Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2280
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#31 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 17 2013

Balthagor wrote:It should be noted that not all of gemini's suggestions pass into the finished product. Any shortcomings are certainly of our doing.
Well, I think you should include as much as you can. Especially the hypothethical Axis designs or they will be boring to play and short of post WW2 units (if they survive WW2).
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2280
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata - Submarines

#32 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 17 2013

geminif4ucorsair wrote:
The Type XX1 (U-2321), Type XXVII B (U-5001 / Type 127 Seehund) are included (but have to finish rating them out fully)
Excellent!
geminif4ucorsair wrote:
Type XVIII
is not yet included. It would be likely four to five years distant from the end of WW 2
That is realistic and acceptable.
geminif4ucorsair wrote:
Their entry, of course, depends if Bathagor accepts their inclusion.
Well, if he don't accept them, you could include them in a mod scenario or they can give us a "secret weapons" scenario with your full unit database.
geminif4ucorsair wrote:
BG has tended not to include small, coastal submarines in the past, but did include the Seehund design because it is a dangerous submarine for "area" waters, such as the North, Mediterranean and Baltic Sea, though less likely to ever sail in open Atlantic waters (unless operated by Portugal, Iceland or other 'second' user region. There are other rather small subs, with high performance, that are also in Japanese and Italian design - the latter certainly will be in the game.
Too bad about this. They should include them. Since they doi not carry too much torpedoes, they should be stealthy but with not so great naval attack ratings...

P.S. I have also noticed that Wasserfall SAM is missing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall

And germans experimentated with sub launched V-2 missiles also....
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20452
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata - Submarines

#33 Post by Balthagor » Dec 17 2013

Zuikaku wrote:P.S. I have also noticed that Wasserfall SAM is missing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall...
from the wiki;
In spite of considerable development, Wasserfall never became operational.
Zuikaku wrote:
Balthagor wrote:It should be noted that not all of gemini's suggestions pass into the finished product. Any shortcomings are certainly of our doing.
Well, I think you should include as much as you can...
We do. Every unit that is submitted must be reviewed for accuracy. It doesn't take long for one, but with the volume of information we receive it becomes a large task. Like anything else, it's setting priorities. Historical content goes first.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2280
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata - Submarines

#34 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 17 2013

Balthagor wrote:
from the wiki;
In spite of considerable development, Wasserfall never became operational.
But the more important thing is what the same article claims below:

"After the first successful firing (the third prototype) on March 8, 1944,[2]:107 three Wasserfall trial launches were completed by the end of June 1944. A launch on January 8, 1944 was a failure, with the engine "fizzling" and launching the missile to only 7 km of altitude at subsonic speeds. The following February saw a successful launch which reached a speed of 770 m/s (2,800 km/h) in vertical flight.[1]:69 Thirty-five Wasserfall trial firings had been completed by the time Peenemünde was evacuated on February 17, 1945."

And more important:

"The project enjoyed little support in its earlier stages."

Not to mention that Wasserfall was basis for russian SA-2 missile...

And there were also Enzian and Rheintochter SAMs developing... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheintochter )

Also Hs-117H was ready for production before it was cancelled in February 1945. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_117 )

Please not that all of these designs were sucessfuly tested and were ready for massproduction but were cancelled mainly because of deteriorating war situation and priorities and (limited) resources given to other projects.

Balthagor wrote: We do. Every unit that is submitted must be reviewed for accuracy. It doesn't take long for one, but with the volume of information we receive it becomes a large task. Like anything else, it's setting priorities. Historical content goes first.
I agree. But the problem is this game is ment to be played beyond 1945 and beyond historical results...
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20452
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#35 Post by Balthagor » Dec 17 2013

And that will be possible.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20452
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata - B4N, B5N, B5M

#36 Post by Balthagor » Dec 17 2013

geminif4ucorsair wrote:Both B4N1 and B5N1 (#10632) plus B5N2 (#10032) (Kate) are includes....all carrier capable.
And, the lesser-known Mitsubishi B5M (#10669)......also, carrier-capable.
10632 was rejected, use 10032 instead.
10032 and 10669 have been updated as long deck capable.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Unit Errata

#37 Post by Aragos » Dec 17 2013

Also, the TBD-1 Devastator [USA] should be long deck capable; currently it is not.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20452
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#38 Post by Balthagor » Dec 17 2013

Aragos wrote:Also, the TBD-1 Devastator [USA] should be long deck capable; currently it is not.
fixed for the next update.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2280
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#39 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 17 2013

Balthagor wrote:And that will be possible.
It is possible but as I mentioned before - historicaly defeated nations will suffer from severe lack of unit designs in post war years if we stick to "historical and (mass)produced units only. That's what I'm trying to point out...
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2280
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#40 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 19 2013

AI nations seems to be trading with Turan 40mm SP AA guns. It is early 1938 and that seems a bit odd to me, but maybe they have just researched it fast....

- "Osvetnik" class submarine was not french design, it was post WW2 Yugoslav design

- at the start of the game, France is unable to produce or research ANY tank. And we are talking about France which sold thousands of FT-17 tanks....

- Surcaouf class is maybe overly strong due to it's attack range. I know the range is here due to 203mm guns but it seems a bit too much compared with surface attack ratings...

- Walrus and other smaller floatplanes should be able to land on short deck carriers since they were launched even from cruisers and battleships...
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20452
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#41 Post by Balthagor » Dec 19 2013

Re: Osvetnik wiki entry;
The Osvetnik class were a group of submarines built in France for the Yugoslav Royal Navy....
The boats were built in France to a contemporary French design (by Simonot) and used French equipment.
Re: Surcouf will need some specific balance testing, it's a rather unique case.

Re: Walrus and others;
I need all the names were you judge we have an error and please provide supporting links. When I look for Walrus in the database there are multiple entries.

Re; France and tanks - Actually in March 1936, they don't have any active designs. The FT-17 went out of production in the late '20s and full production of R-35 and S-35 tanks is still a few months away. There does seem to be a problem that the Tank Tech '34 is supposed to be preresearched but isn't for some reason. That would let the French player start researching either of those designs and have them in produciton in a few months. If you "show obsolete" in the game options, you'll have access to the FT-17.
18372
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2280
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#42 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 20 2013

UK seems to have PzI and hungarian (1941 tech) Turan tanks in it's inventory at the start of the game.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20452
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#43 Post by Balthagor » Dec 20 2013

Zuikaku wrote:UK seems to have PzI and hungarian (1941 tech) Turan tanks in it's inventory at the start of the game.
Noted, thanks.

However, as I've mentioned before, this thread is for Unit Errata, errors in unit specs. This is a region inventory error and worthy of a separate thread as it must be resolved quickly. Unit Errata are often done in batches once there are 10+ things to fix at once so that I an be more efficient in my work. Errors in orbats shouldn't wait and could get lost in this thread.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Jakt80
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Joined: Feb 05 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata - Submarines

#44 Post by Jakt80 » Dec 20 2013

Balthagor wrote:In spite of considerable development, Wasserfall never became operational.
I remember reading somewhere that the allies found about 2000 wasserfalls ready to be deployed in some underground storage, and the main reason why this weapon wasn't employed was because like many other promising weapons that were defensive in nature, Hitler considered anyone bringing up such weapons as defeatist, meaning you'd be out of favor with him, hence few ppl even mentioned it. A good example was his insistance to put bombs on the me 262, making it a poor attacker, and a poor interceptor. But then, I have no sources to quote.

Jakt80
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Joined: Feb 05 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#45 Post by Jakt80 » Dec 23 2013

Italian infantry unit "special forces/mountain" is spelled with no capital letters, just like this.

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”