Unit Errata

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#301 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Nov 24 2012

BigWolf wrote:
Asimov wrote:This is a minor point, but the British battleship Vanguard is named as "DDR Vanguard". I didn't know the Vanguard was somewhat related to East Germany. :lol:
DDR actually stands for Destroyer Class
Obviously it's still wrong as the Vanguard was a battleship
IT is not an intentional error....the Category 17 is Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship class units, and therefore the
"DD" carry-over.

BG recognizes Vanguards - which is being re-rated ATM - is a battleship (and there is a Vanguard - Sea Slug SAM
variant forthcoming.

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#302 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Nov 24 2012

number47 wrote:UnitID 14226 C-123K Provider should have 11 t (132 t total air wing) cargo capacity instead the current 6,8 t (total 82 t)...

UnitID 14202 An-12 Cub-A should have 20 t (240) cargo capacity instead current 9,55 t (total 115t )...also, the current range of 2688 km is possibly too low but I'm still looking for reliable source on that (I found ranges around 5700 km and even max payload range was 3600 km).

UnitID 14222 C-141B Starlifter as far as could find had ferry range in region from 9800 km to 10200 km depending on source but the current ingame range is set to 19760 km???

!!! EDIT: Also these are one of the very few units (4-5 I found so far) where you used the max payload range instead of ferry range (or max fuel range) used in other air transport units. I wonder if this was intentional since it brings serious disbalance between the units. In case of C-123K there is a quite a difference between currently used max payload range (1666 km) and his max fuel range (2350 km)?
Will review each of these units. C-123 series was recently updated and expanded in available versions.

BG guidelines set the Range / Payload as what might be termed
normal
. That means Ferry Range's are not included....George has guidelines regarding bump in ranges to represent this, if it gets used. Issues like Max Payload range
may also get revised if it does not fit what is a common, reasonable Payload / Range figure. For example, a four engine transport that historically routinely flew US West Coast to Hawaii, would be rated Range / Payload so that was still possible in the game, as opposed to using its Max Payload that might restrict range (and therefore, unable to fly the distance to Hawaii).

There is also a great swing in this data between era's as well....being a lower variable when it comes to older, mostly propeller aircraft. In some of these cases, a four engine transport is quite low when "max loaded", so we don't tend to use (if it restricts what were common flight distances - such as above example, or RAF Hastings flying from the UK to Cyprus - a common route for RAF Transport Command.

For more modern jet transport, such as C-141 and C-17, most can refuel once, so that range is considered from data available.
Otherwise, the same criteria is used as above.

There were many transport and other category aircraft that mistakenly used max (ferry) range when BG created SR2020 - most of those should be gone now.
Hope that helps.

User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

#303 Post by number47 » Nov 26 2012

UnitID 2328 "T-64B Bulat" if I'm not mistaken is an Ukranian modernised version and might be better to rename it to "T-64BM Bulat". http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/bula ... u=def2.php

UnitID 2821 "T-64B Kobra" has tech level 69. Now, if the Kobra in the name indicates that this is a model that was able to fire AT-8 missiles than I believe the tech year is a bit low. T-64B which used AT-8 Kobra missiles was a development from Obyekt 447 which was in turn a development from the T-64A-2M study from 1973. So, wiki's year of 1976 looks more right that 1969. But I might be wrong on what you take for unit's tech level though... :-?

EDIT: T-64B in the game has lower stats for hard attack than T-64A HUH I find that incorrect as T-64B was fitted with D-81TM gun (improved verion of D-81T gun used on T-64A) and was capable of firing AT-8 missiles. Now, I see that missiles were accounted for as T-64B in game has 4km range (compared to 3km for T-64A) so I believe it is just an oversight.
...please, correct :D
Last edited by number47 on Nov 28 2012, edited 2 times in total.
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

#304 Post by number47 » Nov 26 2012

UnitID 2309 "T-84-120 Oplot" should be renamed to "T-84-120 Yatagan" as Yatagan was the 120mm, modified version of T-84 Oplot (which is missing from the game) that was offered to Turkey for evaluation trials in 2000.

I know that this unit is out of Cold War scope but since it is only naming issue I decided to report it anyway.

EDIT:
UnitID 2307 "T-80UM1" - although Russia had T-80UM1 Bars prototype (revealed in 1997) this unit with its tech level and some other stuff looks more like the previously mentioned as missing, Ukranian T-84 Oplot...but this is a wild guess....

UnitID 2285 "PT-91 Twardy M 2001 (M84B)" should be renamed to "PT-91 Twardy". Serbian M 2001 (M-84AB1 or M-84AS) is completely another tank and it somehow got merged with Polish PT-91.
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#305 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 03 2012

SoB wrote:There are more questions

The B. MK.1 Valiant has a max missile size of 2 yet the B52B Canberra has a max missile size of 4 yet the valiant was bigger

And the Supermarine Scimitar F.Mk.1. Carry's missiles in the game (size 2) could it do this
Responding to several Forum post ref VICTOR and VULCAN strategic bombers, the following are now in the master data base:

- VICTOR (H.P.80) - B. Mk.1 ('57)
B. Mk. 2 ('61)
B. Mk. 2SR (Strategic Reconnaissance) ('65)
(B(K.) Mk.1A/2 Tanker ('65)

- VULCAN - B. Mk.1 ('57)
B. Mk.2 ('59)
B. Mk.I/1A/2 Blue Steel Upgrade
B. Mk 3 Vulcan Skybolt
B(K.) Mk.2 tanker
---------------------

* SCIMITAR F. Mk.1 - Yes, it is realistic to give a Missile rating of "2" for Scimitar - which often carried 2xBullput-B air-to-ground missiles - usually on two Bullpup AGMs, because of the two inner pylons were used to carry fuel tanks (200-gal./ 909-litr
In theory, Scimitar could be loaded with 4xBullpup missile...but this meant no pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder's and no extra fuel tanks. Or,
could carry 4x1,000-lbs bombs....again, the limitations were for much shorter missions. Later in the aircraft career, these would be Snake Eye bombs, with laser sensors.

Alternatively, for an Air Intercept mission, Scimitar could carry 4xAIM-9 Sidewinder's, but normally one two were carried - on the outer pylons.

Normal range with the two 200-gallon drop tanks was 2288-km / 1422-miles @ 30-35,000-ft.(Mid-Air in game).

Will check ratings and missile load capacity - but to gain the above range, the missile capacity will only be "4" and bomb load will be
more common 2,000-lbs - both based on also carrying two drop tanks.

The aircraft is largely a counterpart to US Navy F-8H Crusader in weapon load, though distinctly slower aircraft. It's max catapult launch weight was 34,000-lbs (F-8H @ 30,000-lbs) which compared to a F-4B Phantom II (at @ 50,000-lbs) made them both lightweights in comparison.
------------------------------

Hope than answers questions.

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Sverdlov class & Variants - Unit Errata

#306 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 03 2012

bvb wrote:Soviet Sverdlov cruiser (Unit # 17233 "CLG-70Eh Svederlov") has no range for it's anti-submarine attack value. Sub attack is 440, but range shows as N/A in game, and has a 0 value in the unit file.
Re-rating of the Project 68-bis light cruisers ("Sverdlov" class) has been done and several rating errors, including adopting to a new standard rating system for all naval ships, has been included during this last week.

As for their ASW, that was also re-rated, and recognized for having TAMIR 5N sonar for detection (which is not very impressive sonar :x
but gives you something! It's ASW attack capability rested in the ships standard load-out of torpedoes, being a mix of anti-ship and ASW types. [Btw, that attack value goes downward....] Sub attack range has therefore been amended to represent this.

Those playing the USSR will be happy to know that all version are not included, plus a couple design variants abandoned before implementation, including the Proj. 67 with S-2 Sopka (KSS) anti-ship cruise missile and Proj. 64 (five conversion planned) with P-6/P.7 (SS-N-3A Shaddock) cruise missile launchers (ala Kynda CG).
---------------

Proj. 58 (Kynda class) have also been re-rated (badly done before.....which has a rating representative of its gun and SAM systems,
but corrects the Naval Attack range rating to represent these systems (and not onboard surface-to-surface missile (SSM) systems, as it was before).

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#307 Post by Balthagor » Dec 03 2012

geminif4ucorsair wrote:...the following are now in the master data base..
To clarify, this is data that gemini provides to us. The records are not added to exported data until they go through QA. May not be in update 3.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#308 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 03 2012

Balthagor wrote:
geminif4ucorsair wrote:...the following are now in the master data base..
To clarify, this is data that gemini provides to us. The records are not added to exported data until they go through QA. May not be in update 3.
Sorry for not clarifying when posting :oops:
BG extracts from my work copy.
The good news: CL is good in getting it into db.

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#309 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 03 2012

number47 wrote:UnitID 14226 C-123K Provider should have 11 t (132 t total air wing) cargo capacity instead the current 6,8 t (total 82 t)...
UnitID 14202 An-12 Cub-A should have 20 t (240) cargo capacity instead current 9,55 t (total 115t )...also, the current range of 2688 km is possibly too low but I'm still looking for reliable source on that (I found ranges around 5700 km and even max payload range was 3600 km).
UnitID 14222 C-141B Starlifter as far as could find had ferry range in region from 9800 km to 10200 km depending on source but the current ingame range is set to 19760 km???
All three aircraft have been looked at and some changes made....also, C-141B has an IOC of 1979...that changed a lot.

User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

#310 Post by number47 » Dec 05 2012

@ Gemini4ucorsair
Thanks for the info.

@Balthagor

UnitID177 "Foreign Legion - Mounted" is currently available for regions "UES" and I thought this unit represented French Foreign Legion :D
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#311 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 05 2012

number47 wrote:Although these are modern day units and will have no fixing priority, I still need to point out that UK's ingame destroyers "D-33 Dauntless", "D-34 Diamond" and "DDG-45 Daring" are all in fact the same UK Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer (Daring class) with different pennant numbers: D32 Daring, D33 Dauntless and D34 Diamond... :wink:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/co ... hms-daring
This entry dates back I think to early-2020 development and will look into - also when the first modern-day Daring's were still being built. Will make sure it is corrected.

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#312 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 05 2012

Balthagor wrote:
number47 wrote:Destroyer R-11 Split (tech 39) in game is shown as United Kingdom design although it was built in Split, Yugoslavia in shipyard ''Split'' A.D. (under no. 30 in http://www.brodosplit.hr/eng/PRODUCTS/S ... fault.aspx) and was used in Yugoslav Navy.
But the design is British. The Yugoslavs couldn't have "researched" it.
While this has been corrected regards NOT being a British-origin design (it's French), a new entry has been created for the original "Split" class design, which did follow the French pattern of characteristics, already familiar in the Yugoslav navy.

The entry recently updated is the post-WW 2 design, which includes US aid-provided radars, 5"/38 single and 40mm/60 guns,
and American torpedo tubes and torpedoes, etc.

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#313 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 05 2012

number47 wrote:@ Geminif4ucorsair
Thanks for the info.
@Balthagor
UnitID 177 "Foreign Legion - Mounted" is currently available for regions "UES" and I thought this unit represented French Foreign Legion :D
Not so ethnocentric....GC was trying to create a pattern of Western (and Soviet) infantry designs for the "Cold War" theme.....and,
"foreign legion" - which several countries (Spain, etc.) had comparable units, is one of those results. I know, brings tears to the eyes of Frenchmen everywhere.... :-)
Last edited by geminif4ucorsair on Dec 05 2012, edited 1 time in total.

geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#314 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Dec 05 2012

Balthagor wrote:Actually Gemini could better explain it but as I recall "mounted" would use a very simple vehicle, a truck or open top car. "Motorized" is more jeep-like with potential for a stabilized weapon and forces trained for mobility in action.
"Mounted" is a more British/Canadian term and was begun by BG to represent truck-carrying infantry....you will notice they are rather vulnerable to distant artillery fire. The term date back to days of horse-bound cavalry.

"Motorized" is really a more American term for the same method of transport, and during WW 2 and thru Korean War, represented often a mix of trucks, half-track and jeep vehicles within an infantry battalion. An outgrowth of this from mid-WW 2 was the "armored" infantry....where half-tracks and jeeps (with accompanied light and medium tanks) were more dominant.

However, recognize that usually one one-third of a infantry regiment - three battalion types - was usually carried by half-track & jeeps, during mid- to late-WW 2 - the rest either walked or were truck-bound.

Both terms were rather subverted in more modern times - post-KW (particularly after the U.S. M75, M113, and French APCs emerged in large numbers by the mid-50s), with the term "mechanized" infantry.

User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Unit Errata

#315 Post by number47 » Dec 09 2012

"M51 Super Sherman" and "J-61" both have UnitID number 2597...
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

Post Reply

Return to “Support & Issues - SRCW”