Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
flashy
Lieutenant
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by flashy »

Taranis wrote: Transport Ships
AOR-512 Souteneur JSS -> As USA you start with 12 of those in the reserves, they are Commonwealth ships that require 21st Centurry Naval Vessels technology
they are the hypothetical representation of the new class of Canadian joint supply ships, for which the contract has just been recently awarded. i find the name curious because it has never appeared in any source i could find
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

a lot of ingame tanks (M47 Patton, M46A1 Pershing, M26 Pershing, M103 Conqueror & Conqueror II, J-61, Shir-1 Khalid...etc.) use model from real life AMX-13 FL 10 (which is wrong but not the issue I want to point out) and the ingame AMX-13 FL 10 doesn't? HUH

The "AMX-13" and "AMX-13 FL-10 HOT ATGM" versions use correct model...
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
BlackEagle
Captain
Posts: 121
Joined: Feb 04 2010
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by BlackEagle »

Jean wrote:little-minor-stupid issues on russian air force units:

maybe the russian PAK-FA pic should be similar to that of F-35 Lightining 2 no?

and:

SU-47 Bekrut bomber has small (don't know how'd you say that in english) "negative delta wing", so pic should be more similar to that currently used for Mig 1.44

again:

Mig 37 Nato codename is not Flywheel but FERRET ... it's currently using the F15 Eagle pic but looks more like a Raptor

i guess that the ipotethical MIG 41, Nato codename FOXGLOVE is a Stealth variant of Mig 37 designed for air superiority, which can be deployed on a long deck carrier. Doesn't look like a Foxbat, should be very similar to the Raptor .. or it could be also replaced by the Ruski stealth aircraft pic


aaaand:

does Su55 exists? Is a ipothetical PAK FA version? Anyway, pic should be replaced with that of Raptor... in any case it should never look like a variable wing Fencer =P
Mig-37 and Mig-41 are not real fighters, so they don't have official NATO codename... Just fictional codenames.
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

There is an issue in tank design development.

The design upgrade line in question is following:
T-72M -> T-72M1 -> M-84 -> M84A4 Sniper -> M-95 Degman (-> = upgrades to)
The regions being able to build the designs are as following:
T-72M = RL
T-72M1 = RQT
M-84 = T
M84A4 = T
M-95 = T

Do you see the problem? Regions Q and T will never be able to build their designs because they miss the first design in the line :roll:

Also one question...is it possible to make two upgrades of the same unit?
for example T-72M1-> M-84 & T-72M1-> PT-91 Twardy M 2001 (M84B) = because in real life the M-84 and PT-91 were two separate advancements of the T-72 (one Yugoslav and one Polish). The reason I ask is because PT-91 becomes available far too early for research as it has no prerequisite unit :-?
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

One more thing,

why M84B and M 2001 in PT-91 Twardy M 2001 (M84B) HUH

It look as there are three versions stuffed in one :lol:
It should be just PT-91 Twardy because:
1. M2001 was Serbian upgrade of M-84AB (M2001 is commonly known as M-84AS)
2. I dont know what M84B should represent as in M-84 family there is no model with just letter B but there was M-84AB though.

The reason for the mix-up could be the development of M-84 after the breakdown of Yugoslavia. Here is the development of M-84 during and after the breakdown:

Yugoslavia
(M-84 -> M-84A ->M-84AB)

Croatia
(M-84AB -> M-84A4 -> M-84D)

Serbia
(M-84AB -> M-84AS which is also known as M-2001)

Also the Yugoslavia was developing new tank not based on T-72. The tank had project name M-91 Vihor. The war broke up before it was finished and the designs were left in Croatia which used them as a base for M-95 Degman.

[_]O Therefore I suggest making M-95 Degman a separate design, not upgrade of T-72. And it should have at least the following prerequisite thecnologies so it wouldnt become available for research too early: composite armour, reactive armour, improved fire control (fell free to add more :D )
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

no, can't upgrade to two things in the current engine. If those regions managed to trade for the prereq design they would then be able to research it but I'll change that. Carry over from SR2020 where upgrade too simply hide previous designs, wasn't actually a prereq.

Looking at the rest may wait some time, focused on units in the Cold War era first.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

Balthagor wrote:no, can't upgrade to two things in the current engine.
Yeah, I feared so...too bad the sistem works "this unit upgrades to that unit" instead of "this unit needs that unit as prerequisite" :-(
Balthagor wrote:Looking at the rest may wait some time, focused on units in the Cold War era first.
Does this mean there is possibility you will add more accurate models for Cold war units? :D
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

Like I always say, anything is possible.

You could start a new thread about units who's meshes ppl suggest we change, either to a different existing one or that ppl say is significant enough that it should get it's own model added...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

Post by number47 »

Balthagor wrote:Like I always say, anything is possible.

You could start a new thread about units who's meshes ppl suggest we change, either to a different existing one or that ppl say is significant enough that it should get it's own model added...
Thanks, I'll give it a try :D
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
flashy
Lieutenant
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by flashy »

S2F-3S (S-2E) Tracker : the wings may fold up on them but the engines don't! shouldn't be VTOL. wishful thinking but you should add a CP-121 variant

J-7 Shenyang: should be reversed, eventually became Chengdu J-7 once production shifted

DEG-1 Brooke: i know it was a one-off designed for AAW but the ranges seem a bit high
Fistalis
General
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 23 2009
Human: Yes
Location: x:355 y:216
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Fistalis »

flashy wrote: DEG-1 Brooke: i know it was a one-off designed for AAW but the ranges seem a bit high
Its extended ranges is probably counting the fact it carried a SH-2_Seasprite :wink:
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.
flashy
Lieutenant
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by flashy »

Fistalis wrote:
flashy wrote: DEG-1 Brooke: i know it was a one-off designed for AAW but the ranges seem a bit high
Its extended ranges is probably counting the fact it carried a SH-2_Seasprite :wink:
makes sense, same principle applies to the Chinese Luda II DDH
Jakt80
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Joined: Feb 05 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Jakt80 »

The swedish tanks are supposed to be "Stridsvagn" not "Stridsvagan" or Stridsvagen" nor "Stridswagen" or other some such.

For example the Strv-103 Stridsvagan is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103

Just pointing out =)
icbm78
Sergeant
Posts: 14
Joined: Feb 09 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by icbm78 »

France and Germany are capable of producing WWII weapons (Tiger, for instance) - why? That's not realistic. They should build Chaffee tanks, Shermans, etc.

And there is a mistake in Chaffee specs: it's protected better than Pershing).
flashy
Lieutenant
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by flashy »

yes but they had no indigenous capability to produce those units and could only beg, borrow or steal them off the yanks
Post Reply

Return to “Issues & Support”