Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
bowtie
Lieutenant
Posts: 71
Joined: Feb 12 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#331 Post by bowtie » Dec 29 2017

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?

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2153
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#332 Post by Zuikaku » Dec 30 2017

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?
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.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 758
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#333 Post by Nerei » Jan 01 2018

oberkommando wrote:The Kc-767 shows be kc-46A.
Merry Christmas!
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
Major
Posts: 195
Joined: Sep 21 2008
Location: Querétaro

Re: Unit Errata

#334 Post by oberkommando » Jan 03 2018

Nerei wrote:
oberkommando wrote:The Kc-767 shows be kc-46A.
Merry Christmas!
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.
OH i see. I was not aware of this!. I appreciate the clarification. :oops:
Last edited by oberkommando on Jan 08 2018, edited 1 time in total.

Vonthoma
Warrant Officer
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 18 2007

Re: Unit Errata

#335 Post by Vonthoma » Jan 04 2018

FUSO CLASS 3D Model seems to big, isn't it ?

Image

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 758
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#336 Post by Nerei » Jan 04 2018

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.
Image

It could do with some shading though.

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

Re: Unit Errata

#337 Post by number47 » Jan 17 2018

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 :D .
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2153
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#338 Post by Zuikaku » Jan 17 2018

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 :D .
Fixed that.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

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

Re: Unit Errata

#339 Post by number47 » Jan 17 2018

Not in CW scenario...or you meant "fixed it now"? :P
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2153
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#340 Post by Zuikaku » Jan 17 2018

number47 wrote:Not in CW scenario...or you meant "fixed it now"? :P
Fixed that now :wink:
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

Felius
Warrant Officer
Posts: 43
Joined: Aug 13 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#341 Post by Felius » Jan 25 2018

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...

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

Re: Unit Errata

#342 Post by Balthagor » Jan 27 2018

Felius wrote:Ok, went to check out the files...
Thanks for these notes

- 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.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

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

Re: Unit Errata

#343 Post by number47 » Mar 04 2018

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 :P
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2153
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#344 Post by Zuikaku » Mar 04 2018

number47 wrote:
Mar 04 2018
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 :P
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 to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

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

Re: Unit Errata

#345 Post by number47 » Mar 09 2018

Zuikaku wrote:
Mar 04 2018
number47 wrote:
Mar 04 2018
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 :P
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.
Can you post the line here so I can change it by myself?
Image
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”