Unit Errata

[Jack8765]

BAC Lightning

F.6 Lightning is an interceptor however in game you have it as a tactical bomber (there was an F.53 type exported to Saudi Arabia which had a limited multirole capability).

It was capable of operating at an altitude of 70,000 ft for a brief time (usual operational ceiling was 54,000 ft) which should give it a high altitude attack value.

The lightning was a mach 2 aircraft (2,415 km/h max) not 1,680 km/h as it currently is.

It is lacking the air to air refuelling ability. (The F.1 shouldn’t have this as in-flight refuelling probes were fitted from the F.2 version onward).

The F.6 is also the penultimate variant but seems to be available regardless of whether or not the earlier versions have been researched.

Oh and it looks a lot more like a Mig 21 than the Westland wyvern, which is the unit graphic it currently uses.

[Jack8765]

FAW Sea Vixen


There are two FAW.2 Sea Vixen units in game, I think one should be the FAW.1 Sea vixen.

It also has a different graphic to the other Sea vixen and lacks the carrier launch ability and in flight refuelling.

They can also be researched independently of each other.

[Balthagor]

Updated on development side;

* M-84A4 - values tweaked a bit but I balance that unit almost 8 years ago. Have neither the time nor interest in researching it again now.
* Su-32 Renamed, should not have been ASW.
* Nukes prereqs fixed (should be tech 140)
* Unit 4649 renamed to M-1974
* Altay now region code E
* Skyray now carrier capable
* A bunch of units were missing their "balistic artilery" flag (needed for balistic artillery improving techs)
* Can't find the Type 77. Unit ID please.
* F.6 name adjusted, yes that is the export version.
* Class 9 Sea Vixen now FAW.1. There is no way to make a unit in one class a prereq for something in another class without causing issues.

[hoddized]

Sorry, it's called ZBDS-77, not Type-77.
I can't research the T-62 as North Korea, can anyone confirm this?

[number47]

Updated on development side;

* M-84A4 - values tweaked a bit but I balance that unit almost 8 years ago. Have neither the time nor interest in researching it again now.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but there was no need to tweak M-84A4. That unit was fine so please dont change it. The issue was that the further development of M-84A4, the M-84D is missing and that the M-95 Degman which should be better then both, has all the stats lower than M-84A4 and even costs less to build.

To simplify the development line (this will be a simplified line of units that are used in game, I will not mention other variants):
=M-84 (Yugoslav tank) -> M-84A4 (upgrade) -> M-84D (final upgrade to bring the M-84 series to M-95 Degman standard)
=M-95 Degman is a separate tank prototype (two of them built) and is not an upgrade of M-84 (at least no more than Leopard 2 is upgrade of Leopard 1) but it is a continuation of development.

Also, would you please consider changing 3D model for M-95 to TE-1A MBT (2441 in .units file; pic number 454) as it is more accurate? Also if you decide that adding M-84D is not necesary, could you please at least change the 3D model for M-84 and M-84A4 to the one T-90S (pic number 199) as the current model for the m-84 series does not represent the real model?
Please?
Pretty please?
Pretty please with cherry on top?

EDIT: I would be most grateful if you would inform me about your intentions on this matter (if there are/will be any)

EDIT2: maybe I should start a new thread under development to avoid clogging this thread?

[Balthagor]

I'll consider it, you'll notice that I wait till there's a bunch of things to fix then I fix them all at once. This will get looked at next time I'm doing fixes.

[number47]

I'll consider it, you'll notice that I wait till there's a bunch of things to fix then I fix them all at once. This will get looked at next time I'm doing fixes.

I know that you wait until there are more things to fix cause it would make no sense to reply after every new post, that's why I wanted to hear if you'll even consider it. Thanks for the response.

[hoddized]

Japanese N1K5-A takes 2.2 years to build.

[Jack8765]

Supermarine Scimitar Mk1:

lacks the carrier launch/land ability.

[number47]

Helsinki class patrol boat has 40km land/ship range.
As much as I like this I'm not sure Bofors 57 mm/70 Mk1 cannon had such range but if there is some other reason for this PB to have such a range than disregard my post.

Oh, before I go in hibernation for 3 days: Happy holidays to all!!!!!!

[hoddized]

chinese Q-5 is a ground attack craft, not an interceptor.

[Tarskin]

The dutch walrus class (tech level 91) becomes available at the same time as the zwaardvis class (tech level 70) while in reality the walrus class (1990-current) replaced the zwaardvis class (1974-1990). I would suggest putting the walrus available on a different (later) tech than Military submarine design?

PS: What's up with that S-6 seal (tech level 102) becoming available at the same time? o.O

[flashy]

was hoping this thread existed, i'm going to read through it first and compile a list over the next couple days

[flashy]

Ok i am in 1958...BBI-Summit tech level 80...

Just to reinforce the point, you've achieved "Electronic Fire Control" and "Naval SAM Ordinance" techs which are 1972/1980 techs respectively. It makes sense that you're able to research a 1980 battleship

haha one of my beefs is the use of 'ordinance' rather than 'ordnance'

[number47]

Helsinki class patrol boat has 40km land/ship range.
As much as I like this I'm not sure Bofors 57 mm/70 Mk1 cannon had such range but if there is some other reason for this PB to have such a range than disregard my post.

Same thing (40km land/ship range) with following patrol boats: P-961 Storm, R-131 Norrkoping and P-986 Hauk...