Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#361 Post by Nerei » Aug 16 2018

The RGM-6 Regulus I SLCM (ID 8541) also cost 6250kg other than that the lowest cost is indeed 31623kg. Both weapons also have values comparable to weapons costing 62500kg of uranium easily hitting harder than those costing less.

I agree both weapons really should cost 62500kg of uranium.

Also just for the record the NLCM-1 Gyser is ID 8542

User avatar
Leafgreen
Colonel
Posts: 355
Joined: Apr 06 2006
Location: Emerald City
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

#362 Post by Leafgreen » Aug 16 2018

Nice find Nerei. =)
"That's O'neill, with two l's"
(Holds up 3 fingers)

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19975
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#363 Post by Balthagor » Aug 16 2018

Leafgreen wrote:
Aug 16 2018
Balthagor wrote:
Aug 16 2018
It's a nuclear missile. It needs Uranium...
Maybe read my post again after you've had coffee?

Even 10kt iron bomb nukes use 31,624kg of uranium, this is the only nuke I can see that uses less than 31k.
AH! Thanks. Regulus had a similar error.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#364 Post by Nerei » Aug 22 2018

ID 803 "J-16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle" is listed as an infantry unit. It should be an anti-tank unit. It does not have any kind of infantry compartment so it can hardly qualify as mechanised infantry.

It is intended to operate as a highly mobile tank destroyer mainly intended as a support unit to JSDF Type 90 and 10 MBT's or a s a rapid response unit that can say be airlifted to support say island garrisons.

Also its stats should probably reflect this as right now it is a fairly horrible tank destroyer.

User avatar
Uriens
Colonel
Posts: 478
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Unit Errata

#365 Post by Uriens » Aug 28 2018

Any chance we will get Leopard 2A7 added? It's already used by German army.

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2204
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#366 Post by Zuikaku » Aug 29 2018

Uriens wrote:
Aug 28 2018
Any chance we will get Leopard 2A7 added? It's already used by German army.
It is in my upcoming mod :oops:
But I have to merge it again with changes in unit database after the last update...
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

d-bassett
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 65
Joined: May 03 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#367 Post by d-bassett » Aug 29 2018

Zuikaku wrote:
Aug 29 2018
But I have to merge it again with changes in unit database after the last update...
If you did not already know, you can use an include statement inside of a unit file to keep updates from making changes to your modded entries. Create a new unit file (will call it MODDED.UNIT)with an include statement to the DEAFULT.UNIT file, then list the modded entries and point to that new (MODDED.UNIT)unit file in the .SCENARIO file. Any duplicate ID's will be resolved using the modded file as it is loaded last.

It would look like this:

Code: Select all

#include "DEFAULT.UNIT"

&&UNITS
{Modded Entries}

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1827
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#368 Post by SGTscuba » Sep 21 2018

UK starts with the Leander class (Cruiser/Cap Ship) in the '36 Scenario in its reserves, but cannot research or build them at the start of the game when they should be able to.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 127
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#369 Post by Buzzbrad » Sep 22 2018

SGTscuba wrote:
Sep 21 2018
UK starts with the Leander class (Cruiser/Cap Ship) in the '36 Scenario in its reserves, but cannot research or build them at the start of the game when they should be able to.
This is happening because the Leander class is flagged to be replaced by the Arethusa class. Which is also available at the start, so the Leander class is hidden from the buildable list.

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#370 Post by Nerei » Sep 22 2018

On a related note to what SGTscuba said Japan has 8 Sõryū class submarines (ID 15401) in 2017, 2018 and 2020 GC and 2020 world (probably the rest like 2020 MAGA also but I did not check past those 4).

However the design is not researched nor is the required technology "Air Independent Propulsion" (ID 417).

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1827
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#371 Post by SGTscuba » Sep 23 2018

Buzzbrad wrote:
Sep 22 2018
SGTscuba wrote:
Sep 21 2018
UK starts with the Leander class (Cruiser/Cap Ship) in the '36 Scenario in its reserves, but cannot research or build them at the start of the game when they should be able to.
This is happening because the Leander class is flagged to be replaced by the Arethusa class. Which is also available at the start, so the Leander class is hidden from the buildable list.
Surely having ticked the box showing obsolete and replaced units should unhide it but it doesnt
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#372 Post by Nerei » Sep 23 2018

I would say the likely reason the Leander (ID 17686) is not buildable is due to it being flagged as "nobuild". Checking the asset manager there are some interwar british ships with this flag including ships like the Arethusa class (ID 17705) which is odd as they where brand new in 1936. The 1946 Vanguard class battleship (ID 17872) is likewise flagged as "nobuild" for some reason.


I can to some extend see the point in having flags on some ships to declutter although honestly I would say if people want to get rid of them before they go obsolete they can just hide them.

However if that is the intention with flagging them like that it really is inconsistant as ships like the Invincible class battlecruisers are researchable as are pre-century warships and I highly doubt you would ever want to build a ship like the Lord Nelson or King Edward pre-dreadnoughts.


Also I suspect for 1914/1917 starts this flagging is likely problematic when it comes to building say aircraft carriers as the majority of the early vessels where conversions which in-game are flagged as "nobuild".

It is not consistant if it is done to converted vessels either as then both Eagle (ID 16019) and Argus (Id 16080) also needs this flag then as they are converted from a liner and battleship respectively while the purpose build Hermes (ID 16018) and Hōshō (ID 16081) should not have it.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1827
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#373 Post by SGTscuba » Sep 24 2018

Nerei wrote:
Sep 23 2018
I would say the likely reason the Leander (ID 17686) is not buildable is due to it being flagged as "nobuild". Checking the asset manager there are some interwar british ships with this flag including ships like the Arethusa class (ID 17705) which is odd as they where brand new in 1936. The 1946 Vanguard class battleship (ID 17872) is likewise flagged as "nobuild" for some reason.


I can to some extend see the point in having flags on some ships to declutter although honestly I would say if people want to get rid of them before they go obsolete they can just hide them.

However if that is the intention with flagging them like that it really is inconsistant as ships like the Invincible class battlecruisers are researchable as are pre-century warships and I highly doubt you would ever want to build a ship like the Lord Nelson or King Edward pre-dreadnoughts.


Also I suspect for 1914/1917 starts this flagging is likely problematic when it comes to building say aircraft carriers as the majority of the early vessels where conversions which in-game are flagged as "nobuild".

It is not consistant if it is done to converted vessels either as then both Eagle (ID 16019) and Argus (Id 16080) also needs this flag then as they are converted from a liner and battleship respectively while the purpose build Hermes (ID 16018) and Hōshō (ID 16081) should not have it.
Exactly, I wish I could build some of the conversions but having the ability to build units that were built from new would be just as good. The Leanders WERE new build ships and so should be buildable still, I can build more Hoods (Admiral Class) for example even though they only built 1. I'm just wondering what else has been missed.

Vanguard I can kind of understand as the turrets were "borrowed" from the 2 light battlecruisers when they got converted to carriers.

Could we just have it so the "no build" is disabled for every unit let the player decide what they want to filter out?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#374 Post by Nerei » Sep 24 2018

The first carrier the US can build is the 1934 Ranger. That is quite late really compared to Langley. The first Japanese fleet carriers likewise appears in the mid 1930's although there are some early conversions there for some odd reason.

I mean Chitose is listed as a 1928 design despite being built in the 1930's and was commissioned later than the Sōryū and that is not considering that it is a long-deck carrier which means it represents the 1943 conversion.

Considering that many dates are based on when the ship was commissioned I guess you can consider this an errata as it should be 1938 for the seaplane tender not 1928. Naturally though the carrier it represents is 1943.
Both tech 1639 and 1095 are from the early to mid 1920's though so I guess that indicates it is intended to be this early.

Likewise Notoro at the time it is listed in-game was a fleet oiler and while it did operate aircraft from the mid 1920's it was not considered a fleet tender until the mid 1930's.
Naturally there is also the argument that a 1920 short deck carrier is quite worthless as a carrier given that the first Japanese short deck aircraft is from 1941 only beaten by a French aircraft from 1938. Yes I used to asset manager to filter for "ShortDeckTakeOff" and sorted by date available so I am sure there are no earlier vessels.

Effectively the first carrier Japan "should" be able to build if conversions are ignored is the 1933 Ryūjō.


Okay that was a bit more about carriers than I originally planned.

Anyway I agree Leander and Arethusa also for that matter should be buildable. Both are quite new ship classes for 1936 (and I assume I cannot built then when starting in 1914/1917 at all). Not all Leanders had been commissioned at the 1936 start and the last Arethusa (HMS Aurora) was several months away from even being launched.

As for Vanguard yes the turrets are taken from storage but the rest of the vessel is basically a modified Lion class battleship build from the ground up. Considering ships like Shinano is buildable I would say Vanguard is completely fair. Also given that the Lion class is not included it is the only battleship britain has after the Nelson class other than King George V.

Also as an errata the King George V class battleships (ID 17832) has a listed weight of 23400. Wikipedia lists a weight of around 42000 tonnes for the different vessels of the class.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1827
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#375 Post by SGTscuba » Sep 24 2018

Nerei wrote:
Sep 24 2018
The first carrier the US can build is the 1934 Ranger. That is quite late really compared to Langley. The first Japanese fleet carriers likewise appears in the mid 1930's although there are some early conversions there for some odd reason.

I mean Chitose is listed as a 1928 design despite being built in the 1930's and was commissioned later than the Sōryū and that is not considering that it is a long-deck carrier which means it represents the 1943 conversion.

Considering that many dates are based on when the ship was commissioned I guess you can consider this an errata as it should be 1938 for the seaplane tender not 1928. Naturally though the carrier it represents is 1943.
Both tech 1639 and 1095 are from the early to mid 1920's though so I guess that indicates it is intended to be this early.

Likewise Notoro at the time it is listed in-game was a fleet oiler and while it did operate aircraft from the mid 1920's it was not considered a fleet tender until the mid 1930's.
Naturally there is also the argument that a 1920 short deck carrier is quite worthless as a carrier given that the first Japanese short deck aircraft is from 1941 only beaten by a French aircraft from 1938. Yes I used to asset manager to filter for "ShortDeckTakeOff" and sorted by date available so I am sure there are no earlier vessels.

Effectively the first carrier Japan "should" be able to build if conversions are ignored is the 1933 Ryūjō.


Okay that was a bit more about carriers than I originally planned.

Anyway I agree Leander and Arethusa also for that matter should be buildable. Both are quite new ship classes for 1936 (and I assume I cannot built then when starting in 1914/1917 at all). Not all Leanders had been commissioned at the 1936 start and the last Arethusa (HMS Aurora) was several months away from even being launched.

As for Vanguard yes the turrets are taken from storage but the rest of the vessel is basically a modified Lion class battleship build from the ground up. Considering ships like Shinano is buildable I would say Vanguard is completely fair. Also given that the Lion class is not included it is the only battleship britain has after the Nelson class other than King George V.

Also as an errata the King George V class battleships (ID 17832) has a listed weight of 23400. Wikipedia lists a weight of around 42000 tonnes for the different vessels of the class.
Yes, on carriers you can look at the world war 1 ships for the RN and you can see they have no planes that can work from them. Having read a book on British Carriers, it seems they could operate most WW1 planes from the carrier so maybe they should all have long deck capacity?

Also we seem to be missing the minesweepers and other ships. The RN often used these as escorts and patrol vessels so I can't see why they haven't been added. (Classes such as Algerine and Ton)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”