Tank Design Calculator

[Clux]

Ladies and Gentleman's... We're proud to present to you the first Shadow Empire Tank Design Calculator [:D]



Currently the only thing "left" to get "right" its the oil/energy consumption and add L/H Walker class units.

It was done in excel and it works in regular excel from MS and the LibreOffice version. The results are 99% accurate to the final design in game, if you find any errors don't hesitate to report them

The steps to calculate a design:

1.- Select the unit Type
2.- Select the weapon type and size (take into account design limitations, for example light max gun its 60mm)
3.- Select armor type and thickness
4.- Input the design rolls, if its your first model, leave them at 100
5.- Select what techs you have researched, leave it at "0" if you don't have them or a "1" if you have them already
6.- If you have some progress into the applied science techs, write its percentage, if you don't, leave it at "0".

If you have further questions you can ask here or in the unofficial shadow empire discord

Big thanks to DTurtle since he deciphered most of the in game formulas and helped me to organize better the excel formulas.

Link to the excel calculator (you need to download it to use it)

[Clux]

--- Change log ---

V1.3 Oficial Release
V1.4 Made some QoL improvements, added 400mm armor and fixed armor cost/weight values for Monitor Type
V1.5 Added the size movement penalty, changed the logic of the formulas for Tank destroyers and removed the 200mm armor option for assault guns
V1.5b Added a new table for armor values for monitor class (corrections to weight and material costs)
V1.6 Finally added the oil usage formula (thanks GuardsmanGary!), fixed some issues with the formulas for unique components of monitor class, fixed the atomic weapons optimization formula and corrected several armor weights
V1.6b Extended the weight band so fuel consumption of heavier vehicles its correctly calculated and changed the oil usage of nuclear engines to 0

[Mina]

Hey, nice work! This'll be very useful to a lot of people, including myself.

Two things that immediately came to mind as far as suggestions go are uploading a version to google drive, as that's free and most people will have a gmail account. I opened the .xls in sheets and it seemed to convert fine.
The other was making it so that you don't need to add a % to the end of the linear tech fields, so it treats any whole number as being a percentage out of 100. The difference between Laser weapons 100% and Laser Weapons 100 is... a bit huge.

[Mestor]

this is SO good. Thank you, I feel like unit design is such an arcane art where the inputs vs the outcomes are so very distanced. I can't imagine the amount of work that went into this, and I thank each of you (Clux, DTurtle, and Orange Devil) who helped with it.

[Pymous]

Great work guys!!

[Clux]

ORIGINAL: Mina

Hey, nice work! This'll be very useful to a lot of people, including myself.

Two things that immediately came to mind as far as suggestions go are uploading a version to google drive, as that's free and most people will have a gmail account. I opened the .xls in sheets and it seemed to convert fine.
The other was making it so that you don't need to add a % to the end of the linear tech fields, so it treats any whole number as being a percentage out of 100. The difference between Laser weapons 100% and Laser Weapons 100 is... a bit huge.

I tried uploading the newest version to google drive and something happened cuz it stopped working

I'll ask to Redrum to make the changes so we can upload it to google drive (His latest addition works fine on Excel/LibreOffice)

Also, In the formulas there is no "%" in the laser guns optimization fields since it is already on the table of optimization fields. I kept changing values and the formulas seemed to work fine, maybe something happened when you uploaded it to google drive?

[redrum68]

Here is a google docs version so you don't have to download it or need Excel: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Please test it out and let me know if there are any issues.

[Voker57]

Impressive work highlighting lack of such basic features in the game.

[BlueTemplar]

Works great... but the cost is off : the game gives me 81 Metal and 80 IP for this model :
(That's not *actually* a .txt file [:'(])

(Also, for completeness, you're also missing the ammo usage.)

[BlueTemplar]

For this Medium Tank the cost matches, Hard HP is only off by one (game says 824),
but you seem to have forgotten the extra Move Redux of -10% for Size 7 (and nearby) units, resulting in total Move Mod of -20% :

[BlueTemplar]

In a similar way,
For this Heavy Tank the cost matches, Soft HP is only off by one (game says 454),
but you seem to have forgotten the extra Move Redux of -20% for Size 9 (and nearby) units, resulting in total Move Mod of -20% :

[BlueTemplar]

And since it's *still* not in the manual :
fb.asp?m=4917963

ORIGINAL: Vic

Sorry there. There is an undocumented rule...

If size = 6 Or size = 7 Then moveRedux -= 10
If size = 8 Or size = 9 Then moveRedux -= 20
If size = 10 Or size > 10 Then moveRedux -= 30

made note to add this to future manual revision.

Thanks for spotting

[GuardsmanGary]

This sheet is missing calculations regarding tank destroyers. As you can see in the attached image I've input all the values from Shadow Empire into the design calculator but the soft attack/defense and hard attack/defense are not consistent. This is because the tank destroyer model type has an inherent 50% bonus to hard attack/defense and 50% penalty to soft attack/defense. This effect is most visible if you equip a tank destroyer with a howitzer. If you consult the design log you will you see a "modified for weapon type" entry after the initial attack score calculations are done that shows soft attack and defense being cut in half. This is very odd considering howitzers do not have a soft attack penalty. You'll see a similar entry for hard attack/defense that presents a value that is only 75% of the hard attack/defense value derived from firepower when for howitzers it should be 50%.

Let's take this tank destroyer as an example: 180mm howitzer with 800 base firepower, 53% progress in conventional gun optimization, weapon design score of 84, cluster bombs enabled, and 72% progress in armour piercing optimization. Breaking down the calculations step by step gets you this:

Code: Select all

 Soft attack/defense:
 800 initial firepower for 180mm howitzer
 *1.265 conventional gun optimization bonus
 *0.84 for weapon design score
 *0.5 for tank destroyer soft attack penalty
 *1.5 for cluster bombs bonus
 637 soft attack
 *0.5 infantry defense penalty
 318 soft defense
 
 Hard attack/defense
 800 initial firepower
 *1.265 conventional gun optimization bonus
 *0.84 for weapon design
 *0.5 for howitzer hard attack penalty
 *1.5 for tank destroyer hard attack bonus
 *1.36 armour piercing optimization bonus
 *0.5 turretless hard attack penalty
 434 hard attack
 And hard defense is calculated before the turretless penalty is applied, so it's
 867 firepower
 *0.667 tank defense penalty
 578 hard defense

The presence of a 50% penalty to soft attack/defense and a 50% bonus to hard attack/defense explains the discrepancy almost exactly; the difference in the hard defense of 1 being attributable to rounding errors.

[BlueTemplar]

Also, the Assault Gun has another difference with the Medium Tank that is not in this sheet (which might or might not be a bug in the game) : it cannot mount 200mm plating !

[Clux]

Thanks for the corrections and bug reports guys! I changed the logic of the formulas for tank destroyers, added the mobility penalty due size and removed the 200mm armor option for assault guns until Vic confirms if its intended or not.

PS: You will probably get values wrong by 1 (minus or plus) due how the game rounds off the results

[BlueTemplar]

Thank you, but the AP cost penalty is still wrong, you calculator says +70% while it's +80% for my Monitor :
Last Engine Power is listed as 1200, last Weight before Movement Redux is listed as 1660, and not 1510 like in the Calculator.
With 1660 manually input I *do* get +80%.

I don't know how you managed to figure out the math :
This ends up with a 72.2% Weight / Engine Power ratio, which *should* lead to a +30% move cost modifier
(see manual p.328 - I *think* that I'm interpreting the brackets correctly ??),
with then the 11 Monitor size adding an extra +30% on top of that,
for a total of +60%, and not +80% ??

[BlueTemplar]

Calculator :

[BlueTemplar]

Design Log 1/3 :

[BlueTemplar]

Design Log 2/3 :

[BlueTemplar]

Design Log 3/3 :