Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1884
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#421 Post by SGTscuba » Aug 04 2019

UK cannot research and does not have the design for the "leander" and "county" class cruisers in the 1936 scenario despite actually having the ships and them being a UK treaty design.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20230
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#422 Post by Balthagor » Aug 04 2019

SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 04 2019
UK cannot research and does not have the design for the "leander" and "county" class cruisers in the 1936 scenario despite actually having the ships and them being a UK treaty design.
Both those ships are marked "no build" in the equipment file. I don't remember these particular ships, but we usually used that when the design of the ship changed during production such that it ways not realistic to build more of that class, that the region should move on to building other, newer designs. The example I remember is US ships that started life as battlecruisers then became carriers.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1884
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#423 Post by SGTscuba » Aug 05 2019

Balthagor wrote:
Aug 04 2019
SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 04 2019
UK cannot research and does not have the design for the "leander" and "county" class cruisers in the 1936 scenario despite actually having the ships and them being a UK treaty design.
Both those ships are marked "no build" in the equipment file. I don't remember these particular ships, but we usually used that when the design of the ship changed during production such that it ways not realistic to build more of that class, that the region should move on to building other, newer designs. The example I remember is US ships that started life as battlecruisers then became carriers.
It wasn't the case with these 2 classes. They were cruisers built to treaty rules rather than conversions.
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: 988
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#424 Post by Nerei » Aug 05 2019

Balthagor wrote:
Aug 04 2019
SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 04 2019
UK cannot research and does not have the design for the "leander" and "county" class cruisers in the 1936 scenario despite actually having the ships and them being a UK treaty design.
Both those ships are marked "no build" in the equipment file. I don't remember these particular ships, but we usually used that when the design of the ship changed during production such that it ways not realistic to build more of that class, that the region should move on to building other, newer designs. The example I remember is US ships that started life as battlecruisers then became carriers.
You are really inconsistent about that rule then.


To add to was SGTscuba has said:

HMS Argus was converted from an ocean liner yet does not have the no build flag

HMS Eagle was converted from a Chilean battleship yet also does not have that flag either.

HMS Hermes on the other hand was the first purpose build UK aircraft carrier (and first carrier laid down as a carrier) yet it cannot be build.

The aircraft carrier Hōshō is the first commissioned carrier build as a carrier yet it has the no build flag.

Notoro was laid down and commissioned as a fleet oiler and only after around 15 years of service was it converted to a seaplane tender yet it can be build. Being a 1920 short deck carrier it is also around 20 years ahead of the first short deck aircraft...

Chitose and sister ship Chiyoda where laid down as seaplane tenders yet in game representation is post their conversion to aircraft carriers. Following your rule the aircraft carrier version should not be buildable and a borderline worthless short deck version should be all we can build yet we can build the aircraft carrier version.

The Omaha class was laid down, commissioned and served as light/scout cruisers yet they have the no build flag.

The Arethusa class was laid down and served as light cruisers yet cannot be build.

HMS Vanguard (last battleship build) cannot be build despite being designed, commissioned and serving as a battleship.

The Sverige class cannot be build again despite being designed and serving as coastal defence ships


There might be more as I have not looked at all nations and I am sure I have missed some.

Note that I have specifically ignored vessels such as the Minas Gerais or Almirante Grau as while these where build and served in their intended roles they where build to foreign powers before 1914.
I have also cut you some slack with warships like the Moltke as the newer Seydlitz class was in service by 1914 (basically I am assuming it is declutter). That one is a bit more questionable though as older ships might still be usable. The perfect example being 1945 Midway still being good in 2020.


A lot of these looks like they where made the way they where in 1936 as declutter yet now with Great war it really makes no sense and results in a few issues and. Here is a few ones I found worth mentioning beyond the simple one of the player or AI missing out on perfectly serviceable ships.

With Vanguard being no-build the only battleships the UK can build after the 1927 Nelsons is the 1937 King George V.

Likewise the US does not get a carrier before 1934 and Japan gets its first usable carrier in 1933 (Chitose does not count despite for some reason having a lower YearAvailable as it requires later tech)

Also with that logic I have to ask where are say the Amagi or Lexington class battlecruiser designs or the Tosa class battleship? That is what the aircraft carriers Akagi, Lexington (together wish sister Saratoga) and Kaga was converted from. If we cannot build the converted ships at least let us build them as they where designed.
You are somewhat short on interwar capital ships anyway so you might want to consider adding them for that reason alone.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20230
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#425 Post by Balthagor » Aug 05 2019

Nerei wrote:
Aug 05 2019
You are really inconsistent about that rule then.
Probably. None of us are military experts so we had to look up every unit and learn about it. We likely go a bunch of them wrong.

I'll remove that flag for County and Leander. If you have specific suggestions for the ships you mentioned, it's easy to change the value. We won't have the resources to do deeper research on these.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 988
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#426 Post by Nerei » Aug 05 2019

Units that should have the no build flag if we stick with conversions are not buildable.
ID 16080 "Argus"
ID 16019 "Eagle"

If we assume early aircraft carrier conversions should be buildable these units should not have the flag. Naturally if you go with this the above should not have the no build flag.
16020 "Akagi"
16087 "Kaga"
16082 "CV-1 Langley"
16040 "CV-2 Lexington"


Units that should not have the no build flag
ID 16018 "HMS Hermes"
ID 16081 "Hosho"
ID 17705 "Arethusa"
ID 17872 "Vanguard"
ID 17203 "Sverige"
ID 17671 "Omaha"

Again this list is not complete.


ID 16636 "Notoro": Make it a transport vessel. Currently it is a short deck carrier available 19 years before the first short deck aircraft. Also it started out life as an oiler.

ID 16088 "Chitose" Possibly make it a seaplane tender. This would probably mean different spotting type and stats to represent the 24 or so floatplanes carried as those are not in-game. Year 1938. If you want to stick with it as a flattop carrier the year should be 1943.

For more suggestions I would really need to know what the "correct" approach is to warships build in foreign shipyards. Minas Gerais is a dreadnought battleship build for the Brazilian navy by Armstrong Whitworth. It is a region group M unbuildable capital ship.
On the other hand the Japanse Asama class armoured cruisers are region group J buildable capital ships despite also being build by Armstrong Whitworth. Both are from before 1914.

Also is it generally so that pre-1914 ships with better alternatives should be unbuildable? I mean Moltke is unbuildable possibly due to the more modern Seydlitz being available. However Japan can build a whole range of completely obsolete pre-dreadnought battleships like the Kashima despite having access to more modern dreadnought battleships like the Settsu.

What is the correct approach in either case?


Also while we are at it
ID 17191 "Brandenburg" Current speed is 14. Best I can find is 16.5 knots or around 31km/h

ID 17198 "Kaiser" Current speed is 16. To the best I can find this is representing a Kaiser Friedrich III Pre-dreadnought battleship (You might want to name it "Kaier Friedrich III to better distinguish it from the dreadnought battleship class "Kaiser"). The best speed I can find for this is 17.5kn or around 32.5km/h

ID 17199 "Wittelsbach" Current speed is 16. Best I can find is around 18kn or 33km/h

ID 17246 "Braunschweig" Current speed is 16. Best I can find is 18-18.5kn or 33-34km/h

Correcting the speeds for the Brandenburg, Kaiser, Wittelsbach and Braunschweig also makes them fit far better with the last German Pre-dreadnought battleships of the Deutschland class which has a speed of 33

ID 17299 "Nassau" Current speed is 16. This is very slow for a dreadnought battleship. Best speed I can find is 19-20kn or 35-37km/h

ID 17309 "Helgoland" Speed is currently 16. Best I can find is around 20kn or 37km/h

ID 17470 "Von Der Tann" Germany's first battlecruiser. Speed is set to 30. The best I can find is around 25kn or 46km/h

ID 17310 "Kaiser" Current speed is 22. That is basically its speed in knots (21 by what I can find). If you set it to 40 you will not be far off.

ID 17472 "Seydlitz" Speed is currently 31. That is mph. It should be around 49.

ID 17326 "Konig" Like with Kaiser you have gone with knots. Going by the average trial speeds I can find around 41km/h will not be far off.

ID 17473 "Derfflinger" Another battlecruiser. The current speed of 32 is way too low. The best I can find puts it at comparable speed to Seydlitz to a bit better so 49-50km/h. However best trial speed I can find is for Lützow at about 52.5km/h.

Micheal Berg
Lieutenant
Posts: 89
Joined: Jun 19 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#427 Post by Micheal Berg » Aug 21 2019

Please can you add 3 missing British Nuclear Attack Submarine designs to the game. They have all been build, and served with the Royal Navy over 30 to 40 years.

Dreadnought class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)
Valiant Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant-class_submarine
Churchill Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill-class_submarine

In game, the first SSN available to Britain is the 4th one they build and operated (Swiftsure Class)

Thanks
MB

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1884
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#428 Post by SGTscuba » Aug 29 2019

Some UK Frigates seem to have really low ASW range stats compared to contemporaries.

F23 and F23-2 have an ASW range of only 13km, despite carrying ASW helicopters such as the Merlin. Other ships that use this helicopter have the correct figure. Even the RN destroyers have a better ASW range despite having the same helicopters. I think a few other UK designs may need looking at potentially too.

Also HAS.3 Wessex should have a greater cargo capacity, or the troop carrying version should be added as it was extensively used by the RAF and RN. Current cargo is 13t for a squadron of 24. Wiki has the gross weight above the empty at 2.5t per helicopter giving an almost useful 60t capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Wessex

Would it also be possible to add some more lighter infantry units to the game that fit in the smaller and older helicopters with a limited capacity?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20230
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

#429 Post by Balthagor » Aug 29 2019

SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 29 2019
...F23 and F23-2 have an ASW range of only 13km...
Is that the Duke? 18774? I don't see an F23-2, what's the ID for that one?
SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 29 2019
... HAS.3 Wessex should have a greater cargo capacity, or the troop carrying version should be added ...
The troop carrying version should be in, Unit 14717, HC.2. I'll update the cargo capacity on that one to 2.4 based on what the Wiki shows.
SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 29 2019
...Would it also be possible to add some more lighter infantry units to the game that fit in the smaller and older helicopters with a limited capacity?
Not at this time.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 988
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#430 Post by Nerei » Aug 29 2019

I think SGTscuba is referring to the F-22-3 Cornwall or batch 3 Type 22/Broadsword class frigate (ID 18768)
The Batch 1 vessel (ID 18739 FF-22 Broadsword) has an ASW range of 100 while this one has a range of 7 (13 is with extended range enabled). All vessels of the class have a flight-deck and enclosed hangar so it should be identical.

Also I am fairly certain SGTscuba is indeed referring to ID 18774. It is the followup to the Type 22 frigates mentioned above and the range fits.


And yes there are some goofy stats here. Like how the Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield completely dominates the Dukes and Broadswords when it comes to ASW capabilities despite being a far older vessel and the others being build as ASW vessels. The newer Dukes also underperforms when compared to the Broadsword. Heck the batch 3 broadsword sucks as ASW vessel compared to the batch 1 vessels.

It is a bit like how the 2nd hardest hitting non-fictive JMSDF in terms of ASW attack power is a 1965 design. ASW mortars and RUR-5 ASROC totally dominates 21st century VL ASROC and air dropped acoustic homing torpedoes...

Properly balancing them though is a major undertaking. I have looked at it a few times but just finding a baseline can at times be a significant task in itself. If you look at a few different vessels to get an idea of where the stats should roughly be it is entirely possible each vessel will give you a different direction.

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 988
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#431 Post by Nerei » Aug 30 2019

To highlight the issue I point out above let me give an example of how balancing units can be both problematic and give varying results depending on where you look.

Keep in mind that setting stats is both looking at what weapons a vessel has and what stats other units have (ideally as identical as possible but going further afield can also be good to get the larger picture).



Lets say the goal is adding a JMSDF Maya class Aegis equipped guided missile destroyer. For simplicity we will just focus on ASW attack strength (that is a stat that is all over the place).


The obvious place to start is DDG-177 Atago as it is an improved version of this vessel (note Atago is a broken mess of a design but for the purpose of this example that is not a problem). Atago has 345 NavalSubAttack strength so probably somewhere just under 400.

That however means it bluntly put sucks compared to a 1994 JMSDF Murasame class destroyer as that has 445 and JS Maya is significantly better equipped.
Given that lets compare it to the JMSDF general purpose destroyers then.

Lastest one is the DD-119 Asahi class which is the general purpose destroyer with the most closely related armament but being a much smaller hull. It has 460 so maybe 500?

That means it is just slightly better than the aforementioned 2nd best real world submarine hunter the 1965 DD-113 Yamagumo (480) and significantly worse than the DDG-173 Kongo (587) to which the Atago was a followup design (meaning Maya is an improvement to an improvement of the Kongō). That would definitely not be right.

Okay lets give it say 640 then.

However that is identical to the 1996 US Arleigh Burke flight II to which the JMSDF Aegis destroyers are closely related. Now unless we are arguing that the JMSDF is more than 20 years behind on torpedo technology which seems unlikely and are deliberately downgrading its ASROC weapons (the RUM 139 LV ASROC found on the Burke has been replaced by the domestic produced Type 07 on recent vessels) it should probably be higher.

Maybe 680 then?


We have already a spread of around 300 just from sticking to somewhat closely related vessels but lets look a bit further afield to get a better picture of where that leaves JS Maya.


The upper end of the range we found is only 150 higher than a 1974 US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate that only has ASW torpedoes and a 1960's Seasprite ASW helicopter (the design is older than the Seahawk and given the year available it is likely a short hull Perry anyway).
The aforementioned Sheffield is also only 180 below that value and like Perry is a 1970's design that has an ASW helicopter and standard torpedoes.

If we balance around these two vessels where do we even go? 900? I mean JS Maya is a far larger vessel that flat out carries more ASW weapons and has 40+ years of technological advances to its advantage. Perry is 330 points ahead of a 1945 Gearing so 370 for a longer timeframe and a larger increase in tonnage is not that much of a stretch.

We can also take the FF-21 Amazon (British Type 21 Frigate which is just as broken as Atago in this regard) and we are right back at the 400 or something we got from Atago s it is basically the Gearing when it comes to sinking submarines.


Basically depending on what vessel I am looking at for balancing sub attack strength I got a span of a staggering 500+ points.
It should be fairly obvious why this is a problem when it comes to both making and rebalancing unit designs. I would make suggestions for improving say Atago and Amazon but depending on what I base it on it might vary by a few hundred points.

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1884
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#432 Post by SGTscuba » Aug 30 2019

Balthagor wrote:
Aug 29 2019
SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 29 2019
...F23 and F23-2 have an ASW range of only 13km...
Is that the Duke? 18774? I don't see an F23-2, what's the ID for that one?
SGTscuba wrote:
Aug 29 2019
... HAS.3 Wessex should have a greater cargo capacity, or the troop carrying version should be added ...
The troop carrying version should be in, Unit 14717, HC.2. I'll update the cargo capacity on that one to 2.4 based on what the Wiki shows.
Hi Balth,

Its F-22-3 Cornwall (18768)
and
F-23 Duke (18774)

Ironically the other UK frigate (and export model) F169 Tariq (18534) has 124km attack range and not 13km like the proper frigates.

I've been able to research the Huey out of interest, but the HC.2 hasn't shown up in the list yet, maybe its tech requirements should be similar to the HAS.3?

I'd like to add whilst i'm looking the HAS.1 Wasp (7023) has a total missile cap of 24 but can only take size 1 missiles which is pointless. Maybe it should go completely or be made to have a minimum of 2?
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1884
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

#433 Post by SGTscuba » Sep 03 2019

CLAA-51 Atlanta has a build time of 525 days. Light cruisers in the game have a build time of 360 days normally.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

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

Sumojoe118
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 7
Joined: Aug 29 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#434 Post by Sumojoe118 » Sep 04 2019

Hi SGTscuba, we have looked into the build time of the Atlanta Class Cruiser and it seems to fall in line with the average of the build times listed on the wikipedia page for this ship.
If you find any other details for why it should be lower we will look further into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser

milivoje02
Captain
Posts: 116
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

#435 Post by milivoje02 » Sep 08 2019

A correction could be made for unit 10336 G-4 Super Galeb in range.it is 2500 km.
(https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... e+Aircraft) there is comapration with bae hawk 128,range is simular,but the G 4 Super Galeb is inferior in other tings.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soko_G-4_Super_Galeb)

Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”