Unit Errata

[Balthagor]

I haven't been looking at the equipment list much lately, working in other areas.

[Balthagor]

Advanced turboprop tech is really not needed for WW2 aircrafts like Ki-43, Fw-190, P-51, Spitfires, G4Ms...
turboprop engines are used for post WW2 airplanes like C-130 Hercules, P-3 Orion, Tu-95 bear...

I propose to use "advanced piston engines" or "high performance piston engines2 instead.

Or if you want to split techs, you can use "advanced radial engines" (for aircrafts like P-47, F4U Corsair, B-29s, Ki-84 etc) and "Advanced liquid cooled aircraft engines" (for aircrafts like P-51, late Spitfires, late Bf109s, Do-335s, D4Ys)...

Just reviewing this. Are you suggesting that by renaming Adv. Turboprop to Advanced Piston Engines it would be an acceptable progression?

Would Advanced Radial Engines and Advanced Liquid Cooled Engines have the same tech year and prereqs as Adv. Turboprop?

[Zuikaku]

Advanced turboprop tech is really not needed for WW2 aircrafts like Ki-43, Fw-190, P-51, Spitfires, G4Ms...
turboprop engines are used for post WW2 airplanes like C-130 Hercules, P-3 Orion, Tu-95 bear...

I propose to use "advanced piston engines" or "high performance piston engines2 instead.

Or if you want to split techs, you can use "advanced radial engines" (for aircrafts like P-47, F4U Corsair, B-29s, Ki-84 etc) and "Advanced liquid cooled aircraft engines" (for aircrafts like P-51, late Spitfires, late Bf109s, Do-335s, D4Ys)...

Just reviewing this. Are you suggesting that by renaming Adv. Turboprop to Advanced Piston Engines it would be an acceptable progression?

Would Advanced Radial Engines and Advanced Liquid Cooled Engines have the same tech year and prereqs as Adv. Turboprop?

I think they would but I'm not home at the moment. I will look at this later if that's OK? And also airplanes like Ki-43 or Ki-61 or G4Ms do not requere advanced engine types.
I can also look at this later.

[Zuikaku]

The problem with turboprop prototype tech is that it needs following prereqs: early turbojet theories, improved turbine engines, reaction jet engines and aircraft turbine engine design wjich then leads to turboprop prototype which allows you to build late war aircrafts. so, basically the whole tech branch is wrong. You really do not need turbojet theories or reaction jet engines to build advanced radial engines or advanced liquid cooled engines. And if you just rename turboprop prototype tech, you did nothing because you basically need to research turbojets and jets to get advanced (piston engined) radials.

so, what are we going to do now?! It seems like the whole tech branch needs to be redesigned and I suppose there is no time to do that. Maybe it is better to make AI research units since this issue affects all scenarios and not just WW2 ones.

Also, following aircrafts do not require any advanced radials or liquid cooled engines, but in the game they do require (turboprop prototype or advanced turboprop prototype).

Germany: Fw-190, Fw-190A7, Ju-87D, Ju-87G, Bf-109F, Bf-110E, Fw-189, Do-217N2, Hs-129

Italy: SM.84

Japan: Ki-43 hayabusa, Ki-44 Shoki, G4M, Ki-49, F1M2, Ki-45 (any of them), Ki-61 Hien, J2M Raiden, D3A2 Aichi

USSR: Il-2 shturmovik, MiG-3, LaGG-3, Tu-2, Yak-3, Yak-1B

UK: Hurricane IIC, Sea Hurricane IIC, Hurricane IV

US: all which use turboprop prototype


also, patrol planes that do not have any ASW capabilities and they should:

Germany: Do J Wal, Do-18D, Do-24T, He-115B1, BV-141A, Ju-88, Do-17

Italy: Z.506, Z501

Japan: H6K and H8K are both missing as patrol aircrafts. Why?? They had remarkable patrol capabilities and were potent ASW platforms.

USSR: MBR-2, MDR-4

UK: Sunderlands have way too low ASW ratings...

US: B-24 Liberator (famous sub killer), PB2Y3 Coronado, PBY Catalina amphibian

[Balthagor]

Bellow are some stuff I could look into my recent save of France with the latest beta. When I get the time I will look into my Brasil Save wich pretty much have the whole world desgins from 1936 Until 1960. But that will take a while.

T4M - Tactical Bomber - USA - 1928 - Has all 0 values for ground targets, but it's a bomber
SM79 - Transport - Italy 1936 - Has all 0 values for air targets but shows 5km range instead of n/a
DH.89 Dragon Raptide - Transport - UK - 1934 - Has all 0 values for ground targets but shows 5km range instead of n/a
MDR-4 - Patrol/AWAC - Russia - 1936 - Combat Time and Values all 0, intended?
OL - Patrol/AWAC - USA - 1923 - Combat Time and Values all 0, intended?
ALl Civilians Transports have 120 Combat timer but all values are 0, other transports with 0 values have 0 combat time, intended?
ÉLan - Patrol Boat - France - 1939 - All 0 values.
Marne - Patro Boat - France - 1916 - It'a boat that has value for Subs only and can't fight ships, intended?
Amiens - Patrol Boat - France - 1918 - It'a boat that has value for Subs only and can't fight ships, intended?
Otori - Patro Boat - Japan - 2 Designs with different stats but same name.
Beograd - Escrot Ship - France - 1939 - All 0 values.
All Carriers have Combat time but some have all 0 values that shows 5km range and some show n/a, I think maybe those with 5km and 0 should have air damages?
All subs and ground troops looked fine so far.

Also I remember finding some unit with really good combat values but 0 Combat time, Prolly a bug but I don't remember what unit that was, hope I find it again so I can report.

Regards
Ael

Posted on Steam

[Aelhis]

Started a 1949 Col war Scenario save and traded units between pact right at the start and found out those 2 Designs.

Khabry - Escort Ship - Russia - 1939 - All 0 values
T-13 - Patrol Ship - Germany - 1941 - All 0 Values
Stug.IIIG Sturmeschutz Ausf.G - Anti-Tank - Germany - 1943 - 0 Combat Time
Donier Do-18D - Patrol/AWAC - Germany - 1939 - It's a Plane but shows as a Close Air Type but it's normal like all other planes.
Do-335 A-2 Pfeil - Tactical Bomber - Germany - 1945 - Has N/A For all range values.

Also is it intended that some Designs that Replaces others are weaker variant the older ones? I mean I noticed some that are weaker but are newer are usually cheaper so maybe that's why, Countries realized they needed cheaper military units not stronger... Like the Russian tank IS-4 Petrov(1947) replaced by the IS-2M Heavy (1951) which have lower stats compared...

Also hi everyone first post! Yahooo!

[Trifler]

Another unit fix that's needed is the French "special forces/mountain" need to be capitalized.

[Zuikaku]

All aircraft carriers (packed with flak) are still without any anti air values. Is that as intentioned for some reason?

[Balthagor]

Likely insufficient data when assembling the file to know which carriers had notable AA capabilities.

[Zuikaku]

Is it helpfull if we compile list of all known unit erratas posted here, or you can track them the way as it is now?

[Balthagor]

It certainly would not hurt, though other than some one offs I'm not sure when I'll next spend any large amount of time in the equipment file.

[Zuikaku]

summary of the last few pages:

- ZTZ-59 has better stats than the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-69II but is also cheaper... the 69 is just an upgraded 59, better optics, gun etc...
ZTZ-59 has better stats than T-54A, but ZTZ is basically the copy of t-54.
Lowering the ZTZ-59 stats might also address the fact it currently has higher stats than it's upgrade, the ZTZ-69.

- The F-35's B and C models have the wrong ranges the B model is down as having 2600Km range when the real figures at the moment are only 868.6Km. The C model is down as having a range of 2600Km when the real figures are 1139Km. The A model is pretty much bang on.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... redictions

- Bf-110s are way overpowered compared to early Bf-109s. While Bf-110s had better firepower compared to Bf-109s, their lack of maneuverability made them far more worse fighter than early Bf-109s. So it is absurd that we have Bf-110B with air attack ratings of 6 (low) and (6) medium and Bf-109 with 5(low) and 4 (medium). It is even more outrageous that even Bf-109F have lower air attack stats than Bf-110B

- Do-335 A2 tactical bomber has all attack values 0 ,so it is useless as tactical bomber

- He-177 is named "Grief" while correct is "Greif". Now, I know H-177 was extremely unreilable but it was not grief

- Me-323 Gigant - cargo capacity is way too low (26t for 12 aircraft squadron). Actually it is much lower than cargo capacity of Ju-52. Single Me-323 had cargo capacity up to 12 tonnes, so correct value for 12 machine squadron should be 144t.

- Ju-88C is not a tactical bomber but strategic bomber.

- Sdkfz 251 halftrack infantry have absurdly high price of $9 millions. If we take into account the price of other halftracks and even tanks (standard PzIV tank Bn costs only $4 millions), it is no wonder AI never builds them at all... (US M3 halftrack, and the two Japanese models (units 180, 181, 182 & 184) cost approx 5-10 times that of contemporary units. They are ~0.6m each, whereas something like an LVT-4 of the same era is ~.09. (LVT 4s having a full platoon of marines vs a single squad as well).
One "real world" comparison, the Sdkfz 7 infantry in game cost is 0.055m, less than 1/10th that of the sdkfz 251 (0.59). In reality, an SdKfz 7 cost
~35,000 RM to produce, the '251 ~23,000.

- Most of the heavy WW2 era AA guns have way too low anti tank ratings. These guns were able to fire high velocity, high caliber anti tank rounds capable of defeating most of WW2 era tanks. German 88mm flak was famous for being used in anti tank role, but all of these type of weapons were very potent in destroying tanks. Their weakness was very high profile and vulnerability to ground fire (in game terms - poor ground defense).
since in the game these guns have very poor at ratings (lower than early war 37mm AT guns, I think that should be corrected.

- Taiho - air capacity is 3 but should be 4

- Japanese J-97 Te-Ke has a higher hard attack value than the J-95 Ha-Go, even though the J-95 had a same caliber gun as the J-97 but with a higher muzzle velocity, there for should have a higher hard attack.

- id# 8787 "NSM-119 Penguin IV"
range 185km
kg 410
launch platform =5 (land+naval)
http://defense-update.com/20140926_coro ... EYv2GdY5c4

- unit 3252, "Cannone da 47/32 M35 47mm towed gun", should also be available to Italy, it's main producer. It should probably be a known design, since it's a model 1935

- Semovente 75/18 should use a short-barreled Stug model instead of the the current long barreled one.

- Soviet T-35 tank is overpowered. Although it's attack ratings are correct, it's defense ratings are just too strong. Let me remind you that although impressive and big in size, T-35 vas very lightly armoured, it suffered from bad mobility and was nothing more than big, fat juicy target - easy to spot and extremely easy to hit and destroy. In SR it has defense ratings equal or better than KV-1, KV-2 and T34/76 tanks which is just wrong.
also, it's production ended in '38 so that soul'd also be corrected in unit database...

- Advanced turboprop tech is really not needed for WW2 aircrafts like Ki-43, Fw-190, P-51, Spitfires, G4Ms...
turboprop engines are used for post WW2 airplanes like C-130 Hercules, P-3 Orion, Tu-95 bear...
I propose to use "advanced piston engines" or "high performance piston engines2 instead.
Or if you want to split techs, you can use "advanced radial engines" (for aircrafts like P-47, F4U Corsair, B-29s, Ki-84 etc) and "Advanced liquid cooled aircraft engines" (for aircrafts like P-51, late Spitfires, late Bf109s, Do-335s, D4Ys)...
but the problem is the whole tech branch needs to be reworked for that

- Nearly all patrol aircraft, of all nationalities, had some ASW capability, from bombs, torpedoes and/or depth charges.
Some later US PTR aircraft have ASW capabilities, but not the bulk (sans the PBY) of the World War II era aircraft.
At a minimum, most seaplane PTR should have a minimal ASW capability (if only 5 points or less) to reflect the ability to drop depth charges.
patrol planes that do not have any ASW capabilities and they should:

Germany: Do J Wal, Do-18D, Do-24T, He-115B1, BV-141A, Ju-88, Do-17

Italy: Z.506, Z501

Japan: H6K and H8K are both missing as patrol aircrafts. Why?? They had remarkable patrol capabilities and were potent ASW platforms. None of the rest of japanese patrols in the game has no any ASW capabilities

USSR: MBR-2, MDR-4

UK: Sunderlands have way too low ASW ratings...

US: B-24 Liberator (famous sub killer), PB2Y3 Coronado, PBY Catalina amphibian
********************************************************************************************************

- All aircraft carriers (packed with flak) are still without any anti air values. They should have both low and medium air attack values. For instance, US CVs carried mix of 5,5", 40mm and 20mm AA guns. Japanese CVs carried mix of 5" and 20mm guns. While CVs were big juicy targets for aicrafts, they were not defenseless!

- T4M - Tactical Bomber - USA - 1928 - Has all 0 values for ground targets, but it's a bomber
SM79 - Transport - Italy 1936 - Has all 0 values for air targets but shows 5km range instead of n/a
DH.89 Dragon Raptide - Transport - UK - 1934 - Has all 0 values for ground targets but shows 5km range instead of n/a
MDR-4 - Patrol/AWAC - Russia - 1936 - Combat Time and Values all 0, intended?
OL - Patrol/AWAC - USA - 1923 - Combat Time and Values all 0, intended?
ALl Civilians Transports have 120 Combat timer but all values are 0, other transports with 0 values have 0 combat time, intended?
ÉLan - Patrol Boat - France - 1939 - All 0 values.
Marne - Patro Boat - France - 1916 - It'a boat that has value for Subs only and can't fight ships, intended?
Amiens - Patrol Boat - France - 1918 - It'a boat that has value for Subs only and can't fight ships, intended?
Otori - Patro Boat - Japan - 2 Designs with different stats but same name.
Beograd - Escrot Ship - France - 1939 - All 0 values.
All Carriers have Combat time but some have all 0 values that shows 5km range and some show n/a, I think maybe those with 5km and 0 should have air damages?
Khabry - Escort Ship - Russia - 1939 - All 0 values
T-13 - Patrol Ship - Germany - 1941 - All 0 Values
Stug.IIIG Sturmeschutz Ausf.G - Anti-Tank - Germany - 1943 - 0 Combat Time

[Balthagor]

Yeah, that only helps slightly

A google spreadsheet might be more helpful because in some of those cases I need more information or there are bigger issues at play such as overall unit balance.

Do-335 and F-35 should be fixed for next update.

The Gigant is correct by the data I have on the Wiki;
Empty weight: 27,330 kg (60,260 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,500 kg (65,000 lb)

The NSM Penguin link goes to an error page, can't confirm the data. I've made the changes anyway.

The Taiho capacity updated.

Cannone da 47, added H to region code

Semovente 75/18 changed to pic 593

H6K and H8K don't belong in this thread, they are requests for new units.

More another time...

[Zuikaku]

A google spreadsheet might be more helpful because in some of those cases I need more information or there are bigger issues at play such as overall unit balance.

I'm not sure I know what that is since I have never used it

The Gigant is correct by the data I have on the Wiki;
Empty weight: 27,330 kg (60,260 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,500 kg (65,000 lb)

On the same page it says:

Max. takeoff weight: 43,000 kg (94,815 lb)
Maximum payload was around 12 tonnes, although at that weight the Hellmuth Walter Werke-designed, liquid-fueled RATO (rocket assisted takeoff) units used on the Me 321 were required for take off. The RATO's were mounted beneath the wings outboard of the engines, with the wings having underside fittings to take up to a total of four RATO units. The cargo hold was 11 m (36 ft) long, 3 m (10 ft) wide and 3.4 m (11 ft) high. The typical loads it carried were: One 15 cm FH18 field artillery piece (5.5 ton) accompanied by its Sd.Kfz.7 halftrack transport vehicle (11 ton), two 3.6 tonne (4 ton) trucks, 8,700 loaves of bread, an 88 mm Flak gun and accessories, 52 drums of fuel (252 L/45 US gal), 130 men, or 60 stretchers.


Why have you stripped Japan of it's best patrol planes?? I can not allow you to do that

[Zuikaku]

A google spreadsheet might be more helpful because in some of those cases I need more information or there are bigger issues at play such as overall unit balance.

I'm not sure I know what that is since I have never used it

The Gigant is correct by the data I have on the Wiki;
Empty weight: 27,330 kg (60,260 lb)
Loaded weight: 29,500 kg (65,000 lb)

On the same page it says:

Max. takeoff weight: 43,000 kg (94,815 lb)
Maximum payload was around 12 tonnes, although at that weight the Hellmuth Walter Werke-designed, liquid-fueled RATO (rocket assisted takeoff) units used on the Me 321 were required for take off. The RATO's were mounted beneath the wings outboard of the engines, with the wings having underside fittings to take up to a total of four RATO units. The cargo hold was 11 m (36 ft) long, 3 m (10 ft) wide and 3.4 m (11 ft) high. The typical loads it carried were: One 15 cm FH18 field artillery piece (5.5 ton) accompanied by its Sd.Kfz.7 halftrack transport vehicle (11 ton), two 3.6 tonne (4 ton) trucks, 8,700 loaves of bread, an 88 mm Flak gun and accessories, 52 drums of fuel (252 L/45 US gal), 130 men, or 60 stretchers.


Why have you stripped Japan of their best patrol planes?? I can not allow you to do that