The Chu Ko Nu's inconsistency with its generic counterparts!

[Achilles]

I'm not much of a mathematician but I love helping developers improve games. I was intrigued on how much better the Chu Ko Nu and its upgrades than their respective default/generic counterparts. I took their DPS values from the Dominations wikipedia and divided the Chuck DPS values by the GRI (generic ranged infantry) DPS values and multiplied the value by 100% to get the mutliplier. This calculation is takes into account that the Chuck fires 2 shots to the GRI's 1. Note that the musketeer's DPS had 2 values when I visited the wiki page. Also I have rounded the values with .1 to .5 to the lower integer and .6 to .9 to the higher integer. This is just to get an approximate integer value.

I just want to know whether the huge discrepancy in the numbers with different levels affects the game interactions or not and if correcting them will bring more balance to the game. The below table contains the data after the calculation. I plan on updating this thread later with values for the British and Korean unique units as well.

Chinese Generic Percentage improvement (Multiplier)

Chu Ko Nu Composite 125%
bowman


Elite " Archer 114%


Royal " Crossbowman 108%


Fire Lance Arquebusier 134%


" Dragon Musketeer 120% (or) 111%


Manchu Rifleman 144%
rifleman


Long Sub-machine 129%
march gun
infantry


People's Veteran SMG 132%
rifleman


" " rifleman 121%
Heavy
rifleman

P.S. I didn't have access to the People's veteran rifleman wiki page or game info to compare with the elite rifleman.

 

[Achilles]

Sorry for the above ugly looking text. I solemnly swear the indentation was not like this when I posted this. The DPS improvements are as follows:

The Chuck is 25% better than the Composite bowman.
The Elite Chuck is 14% better than the Archer.
The Royal Chuck is 8% better than the Crossbowman.
The Fire Lancer(not sure why its a Lance instead of Lancer in the first place) is 34% better than the Arquebusier.
The Fire Dragon(same here) is better than the musketeer by either 20% or 11%(correct me).
The Manchu Rifleman is 44% better than the Rifleman.
The Long March Infantry is 29% better than the SMG.
The People's Rifleman is 32% better than the Veteran SMG.
The People's Heavy Rifleman is 21% better than the Heavy Rifleman.

P.S. refer the first comment of the post for notes regarding the calculation.

 

[sponge]

Discrepancy comes from the wiki as a source, it's not accurate, and I don't know if it has been updated.

 

[LitanyOfFire]

I just want to note some things about the Chinese ranged unit and their rate of fire, as it has several side advantages that aren't directly DPS and should be considered, especially when comparing to British and Korean units.

The first is that units in this game are immobilized until they reload and are ready to attack again. Doubling attack speed means these units spend less time standing around and are far more mobile than other ranged units.

Wasted attacks also mean less (shots fired that were still in the air when the targeted unit died) as the reload is faster.

Second is that attack speed is extremely efficient for multiple unit clearing compared to simply having extra damage. You can think of it like this: imagine a regular archer has 2 damage and a delay between attacks of 2 seconds. It is attacking a unit with 3 health. The archer will take two shots, and spend 4 total seconds to destroy that unit. But if the archer were to have only 1 damage and a delay between attacks of 1 second, it would destroy the enemy in 3 shots and spend only 3 seconds doing so. Even though both these units have the same DPS (1 per second), the one that attacks faster is 25% more efficient in this scenario.

Another example might be to compare the bonuses of Chinese and Korean archers. Imagine a default archer deals 10 damage and has a delay of 2 seconds. A Korean archer deals 40% more, so deals 14 damage with a delay of 2 seconds. A chinese archer does 60% damage but double attack speed, so 6 damage with a delay of 1 second. (Hypothetical, we will use easy numbers instead of their actual stats.) If both units attack an enemy with 30 health, which is better?

The Korean archer must attack 3 times, and will deal a total of 42 damage and spend 6 seconds attacking. This destroys the enemy, and actually vastly overkills them. The extra 12 damage is wasted.
The Chinese archer must attack 5 times, and will deal a total of 30 damage and spend 5 seconds attacking. Faster, due to the fact that there was no wasted damage.

There are times too when the Korean unit is superior. In the example above, if the enemy has between 37-42 health it is better. However, the chinese unit is again better with an enemy that has 43-48 health, and they trade off health continues to increase. But also remember the Chinese unit is more mobile.

DPS is a very important stat, but it is also important for the readers of this thread to keep in mind that it does not tell the whole story.

 

[Mixie]

It's the wiki stats that are sometimes inconsistent/inaccurate. Sometimes stating plain stat, sometimes with bonus.
Don't confuse them with real battle situations. The ideal theory of what LoF explained above was correct. I used to be Chinese. Imo they're more responsive to a school of enemy troops (and more effective as well, due to mobility).
​​​​​