Bug report - missing tech effects

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
arakan94
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Oct 10 2018
Human: Yes

Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by arakan94 »

EDIT: If you noticed another "suspicious" tech, post it here - let's make a thread of stuff to fix (either add effect or change description).

Some techs claiming to improve Nuclear energy production increase in their description doesn't seem to do so..

Improved Reactor Fuels - no effect
Improved Reactor Designs - no effect

Only Prismatic Uranium Blocks seem to work.

See screenshots.
Attachments
20181012102101_1.jpg
20181012102058_1.jpg
Last edited by arakan94 on Oct 12 2018, edited 2 times in total.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 782
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Bug report - nuclear techs

Post by YoMomma »

Also noticed something similair. Tech Gyro stabalisers should give new armoured units according to the tech discription, instead its just an end tech, with no units and no further techs.
Gameplay 1st
arakan94
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Oct 10 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by arakan94 »

Medical MRI has no effect (despite previous tech - MRI - having +2% effect).
Magnetoencephalography has no effect
MRI Improvements has no effect
Improved Magnetometers has no effect
d-bassett
BattleGoat Team
Posts: 82
Joined: May 03 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by d-bassett »

We will look into this, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

22460
Rosalis
Major
Posts: 186
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Rosalis »

Digital movie production
Digital video Compression
Digital video Broadcasting
The End, you would think some culture effects? The way to spread propaganda?
Rosalis
Major
Posts: 186
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Rosalis »

Naval fuel cells
future helicopter designs
Helicopter refueling probe

end technology with no effect/units
User avatar
Uriens
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 516
Joined: Oct 05 2005

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Uriens »

Clean coal industrial retrofit. It has effects of -10% pollution and -10% power coal production.
ATM its completely useless technology that penalizes your electric production with no in game benefits at all. I suggest giving it significant ecology bonus (15%-20%) instead of pollution reduction to make it at least a viable choice.
Rosalis
Major
Posts: 186
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Rosalis »

Nano Weaponry
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20485
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Balthagor »

Digital movie production - 1039@84 - affects cultural rating, prereq for Digital video Compression
Digital video Compression - 1453@93 - affects cultural rating, prereq for Digital video Broadcasting
Digital video Broadcasting - 1040@96 - affects cultural rating
Naval fuel cells - 233 - see below
future helicopter designs 245 - unit prereq for a handful of units
Helicopter refueling probe 318 - unit prereq for a handful of units
Nano-weaponry - 76@126 - see below

It would seem that both Naval Fuel Cells and Nano-weaponry were intended to be unit prerequisites. Not sure why Naval Fuel Cells wasn't used, I've made a note to investigate that. It is intended to be the replacement for naval nuclear reactors on more modern ships. Shouldn't be hard to tie it back in, I have made notes on this. Nano-weaponry is a bit trickier, I think it was intended for missiles. I've got a note on this as well.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Nerei
General
Posts: 1107
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Nerei »

I would personally say fuel cells are more an alternative to diesel and gas turbines than nuclear reactors.
Nuclear propulsion is something you go for if you need a power source with a very high energy density that is compact and have a high energy output. It is very likely to be more expensive than a fuel cell propulsion system yes but historically nuclear marine propulsion have been far more expensive than say diesel engines.

Today nuclear marine propulsion is mostly used on fast attack or ballistic missile submarines. Fuel cells are not really going to be a decent alternative for those. Likewise the arguments for going with nuclear propulsion in an aircraft carrier is amongst other the smaller propulsion system allows for more space to be dedicated towards aviation fuel and ordnance.
The range will also not be speed dependent. Going from cruise to flank speed might reduce the range of conventional vessel by much more than 50%. I have seen numbers of upwards of 80% range reduction. Basically want the vessel to be able to get to its destination fast it is basically either nuclear or bring a number of very fast fleet oilers.

There is also the possibility of the vessels being equipped with directed energy weapons as say CIWS. That is going to require a fairly potent electric output of the vessel on top of the demand for propulsion. This is apparently one of the advantages of the Gerald R. Ford class. It might also be one of the reasons why the final product of the Chinese aircraft carrier program appears to be a nuclear vessel and that the incomplete conventional CATOBAR carrier is only a stepping stone towards this.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1967
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by SGTscuba »

Fuel Cells are more of an option for Diesel submarines, Siemens provides such a solution on the current generation of German subs if I recall.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Nerei
General
Posts: 1107
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Nerei »

The Type 212 yes. Long term though fuel cells might have the potential to replace diesels as more than just submerged propulsion. Especially increasing oil prices might drive this.
I read a study from around the time the US Navy planned the America class LHA that concluded that increasing oil prices might actually end up resulting in nuclear marine propulsion becoming an increasingly economically viable alternative to diesel engines for surface combatants.
If nuclear can become an economic alternative to diesel then fuel cells are going to blow it away on an economic perspective. For merchant marine vessels it is all but certain they will go with fuel cells or something like it. It will also mean they will not get attacked by the environmentalists.

The question from a navy perspective is how large is fuel cell propulsion going to be if it is going to propel a 9000 tonne destroyer at 35kn while providing enough spare power to run its systems and possibly power a few directed energy cannons.
evildari
Colonel
Posts: 487
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by evildari »

fuel cells: currently most used as air-independent propulsion like submerged or space vessels
for small merchant marine ships we might even see sails again, ship-of-the line rather not...
nano-weaponry: since i doubt the game can simulate a grey/black goo incident i see it rather as an "upgrade" to chemical weapons

btw. its easy to check the tech files unused techs: loading both tables in spreadsheet calculator, filter out the direct ratings like +cultural and use if(countif) function vs the units both tech req data fields (i used this method to automatically set the 3 prereqstypes to true or false in my mods)
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20485
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Balthagor »

Nerei wrote:
Jan 17 2020
I would personally say fuel cells are more an alternative to diesel and gas turbines than nuclear reactors...
Are there specific unit IDs you guys suggest we make require this tech?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Nerei
General
Posts: 1107
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Bug report - missing tech effects

Post by Nerei »

Naval Fuel Cells are tech level 106. If we are looking at what fuel cells could do 10-15 years ago, what they are used for now and ignore the future prospects the only real relevant place is the AIP element of a diesel-electric submarine.

There are some submarine designs in-game that use fuel cells as part of their AIP system. Here are the ones I could find:


ID 15392 - U-31:
This is the first of the aforementioned Type 212 submarines. They use fuel cells as part of their AIP system. ID 15520 - U-36 Siegel appears to be fictive and not representing the latest German Type 212.

ID 15394 - S-526 Todaro-212A:
Italian Type 212.


ID 15389 - S-80 Scorpene and ID 15405 - S-80A Scorpene
From what I can tell the S-80 is the DCN Scorpène class and the S-80A represents the Navantia S-80 class.

If so ID 15405 uses fuel cells. ID 15389 does not.

The Indian version of the Scorpene (Kalvari class) is planned to be retrofitted with fuel cells during their first overhaul. Right now however they are not fitted with it so that can probably be ignored unless you want to represent the refitted Kalvari class in some form as a separate design.

Note: These two should not be in region group FE. To the best I can determine ID 15389 should just be named "Scorpene" and ID 15405 should be named "S-80". S-80 should not be available to region group F and Scorpene should not be available to region group E.


ID 15400 - S-357 Gur Type II 209/1400:
Like all ThysenKrupp submarines with AIP it uses fuel cells.


ID 15421 - I-802 Dolphin-II AIP:
This is a Type 212 derived design complete with fuel cells.


ID 15395 - S-120 Type 214:
The Type 214 is an export variant of the Type 212 also fitted with fuel cell AIP.


ID 15381 - S-677 Lada:
Apparently this class is fitted with fuel cell AIP.


That should be enough to at least make the tech relevant.
Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”