles of the period involved armies much larger than readily portrayed in the game. I think we have to assume that an indivual soldier on screen represents multiple "real soldiers." In R:TW, for example, the Romain units were labeled as "Cohorts," but even on Huge unit size you had to assume that each on screen soldier represented 3 real soldiers to make it make sense. I think you have to take the same logic here.
If you assume that each soldier is represents around 10 "real" soldiers, and that a unit is about a battalion/regiment, (A) the land battles will make more sense, logically, and (B) so do the upkeep costs. Should the upkeep costs of a SoL be that much more than the upkeep cost of a battalion/regiment of infantry?