WC4 "du"

Sharpshooter

Rear Admiral
Remember those "du" (damage units?) numbers in the WC4 ship selectors which are supposed to indicate how much damage a ship does with a full gun salvo? I did a quick analysis, and found a few interesting things.

Let's start with the Banshee, which is listed as having 72 du. It has 4 Lasers, which according to Bandit LOAF's spreadsheet and the CIC do 18 damage each. 18 * 4 = 72, so no surprise there.

Next is the Bearcat, which is listed as having 200 du. It has 4 Light Tachyon Guns, which according to Bandit LOAF's spreadsheet and the CIC do 50 damage each. 50 * 4 = 200. Also no surprise here.

Next is the Lance, or "Dragon", which is listed as having 274 du. It has 2 Plasma Guns and 2 Tachyon Guns, and according to Bandit LOAF's spreadsheet and the CIC, the Plasma Guns do 67 damage each whereas the Tachyon Guns do 70. 67 * 2 = 134 and 70 * 2 = 140. 134 + 140 = 274, so still no surprise here.

Next is the Hellcat. It has 2 Particle Guns and 2 Ion Guns. According to Bandit LOAF's spreadsheet, a Particle Gun does 43 damage and a Ion Gun does 30 damage. 43 * 2 = 86 and 30 * 2 = 60. 86 + 60 = 146. By now you must be wondering why I even bothered creating this thread, but I promise you, we're getting there.

Next is the first strange one, the Longbow, which is listed as having 234 du. It has 2 Plasma Guns and 2 Heavy Ion Guns. According to Bandit LOAF's spreadsheet, a Heavy Ion Gun does 60 damage. However... 2 * 67 = 134 and 2 * 60 = 120, so that means the Longbow should actually do... 254 damage per full gun salvo. Could this be a typo of some kind on the developers' part?

EDIT 2 : Actually, I can explain this one. If we use the WC4 Official Guide numbers rather than the engine numbers, a Heavy Ion Gun only does 50 damage. And 134 + (50 * 2) = 234

Next is the second strange one, the Vindicator, which is listed as having 184 du. It has 2 Lasers and 2 Tachyon Guns. However, 2 * 18 = 36 and 2 * 70 = 140, so it should actually do only 176 damage per full gun salvo.

Finally, here is the weirdest one, the Avenger, which is listed as having 267 du. This is an odd number rather than an even number, so everyone can already see that there's going to be a problem. It has 2 Heavy Photon Guns and 2 Heavy Mass Drivers. Both Bandit LOAF's spreadsheet and the CIC list the Heavy Mass Driver as doing 60 damage. The spreadsheet also says that the Heavy Photon Gun does 64 damage, the CIC disagrees and says that it does 74 damage, which would make it the gun with the highest damage output in the game. Let's try it, then : 60 * 2 = 120, and 64 * 2 = 128. 128 + 120 = 248, which does not match. However, if we use the CIC stats instead... 74 * 2 = 148, and 120 + 148 = 268. Almost there!

This raises two questions, in my opinion :

1) How do we explain the discrepancy between the "du" numbers and the actual full gun salvo damage numbers for the Longbow, Vindicator, and Avenger;

and

2) Which Heavy Photon Gun stat is correct? The CIC one, or the spreadsheet one?

(EDIT : I'd just like to say that I looked at the "Engine" stats on the spreadsheet.)
 
Last edited:
Howdy! Great thread. The engine numbers on the spreadsheet should be directly from the game but I will extract them again now to be sure there wasn't some transcription error.

GUN_PHOTHEVY
Display: Photon Gun
Duration: 2.500000
Energy: 30
Speed: 1200
Strength: 64
Refire Delay: 0.449219

GUN_IONHEAVY
Display: Ion Gun
Duration: 2.500000
Energy: 30
Speed: 1800
Strength: 60
Refire Delay: 0.347656

Which I believe matches the sheets! And what that tells me is that the 'du' numbers are static and not being calculated based on the game (I suspect we can double confirm this with a little kicking around in the executable).

So what I think we're seeing is that the 'du' numbers were entered at some point in development and then just not changed to match any late balancing. That's the cause of endless discrepencies between printed material and the games themselves--and why I started that spreadsheet in the first place! The fact that the official guide numbers, which would've been locked about a month to six weeks before the game went gold, match the 'du' seems to support that.

In the case of the Vindicator, I suspect it represents that the intended armament changed late rather than that specific guns changed. Someone better at math than me might be able to figure out candidates for what the original loadout was knowing it adds up to 184 du! And then the Avenger certainly feels like it's just an error inputting the data (which was probably supposed to be 268 from the official guide stats which would've matched the game before balancing reduced the amount of damage from the heavy photon gun...)
 
I've confirmed that the du numbers are stored as a single piece of data in LOADOUT.IFF; so it's not reading anything from the ship stats and it isn't doing math internally... the numbers are pre slugged.
 
Think I figured out what happened with the Vindicator: they swapped heavy mass drivers for tachyons and didn't update the damage number. (2 * 18) + (2 * 74) gets you to 184.
 
For the Avenger, I am betting it originally had heavy ions which were replaced by heavy photons... and then the number was just entered wrong by one since I don't think it's possible to have a .5 gun.

As you are considering this yourself, one thing that helped guide me was comparing the numbers in WC3. Since, for instance, the laser and the tachyon gun both maintain their numbers it tells me they weren't rebalanced late.

This speaks to the Longbow, too: since the plasma gun maintains its damage from WC3, it's more likely the new heavy ion gun that was rebalanced. And then the guide data seems to confirm that!
 
Last edited:
Howdy! Apologies for the late reply, I've been struggling with health issues again.

Thank you very much for the fast reply, and also for making a news post about this thread!

Howdy! Great thread. The engine numbers on the spreadsheet should be directly from the game but I will extract them again now to be sure there wasn't some transcription error.

GUN_PHOTHEVY
Display: Photon Gun
Duration: 2.500000
Energy: 30
Speed: 1200
Strength: 64
Refire Delay: 0.449219

GUN_IONHEAVY
Display: Ion Gun
Duration: 2.500000
Energy: 30
Speed: 1800
Strength: 60
Refire Delay: 0.347656

Which I believe matches the sheets!

I've just checked again, and the numbers do match.

Think I figured out what happened with the Vindicator: they swapped heavy mass drivers for tachyons and didn't update the damage number. (2 * 18) + (2 * 74) gets you to 184.

I believe you meant "heavy photon guns" rather than "heavy mass drivers"... After re-reading your news post, I can see you seem to have noticed that on your own though. ;)

For the Avenger, I am betting it originally had heavy ions which were replaced by heavy photons... and then the number was just entered wrong by one since I don't think it's possible to have a .5 gun.

If we replace the Heavy Photon values with the Heavy Ion values, we get either 100 or 120 damage units for both Heavy Ion Guns, which would leave us with... either 220 du or 240 du (since the damage units for both Heavy Mass Drivers happen to be 120 no matter what). So I believe this may be a small mistake as well.

Bandit LOAF said:
I've confirmed that the du numbers are stored as a single piece of data in LOADOUT.IFF; so it's not reading anything from the ship stats and it isn't doing math internally... the numbers are pre slugged.

Bandit LOAF said:
So what I think we're seeing is that the 'du' numbers were entered at some point in development and then just not changed to match any late balancing. That's the cause of endless discrepencies between printed material and the games themselves--and why I started that spreadsheet in the first place! The fact that the official guide numbers, which would've been locked about a month to six weeks before the game went gold, match the 'du' seems to support that.

Bandit LOAF said:
This speaks to the Longbow, too: since the plasma gun maintains its damage from WC3, it's more likely the new heavy ion gun that was rebalanced. And then the guide data seems to confirm that!

This makes perfect sense. Again, thank you for your work on this, and for all the clarifications. :)
 
Back
Top