CoW Unit Browser Update

@Gen. Smit

What do you mean by "availability is an issue"?

@Erezuma

I have not compiled the data for the Air, naval, and secret units.

As mentioned above, it is a royal pain to scrape the data.

Destructo the Great wrote:

pod_than wrote:

suntso wrote:

I am updating my unit browser tool.

Looking for feedback.

Please report value errors, use issues or improvement ideas on this thread.

Also if anyone knows of a database with the combat values, costs etc. would be of great help.

If you wish to help compile the data, pm me.

Try the tool here

[/img]

pod_than wrote:

And this.

https://wikiwiki.jp/callofwar/枢軸国＞歩兵

This is "a database with the combat values, costs etc".Please use it if you want.

nice I can read some of the words since I know Chinese

ok guys, I just went for it and compiled the most important stats of CoW units into an Excel sheet. Maybe some minor things are missing but hopefully it can be a good starting point for you.

Please note that this is a one-time service on my part done in my free time, I have no intention to update this table everytime that we do a balancing update. I hope you can figure out the future changes yourself.

@K.Rokossovski @DxC

edit: A newer file was posted in a post further below.

That's really great, Freezy, thanks a lot and let us know where we can have the cake delivered!

freezy wrote:

ok guys, I just went for it and compiled the most important stats of CoW units into an Excel sheet. Maybe some minor things are missing but hopefully it can be a good starting point for you.

Please note that this is a one-time service on my part done in my free time, I have no intention to update this table everytime that we do a balancing update. I hope you can figure out the future changes yourself.

@K.Rokossovski @DxC

freezy wrote:

ok guys, I just went for it and compiled the most important stats of CoW units into an Excel sheet. Maybe some minor things are missing but hopefully it can be a good starting point for you.

@freezy A question about significant digits. You may not have this information, but I'm curious if these are actual server values or rounded values for displaying in the client. For example, the attack/defense ratio for AA is 1:2. The attack for LiAr, for example, is listed here as 0.8. 0.8*2=1.6, but the defense LiAr listed here is 1.5. Is either the attack or defense values here the actual values? For example is the defense of 1.5 the actual value and the real attack value 1.5/2=0.75 instead of 0.8, or the other way around, or is there no way to draw such conclusions from the table?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

That's really great, Freezy, thanks a lot and let us know where we can have the cake delivered!

DxC wrote:

@freezy A question about significant digits. You may not have this information, but I'm curious if these are actual server values or rounded values for displaying in the client. For example, the attack/defense ratio for AA is 1:2. The attack for LiAr, for example, is listed here as 0.8. 0.8*2=1.6, but the defense LiAr listed here is 1.5. Is either the attack or defense values here the actual values? For example is the defense of 1.5 the actual value and the real attack value 1.5/2=0.75 instead of 0.8, or the other way around, or is there no way to draw such conclusions from the table?

edit: A newer file was posted in a post further below.

freezy wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

That's really great, Freezy, thanks a lot and let us know where we can have the cake delivered!

I will take your virtual cake, thanks

DxC wrote:

@freezy A question about significant digits. You may not have this information, but I'm curious if these are actual server values or rounded values for displaying in the client. For example, the attack/defense ratio for AA is 1:2. The attack for LiAr, for example, is listed here as 0.8. 0.8*2=1.6, but the defense LiAr listed here is 1.5. Is either the attack or defense values here the actual values? For example is the defense of 1.5 the actual value and the real attack value 1.5/2=0.75 instead of 0.8, or the other way around, or is there no way to draw such conclusions from the table?

In that file the values are rounded. For some reason Excel didn't copy the second digit, so I blame Excel. Here, I fixed it in this file:

freezy wrote:

In that file the values are rounded. For some reason Excel didn't copy the second digit, so I blame Excel. Here, I fixed it in this file

@freezy Taking the level 1 AA as an example again, there appears to be a conflict between some base values (I assume that is what the "0" prefix means) and doctrines. For example, as far as I can tell allies and pan-asian shouldn't have modifications of anti air attack values, but they differ from the base value of, for example, LiAr:1.5 and instead have 1.6. I will derive the doctrine values from the base values myself, but just wondering if this is something real or perhaps the doctrine values were not updated in the second table?

DxC wrote:

@freezy Taking the level 1 AA as an example again, there appears to be a conflict between some base values (I assume that is what the "0" prefix means) and doctrines. For example, as far as I can tell allies and pan-asian shouldn't have modifications of anti air attack values, but they differ from the base value of, for example, LiAr:1.5 and instead have 1.6 . I will derive the doctrine values from the base values myself, but just wondering if this is something real or perhaps the doctrine values were not updated in the second table?

@pod_than Not sure what you mean.

@freezy I also noticed that the ratio's still don't add up exactly. For example take Militia level 1. The base attack for UnAr is 1.7. The multiplier is 1.5 so you expect defense to be 1.70*1.5=2.55, but the table says 2.60. It still seems like these values are rounded one way or another.

Although you expected such regularity...

it was actually like this.

That's what it means?

I expect the ratio between attack and defense to match the specified ratio, not the relationship between different armor classes.

pod_than wrote:

Does your story that " LiAr: " ( Light armor ) in " anti air attack values " is 1.6 instead of 1.5 mean that the value in the red cell is wrong?

Is this image a good answer to that question?

Due to my carelessness, I became the directions of the arrows are in the wrong order though...

If I were to fix, it might be like this.

Sorry.

DxC wrote:

@freezy Taking the level 1 AA as an example again, there appears to be a conflict between some base values (I assume that is what the "0" prefix means) and doctrines. For example, as far as I can tell allies and pan-asian shouldn't have modifications of anti air attack values, but they differ from the base value of, for example, LiAr:1.5 and instead have 1.6. I will derive the doctrine values from the base values myself, but just wondering if this is something real or perhaps the doctrine values were not updated in the second table?

This only applies to attack damage values tho, because:

DxC wrote:

@pod_than Not sure what you mean.

@freezy I also noticed that the ratio's still don't add up exactly. For example take Militia level 1. The base attack for UnAr is 1.7. The multiplier is 1.5 so you expect defense to be 1.70*1.5=2.55, but the table says 2.60. It still seems like these values are rounded one way or another.

I fixed the rounding of defense values in our sheet and also in this file, so here it is again (sigh

I’m sorry to bother you.

I am very grateful for your devotion.

freezy wrote:

ok guys, I just went for it and compiled the most important stats of CoW units into an Excel sheet. Maybe some minor things are missing but hopefully it can be a good starting point for you.

Please note that this is a one-time service on my part done in my free time, I have no intention to update this table everytime that we do a balancing update. I hope you can figure out the future changes yourself.

@K.Rokossovski @DxC

edit: A newer file was posted in a post further below.

It seems that the original file had a conditional format, but it seems to have been originally broken.

I don't know the details without analysis, but it seems that the display was probably made bold when the value was not 0, and the background color of the title column was enabled / disabled.

I'm sorry to give you only speculation, but I think that the labeling was probably done to prevent the kind of mistake that occurred earlier.