Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#376 Post by Buzzbrad » Sep 24 2018

Nerei wrote:
Sep 24 2018
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.
I have fixed this and it will be pushed with the next update. Thanks for reporting it.

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 938
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#377 Post by Nerei » Sep 25 2018

Yes first carrier capable aircraft is the French PL.10 (ID 13334) from 1929 followed by the British Firefly Mk. III (ID 10609) from 1930, the Japanese A2N (ID 9008) from 1932 and the US Osprey (ID 9064) also from 1932.
Basically there is a decade where carriers cannot field any aircraft.

Further while we are reporting errata the british aircraft carrier Eagle (ID 16019) is not flagged as a long deck carrier. It should be as it operated aircraft like the Sea Hurricane which in-game is a long deck aircraft (also it very much is a long deck carrier in what the game considers a world war 2 long deck carrier). There is also the issue with short deck carriers basically being worthless before 1940...


Also while we are on carriers and the nobuild flag would it be worth considering tagging some old carriers as nobuild for modern scenarios? I am not a particularly big fan of using it like that but the carrier mechanic is somewhat broken when we are dealing with 100+ years of carrier aviation.
For single player I can just argue that no I should not build Midway or Yorktown over Nimitz and Enterprise but for say competitive multiplayer the argument for building those old aircraft carriers are really strong. They are just as fast and can carry as many aircraft (if not more) than the new ones but cost a fraction and the defence stat improvements of the new ones is not enough that they do not basically need the same escort anyway only I can afford more of them for the same price.

Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#378 Post by Buzzbrad » Sep 25 2018

Nerei wrote:
Sep 25 2018
Further while we are reporting errata the british aircraft carrier Eagle (ID 16019) is not flagged as a long deck carrier. It should be as it operated aircraft like the Sea Hurricane which in-game is a long deck aircraft
I have now fixed this. Thanks for reporting.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1841
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#379 Post by SGTscuba » Oct 06 2018

HAS.1 Wasp ASW Helicopter has a missile cap 24, but can only have a missile size of 1 meaning it can't carry any missiles in the game.
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: 938
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#380 Post by Nerei » Oct 21 2018

Demonious brought up that the Spruance model (mesh 1796) has scale issues.
The current scale is 0.2. The updated one I used in January was 0.35. No guarantees it is perfect and the model has been re-exported so I guess it is possible the scale of the model has changed. Still it might be a place to start.

Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#381 Post by Buzzbrad » Oct 30 2018

Nerei wrote:
Oct 21 2018
Demonious brought up that the Spruance model (mesh 1796) has scale issues.
The current scale is 0.2. The updated one I used in January was 0.35. No guarantees it is perfect and the model has been re-exported so I guess it is possible the scale of the model has changed. Still it might be a place to start.
Thanks for the report Nerei. I will look into making that fix.

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 938
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#382 Post by Nerei » Oct 31 2018

Here is another:
"J-60 Komatsu SS-4" (ID 3356) is an inaccurate name for the vehicle. SS-4 was the fourth (and last) prototype build by Komatsu which led to the Type 60 self-propelled 106mm recoilless rifle model A.
For the game a more fitting name would simply be J-60 Model A. It also fits with that the last production model of the Type 60 tank destroyer which is in the game as the "J-60 Model C".

Also the model is not exactly accurate. The Type 60 tank destroyer is a tracked vehicle from the early 1960's armed with dual M40 106mm recoilless rifles in-game it is represented by a early 2000's 4x4 armoured car. I assume this is due to the model being named the "Komatsu LAV" and this being named Komatsu SS-4. Keep in mind that Komatsu is just a defence contractor specialised in heavy industrial machinery.

I will probably have an actual representation of the Type 60 tank destroyer ready maybe tomorrow if you want it although it will not really have been tested very much at release.

Demonius
Lieutenant
Posts: 57
Joined: Aug 09 2010
Human: Yes
Location: United States, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy, The Universe
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

#383 Post by Demonius » Nov 03 2018

unit number 15817 SSBN-28 Vanguard doesnt have a number in its NumSquadInBatt so it doesnt show up in game

Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#384 Post by Buzzbrad » Nov 03 2018

Nerei wrote:
Oct 31 2018
Here is another:
"J-60 Komatsu SS-4" (ID 3356) is an inaccurate name for the vehicle. SS-4 was the fourth (and last) prototype build by Komatsu which led to the Type 60 self-propelled 106mm recoilless rifle model A.
For the game a more fitting name would simply be J-60 Model A. It also fits with that the last production model of the Type 60 tank destroyer which is in the game as the "J-60 Model C".
Demonius wrote:
Nov 03 2018
unit number 15817 SSBN-28 Vanguard doesnt have a number in its NumSquadInBatt so it doesnt show up in game
Fixed both of these and it will go out with the next update

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 938
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#385 Post by Nerei » Nov 13 2018

DD-115 Akizuki (ID 17531) has 0 in submarine attack. It probably should be somewhere around 475.

Micheal Berg
Lieutenant
Posts: 57
Joined: Jun 19 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#386 Post by Micheal Berg » Nov 19 2018

Hi BG,

Please look into the P-8 Poseidon. This is suppose to be the next gen Long Range Maritime Patrol (LRMP) aircraft for the US and its allies, but it has no ASW capability.

"The P-8 is to replace the P-3 Orion.[19] At first, it will be equipped with legacy P-3 systems, but later upgrades will incorporate more advanced technology."

The line above is from Wikipedia, so can you please update the Sonar and ASW attack on the P-8

Thanks
MB

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1841
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#387 Post by SGTscuba » Jan 07 2019

In the '36 sandbox, US carrier Cv7 Wasp has amphib capability when it shouldn't - I think you may have mistook it for the modern USS Wasp which is an amphib ship.
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: 938
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#388 Post by Nerei » Jan 08 2019

Like the fleet carrier CV-7 Wasp the LHA-6 America (ID 16245) class should also not be able to conduct amphibious landings. The first two ships lack a well deck instead relying on helicopters to land troops. The in-game LHA-6 America class resembles the still incomplete LHA-8 Bougainville (the first of the Americas to actually have a well deck) more than the actual LHA-6 America.

LHA-6 America also has significantly worse air attack abilities than the LHD-1 Wasp despite their AA armament largely being identical.
Further the cargo capacity of the LHA-6 America is 2/3 that of the LHD-1 Wasp despite the America class being based on the LHD-8 Makin Island (last of the Wasps).

Personally I would say Air attack should at least be as good and the cargo space for LHA-6 should be higher than LHD-1 as the removal of the well deck was amongst other done to increase space for aviation facilities and in general leaves more space for other things.

If you want to represent LHA-8 Bougainville as a separate design then it should be able to conduct amphibious landings like the current LHA-6 and have at least the same cargo capacity as the LHD-1 Wasp. It's fighting ability should be comparable to LHA-6 America (after adjustments that is).



Further to add to what SGTscuba said about CV-7 Wasp it should also have its defences reduced quite a bit on top of losing the amphibious ability.

In game it has higher tactical air and ground defence than the preceding Yorktown class aircraft carrier.
In reality this ship was basically a lighter Yorktown that achieves this weight reduction by using smaller machinery (hence the reduced speed) and significantly reduced protection. The only reason this ship exists is due to the limitations of the Washington naval treaty.

Buzzbrad
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 128
Joined: Oct 17 2013
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#389 Post by Buzzbrad » Jan 08 2019

Nerei wrote:
Jan 08 2019
Like the fleet carrier CV-7 Wasp the LHA-6 America (ID 16245) class should also not be able to conduct amphibious landings. The first two ships lack a well deck instead relying on helicopters to land troops. The in-game LHA-6 America class resembles the still incomplete LHA-8 Bougainville (the first of the Americas to actually have a well deck) more than the actual LHA-6 America.

LHA-6 America also has significantly worse air attack abilities than the LHD-1 Wasp despite their AA armament largely being identical.
Further the cargo capacity of the LHA-6 America is 2/3 that of the LHD-1 Wasp despite the America class being based on the LHD-8 Makin Island (last of the Wasps).

Personally I would say Air attack should at least be as good and the cargo space for LHA-6 should be higher than LHD-1 as the removal of the well deck was amongst other done to increase space for aviation facilities and in general leaves more space for other things.

If you want to represent LHA-8 Bougainville as a separate design then it should be able to conduct amphibious landings like the current LHA-6 and have at least the same cargo capacity as the LHD-1 Wasp. It's fighting ability should be comparable to LHA-6 America (after adjustments that is).



Further to add to what SGTscuba said about CV-7 Wasp it should also have its defences reduced quite a bit on top of losing the amphibious ability.

In game it has higher tactical air and ground defence than the preceding Yorktown class aircraft carrier.
In reality this ship was basically a lighter Yorktown that achieves this weight reduction by using smaller machinery (hence the reduced speed) and significantly reduced protection. The only reason this ship exists is due to the limitations of the Washington naval treaty.
Thanks for the report Nerei. I have made the adjustments to the LHA-6 America Class and CV-7 Wasp.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1841
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#390 Post by SGTscuba » Jan 08 2019

Buzzbrad wrote:
Jan 08 2019
snip

Thanks for the report Nerei. I have made the adjustments to the LHA-6 America Class and CV-7 Wasp.
I think some other carriers could do with some adjustment, mainly around their cargo capacity which is a critical thing. I'll try get some rough numbers and post them on here (I have a few books from reputable sources on carriers - especially British ones). Some early carriers could do with planes too as most planes of WW1 could be landed on carriers due to their low speed and were generally used with few if any modifications. Like I say, i'll have a look through the books and get back to you.
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”