Unit Errata
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Feb 12 2013
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
I've noticed that Autoblinda 43, is often available for the UK before it Italy has it.
Is the autoblinda 43 part of the UK tech tree?
Is the autoblinda 43 part of the UK tech tree?
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Think that is OOB error. It is also set as researched for USSR in 1949 scenarios. Corrected this for my mod, but it might take time for the stock game.bowtie wrote:I've noticed that Autoblinda 43, is often available for the UK before it Italy has it.
Is the autoblinda 43 part of the UK tech tree?
Please teach AI everything!
-
- General
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Jan 11 2016
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
The thing is the KC-767 is already in service while the KC-46 is not. The first delivery was to the JASDF in February 2008 so nearly a decade ago. For the 2017 start this is going to look bad as there suddenly will be aircraft on the map of a type that have yet to enter service.oberkommando wrote:The Kc-767 shows be kc-46A.
Merry Christmas!
-
- Major
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sep 21 2008
- Location: Querétaro
Re: Unit Errata
OH i see. I was not aware of this!. I appreciate the clarification.Nerei wrote:The thing is the KC-767 is already in service while the KC-46 is not. The first delivery was to the JASDF in February 2008 so nearly a decade ago. For the 2017 start this is going to look bad as there suddenly will be aircraft on the map of a type that have yet to enter service.oberkommando wrote:The Kc-767 shows be kc-46A.
Merry Christmas!
Last edited by oberkommando on Jan 08 2018, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Aug 18 2007
Re: Unit Errata
FUSO CLASS 3D Model seems to big, isn't it ?
-
- General
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Jan 11 2016
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
It is actually only a bit larger than the Tennessee model or about the same size as the Essex.
Personally I would say those great war dreadnoughts and destroyers are too small. Just about all 1936 ships are significantly larger.
It could do with some shading though.
Personally I would say those great war dreadnoughts and destroyers are too small. Just about all 1936 ships are significantly larger.
It could do with some shading though.
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: Unit Errata
Yak-23 Flora (ID9295) still better than Mig-15 (ID9815) or any other contemporary fighter...and it shouldn't be. This has been reported half a decade ago but I'll give it another go .
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Fixed that.number47 wrote:Yak-23 Flora (ID9295) still better than Mig-15 (ID9815) or any other contemporary fighter...and it shouldn't be. This has been reported half a decade ago but I'll give it another go .
Please teach AI everything!
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: Unit Errata
Not in CW scenario...or you meant "fixed it now"?
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Fixed that nownumber47 wrote:Not in CW scenario...or you meant "fixed it now"?
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Aug 13 2011
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Ok, went to check out the files to confirm some short ranged nuclear ships and submarines, plus one other I found while looking at it:
DD-151 Asagiri destroyer for some reason uses 24kgs of Uranium in its construction, which makes little sense. I suppose it could represent radioactive elements in its construction but not nuclear reactor (or warhead), but it'd be the only single unit in the whole list to do so, at least using so little Uranium.
"SSN-801 Fuji", "K-C6 Piran'ya", "SSCG-6 Sea Wolf", "SSC-16 Shaolin", "SSBN-814 Rhode Island", "SFAAN-1", "SSN-924 Mito", "SBN-FA" Submarines all use uranium in their construction but have movement ranges shorter than a hundred thousand kilometers, with most having ranges shorter than fifty thousand.
The "CVN-12 Ratri" carrier also has the same issue, with a range of a bit over eleven thousand kilometers despite being a nuclear carrier.
As a preview, there's also a bunch of transport ships that probably should actually have been classed as carriers, having the capacity to carry air units (generally short-decked though). I'll check the exact units later.
Edit: Scratch that, there seems there were fewer than I thought, so here are they: "MHD-150 Stralsund", "MHD-160 Hagen", "LHA-18 Chichijima" transports, all with carrier capacity.
Edit2: Speaking of which, the "LHA-18 Chichijima" is listed as weighting 27.5 tons, which for a ship with a cargo capacity of 14000 tons is rather silly. Not quite a massive problem since it's a ship and thus can't be put inside any kind of transport, but still...
DD-151 Asagiri destroyer for some reason uses 24kgs of Uranium in its construction, which makes little sense. I suppose it could represent radioactive elements in its construction but not nuclear reactor (or warhead), but it'd be the only single unit in the whole list to do so, at least using so little Uranium.
"SSN-801 Fuji", "K-C6 Piran'ya", "SSCG-6 Sea Wolf", "SSC-16 Shaolin", "SSBN-814 Rhode Island", "SFAAN-1", "SSN-924 Mito", "SBN-FA" Submarines all use uranium in their construction but have movement ranges shorter than a hundred thousand kilometers, with most having ranges shorter than fifty thousand.
The "CVN-12 Ratri" carrier also has the same issue, with a range of a bit over eleven thousand kilometers despite being a nuclear carrier.
As a preview, there's also a bunch of transport ships that probably should actually have been classed as carriers, having the capacity to carry air units (generally short-decked though). I'll check the exact units later.
Edit: Scratch that, there seems there were fewer than I thought, so here are they: "MHD-150 Stralsund", "MHD-160 Hagen", "LHA-18 Chichijima" transports, all with carrier capacity.
Edit2: Speaking of which, the "LHA-18 Chichijima" is listed as weighting 27.5 tons, which for a ship with a cargo capacity of 14000 tons is rather silly. Not quite a massive problem since it's a ship and thus can't be put inside any kind of transport, but still...
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Unit Errata
Thanks for these notesFelius wrote:Ok, went to check out the files...
- Asagiri uranium cost was an error, fixed for next update
- Chichijima weight was supposed to be 27500, fixed for next update
- Reviewed ranges of nuclear subs. Our range rule is "If nuclear, =spd*17520 hours". Fixed a bunch of subs.
- Ratri range also fixed.
If you'd like the LHAs reassigned you should start a separate thread for that since it's a debatable issue, not a straight forward errata.
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: Unit Errata
Is Su-34 tactical bomber (ID 11118) really supposed to have 2km range for ground attack or was it supposed to be 24km or more? Considering his payload, 2km seems pretty low
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
No it should not! Corrected this. Also, there is another Su-34 superflanker entry which needs to be deleted since Su-34 is Fullback (bomber) and Su-35 is Superflanker.
Please teach AI everything!
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: Unit Errata
Can you post the line here so I can change it by myself?
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr