ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Along these lines, is having more text and less abbreviation better? Would millimeters of pen and armor be better than the game values? It could be possible to make the Sub-unit Inspector window larger and add more verbose text.
On balance - yes. Filling a screen with text is a bad thing. What's a worse thing is making me hit F1 and taking me out of the game completely because I now need to skim a PDF to find out what a 'Stadia Coincidence (Optical)' sensor is.
Speaking of which, it turns out that a 'Stadia Coincidence (Optical)' sensor is a 'advanced sight'. That's useless information to me. I don't care what the equipment is called or what precisely it does, I want to know in game terms what it means for me and how I should use it. That doesn't mean having to give me the full set of statistics for how it's going to be rolling dice 'under the covers', but I do want some kind of meaningful comparative so I can understand what it's good for.
So rather than tell me a tank has 'x, y, and z' sensors, just tell me it has night and thermal vision, and has exceptionally good targeting at long range.
Lets look at competing product Wargame:Red Dragon for comparison:
Obviously a different game, RTS rather than simulation, different priorities on what's 'important', but there are some key things to take away. Firstly, the primary and secondary weapon systems get a massive amount of space because they are no.1 on the list of things you need to know about a unit to understand what they are and what they can engage. There's a hard stat on range, but notice it's next to a bar indicating to me that the 2A46M gun on this tank has a maximum effective range that's equivalent to any contemporary it might face in the game. Accuracy and AP power have abstracted numbers, but it's obvious they're high in terms of the game. The Stabilizer and rate of fire are average to poor. The tank has very good frontal armour but very poor side and back armour.
I have no idea what any of the equipment on this tank is called, but still from this picture I can see that it's a high-value unit that's good for providing fire-support for frontal assaults but needs flank protection and might suffer in shooting matches with NATO tanks that have a higher rate of fire.
So to sum up my view in a single sentence: the priority should be prioritization of meaningful comparative information focused on the effectiveness rather than identification of equipment.