Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#391 Post by Buzzbrad » Jan 08 2019

SGTscuba wrote:
Jan 08 2019
Buzzbrad wrote:
Jan 08 2019
snip

Thanks for the report Nerei. I have made the adjustments to the LHA-6 America Class and CV-7 Wasp.
I think some other carriers could do with some adjustment, mainly around their cargo capacity which is a critical thing. I'll try get some rough numbers and post them on here (I have a few books from reputable sources on carriers - especially British ones). Some early carriers could do with planes too as most planes of WW1 could be landed on carriers due to their low speed and were generally used with few if any modifications. Like I say, i'll have a look through the books and get back to you.
Sounds good. Post on this topic and I will try to get to it when I can.

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 938
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#392 Post by Nerei » Jan 09 2019

Here is a few other warship related issues or oddities.

CVA-58 United States (ID 16066)
Current speed is 53km. This is slow for a fleet carrier. It is actually slower than CV-7 Wasp. Wikipedia and FAS lists a speed of 33 knots or 61km/h.


CVE-102 Casablanca (ID 16049)
First off in many cases you tend to use the name of the vessel in question. For CVE-102 the name is "Attu".
Also this unit has no air or surface attack range or stats.
The general trend for these vessels would be increased AA armament as the war progressed so compared to the original CVE-55 Casablanca (ID 16044) it would probably be similar surface and increased low air attack but with the same range.


Taiyo (ID 16099)
This aircraft carrier has a design capacity of just under 30 aircraft. The listed capacity of 1 seems a bit low for that. For comparison the Ryūjo which could carry just a few more aircraft is given 2. The above mentioned casablanca also has a capacity of 2 and could carry basically the same number of aircrafts as the Taiyō.


DD-122 Hatsuyuki (ID 17398)
These ships have a helideck and hangar which is typically represented with a submarine attack range of 100km. Currently they have a range of 11km.


CGN-38 Virgninia SM-2 (ID 17774)
Spelling error in the name. The first "n" needs to go.

DuxMare
Warrant Officer
Posts: 37
Joined: Mar 09 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#393 Post by DuxMare » Jan 13 2019

The soviet DD-30 Ognevoy class destroyer has a submarine attack value of only 2, should this be 200? The other soviet destroyers from earlier years (Soobrazitelny '36 and Opytny '41) have submarine attack values of 175.

Also a Tu-4 B-4 Bull cannot carry a 10kt nuclear bomb. Shouldn't they be able to do that?

YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 790
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

#394 Post by YoMomma » Jan 13 2019

Yea theres lots of problems. Sometimes it reads decimals and sometimes not. Pretty sure it has to to with the asset manager not loading decimals. Or 1 time using .00 and other times using .000 it confuses the asset manager and now some units are pretty Errata i guess. A hell to maintain your mod with other mods tho and your own changes.
Gameplay 1st

evildari
Colonel
Posts: 353
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#395 Post by evildari » Jan 15 2019

in Islands scenario: no unit has a close air attack value - although close air attack range and both medium air values.
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)

Alekius
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 18 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#396 Post by Alekius » Jan 18 2019

I think there is a problem with one of the ships for the USA.

Was CL-55 Cleveland. Listed move speed of 33 km/h which seems unusually low for a fleet cruiser. Should be right around 60 km/h. Checked to make sure my memory was accurate. The .gov sites listing the Cleveland are not working at the moment :roll: so some other sources below. All listed at 32.5kts. Looks like a small oversight to me unless this is a particular version of the Cleveland class that I couldn't find. 32.5kts converts to just over 60km/h which is what I expected with other ships of the time.

I know I'm new to the forum since I couldn't find my old login information but I've playing your games since the initial release of SR2010 and loving it the whole time. Thank you for all the work you've done to improve the engine over the years!

-Alekius

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/cruisers/ca-cl2.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland-class_cruiser
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... isers.html
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships ... veland.htm

Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#397 Post by Buzzbrad » Jan 19 2019

Thanks for the reports. I have gone through and fixed most of these.

Micheal Berg
Lieutenant
Posts: 57
Joined: Jun 19 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#398 Post by Micheal Berg » Jan 22 2019

Buzzbrad wrote:
Jan 19 2019
Thanks for the reports. I have gone through and fixed most of these.
Thanks Buzzbrad

User avatar
Idar
Corporal
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 13 2019
Human: Yes
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

#399 Post by Idar » Feb 13 2019

Hello!

I play the game in sandbox scenario 1936 with Italy. I see a little bit error in the name of the italian naval unit (land and air units are perfect!):

In Reserve Unit:
- 4 Units: Palestro, Confienza, San Martino, Solferino
The units are classified CAP, Konig class (Germany origin).
In real, the units was old (costructed in 1921) destroyers belonging to Palestro class-destroyers (in game, ESC ship type).

- 4 Units: Curtatone, Calatafimi, Castelfidardo, Monzambano
The units are classified CAP, Republique class (France origin).
In real, the units was old (costructed in 1924) destroyers belonging to Curtatone class-destroyers (in game, ESC ship type).

- Ship Pisa was in real ship Leonardo da Vinci, and the class was named Conte di Cavour (not Pisa).

I point out two little typing error:
-The CAP class Duca de Gli Abruzzi instead Duca degli Abruzzi;
- The CAP class Guissano instead Giussano.

In the research screen, naval section, there are strange names:
- Capital Ship: there are model of the spanish navy like Espana, Alfonso, Reina Victoria Eugenia
There are two battleship-class that was costructed in 1900: Regina Margherita, Regina Elena and Re Umberto.
The class Ammiraglio (Ammiragli :-) ) was a submarine class.
- Escort ship: the name are spanish or portuguese.

I hope this post can help!

dax1
Colonel
Posts: 485
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: Unit Errata

#400 Post by dax1 » Feb 13 2019

Idar wrote:
Feb 13 2019
Hello!

I play the game in sandbox scenario 1936 with Italy. I see a little bit error in the name of the italian naval unit (land and air units are perfect!):

In Reserve Unit:
- 4 Units: Palestro, Confienza, San Martino, Solferino
The units are classified CAP, Konig class (Germany origin).
In real, the units was old (costructed in 1921) destroyers belonging to Palestro class-destroyers (in game, ESC ship type).
the wrong is in italian orbats file 17326 id is Koning and not Palestro (id 18210)
17326,,,,1,,,Palestro,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,17 Torpedo Destroyer,Palestro,
17326,,,,1,,,Confienza,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,17 Torpedo Destroyer,Palestro
17326,,,,1,,,San Martino,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,17 Torpedo Destroyer,Palestro
17326,,,,1,,,Solferino,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,17 Torpedo Destroyer,Palestro


same here 17336 is Republique, but Curtatone is id 18211
- 4 Units: Curtatone, Calatafimi, Castelfidardo, Monzambano
The units are classified CAP, Republique class (France origin).
In real, the units was old (costructed in 1924) destroyers belonging to Curtatone class-destroyers (in game, ESC ship type).
17336,,,,1,,,Curtatone,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,17 Torpedo Destroyer,Curtatone
17336,,,,1,,,Calatafimi,,,,,,,,,,,,,//,17 Torpedo Destroyer,Curtatone
and so on...
Con forza ed ardimento

User avatar
Idar
Corporal
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 13 2019
Human: Yes
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

#401 Post by Idar » Feb 13 2019

It's true, Pisa was a real ship (Leonardo da Vinci BB was sunk in 1916). But in game Giulio Cesare and Conte di Cavour wa classified Pisa-class. I confused when I wrote.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1841
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#402 Post by SGTscuba » May 25 2019

In the 1914 sandbox, the UK has duplicate ship called "Indefatigable". Not only this, but its speed is only 25 kmh when it should probably be 25kt as it was a battlecruiser irl.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040

NightHawk
Corporal
Posts: 3
Joined: May 02 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#403 Post by NightHawk » May 27 2019

Idar wrote:
Feb 13 2019
In the research screen, naval section, there are strange names:
- Capital Ship: there are model of the spanish navy like Espana, Alfonso, Reina Victoria Eugenia
There are two battleship-class that was costructed in 1900: Regina Margherita, Regina Elena and Re Umberto.
The class Ammiraglio (Ammiragli :-) ) was a submarine class.
- Escort ship: the name are spanish or portuguese.
Hi there!

i'm currently working on getting some of the issues you have brought up, fixed in the game. however, i am a bit unsure what you mean in this instance. for example, the Ammiraglio is a reference to a battleship rather than a submarine found here: http://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it ... nt_bon.htm. if you get the ship does a submarine show up or ship?

i just want more clarification as to what you mean by strange names, like are they spelled wrong? are the names associating themselves with the wrong ship? perhaps a wrong country? anything that you can provide would be appreciated!

Nighthawk

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1841
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#404 Post by SGTscuba » Jun 08 2019

The UK "Eagle" Class aircraft carrier is only a short deck carrier, even though it operated long deck aircraft in real life. It should therefore have the long deck flag and not the short deck flag.

The UK "Centaur" class aircraft carrier only has 1 capacity, this should be more according to the Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... Royal_Navy
It should be at least 2 in my opinion, perhaps 3.

Also, some more planes should have the long deck stat as they were used from these early carriers, which at the moment do not have any aircraft until the 30's. For example from this wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageou ... ft_carrier
The Sopwith pup, Camels were also used too.

Quote from that page on other aircraft used:
Normally, Furious could carry only about 36 aircraft. In the 1920s this commonly meant one flight (squadrons after 1932) of fighters (Fairey Flycatcher), two of spotters (Blackburn Blackburn or Avro Bison), one spotter reconnaissance (Fairey IIID) and two flights of torpedo bombers (Blackburn Dart). In 1935 there was one squadron of fighters with Hawker Nimrods and Hawker Ospreys, one squadron of Blackburn Baffin torpedo bombers and one squadron of Fairey IIIF spotters. During the Second World War, the carrier typically carried a single fighter squadron and two of strike aircraft of various types, although the mix was often adjusted for specific missions.[18]
Courageous and Glorious were generally similar except that they carried a total of 48 aircraft. They commonly flew the same types of aircraft as Furious, although they are also known to have flown the Fairey Seal, the Blackburn Shark, and the Blackburn Ripon.[35]
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040

EricKilla
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#405 Post by EricKilla » Jun 14 2019

I've noticed that in the Great War/Brinkmanship scenario, the partisans/guerrillas tend to be pretty overpowered. My theory is the unit used in the Great War scenario is the same unit used in the WW2 scenario.

It's been some time since I last experienced the partisans, so I don't have any evidence handy, but I do recall having to use a fairly decent sized task force of at least 10-20 units to defeat partisans, as they would make clean work of a smaller group of infantry and support. I'd end up letting a bunch appear, then systematically capture each capital to capture the partisan unit and use it as a front-line shocktroop, which was actually surprisingly effective in small scale combat.

Figured I'd mention it. I'll post anything I find on it here later if I have anything.

Thanks!

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”