Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Sumojoe118
Corporal
Posts: 9
Joined: Aug 29 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Sumojoe118 »

This has been corrected for the next update.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1139
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

Sumojoe118 wrote:
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
Will you accept if I make a few arguments?

If so consider that build times in general are fairly far from realistic and setting a few units build times to more realistic values will just make them less viable. 360 days is like SGTscuba said generally what the game says it takes to build a world war 2 cruiser.


E.g. CL-119 USS Juneau takes 360 days to build. That is a modified Atlanta class cruiser.

Cleveland, Brooklyn, Providence and Galveston also takes around 360-370 days and are all US Light cruisers from around the world war 2 era (or guided missile cruisers build on these hulls)
Pensacola, Alaska, Wichita, Baltimore, Portland and Boston are in a similar range with Des Moines and Oregon City being slightly lower at 345. That would be the heavy cruisers and guided missile cruisers build on said heavy cruiser hulls of the same period.
The exception being Alaska as that is a large cruiser which is basically just a fancy name for a roughly 30.000 tonne under-gunned battlecruiser but it still takes just 360 days (despite taking around 2,5 years in reality).

The first nuclear powered cruiser USS Long Beach also takes 360 days which is just around 1000 days less than the real ship...


Further 525 days is pretty close to how long it takes to build a treaty battleship like the King George V class. 15 days less to be specific. It should however be said that in the real world these battleships took like 4-5 years to build.

It is 21 days less than a Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
Again 546 days is fairly far off the typical build time for these carriers which was around 5-7 years.

It is 95 days less than a Yamato class battleship.
Like above however the 620 days the game says these take to build is far from reality as both Yamato and Musashi took just over 1500 days.

The Iowa class battleships also took nearly 1000 days to around 1250 days to complete which is fairly far from the 565 days the game says they took.

None of the 24 Essex class aircraft carriers where completed within the 380 days they do in-game. The best is USS Franklin at 421 days followed by USS Hancock at 446. Those two together with USS Ticonderoga and USS Hornet are however they only vessels completed in less than 500 days. 1/3 took over 660 days though technically that includes vessels like USS Oriskany which had construction suspended for some time (hence why it took over 2000 days to complete).

Note how many warships have taken more than 660 days to complete. I did not find a single post world war 1 battleship that took less than 660 days from keel laid to the vessel was commissioned though admittedly I did not look at all candidates. 660 days is worth setting as a comparison as the A-150 battleship is the unit design with the longest build time and it takes 660 days to build. Being most likely a modified Yamato class battleship it would probably also take over 1500 days though.


So really why should Atlanta class cruisers have realistic build times when warships in general do not?
Not that I object to the idea as I do find in general that unit build times are too short. I can also see some interesting situations arising from increased warship construction times. However if you want to go for it you should do it for all unit designs not just a few and honestly I doubt you (BG) want to commit the time that takes.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2036
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

^ that, I pointed it out as it seems the odd one out, rather than an issue with all of them.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Sumojoe118
Corporal
Posts: 9
Joined: Aug 29 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Sumojoe118 »

Thanks for the insight, there are some great suggestions in this post. We will be changing the build time to 370 in the next update.
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by milivoje02 »

Corection for Serbian army(Serbia X group) production production capacity,inser 761- BVT SR-8811 Lazar In land force production(developed from 2007-2012,had variants Lazar 1,Lazar 2, Lazar 3, enlisted in armaments since 2017 and sold abroad)(https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi/lazar-3)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_3)

insert 4741 B-52K1 Nora 155mm In land force production capacity,(enlisted in armaments and sold abroad since 2012 ,Serbia sold units to Bangladesh, Cyprus,Kenya,Myanmar )(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_B-52)(https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi ... n-howitzer)

insert 2302 M-84A4 Sniper and 2329 M-84D. In land force production capacity (they were put into the production process in 2017 and sold abroad) (https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi ... attle-tank)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84AS)
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20589
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

New unit requests (insert) should not be in this thread.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
arakan94
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
Joined: Oct 10 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by arakan94 »

F4D-1 Skyray (USA) has too low move range (483 km).

IRL, range was 1 130 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F4D_Skyray
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20589
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

arakan94 wrote:
Nov 09 2019
F4D-1 Skyray (USA) has too low move range (483 km).

IRL, range was 1 130 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F4D_Skyray
Noted, thanks.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Schmidty
Warrant Officer
Posts: 35
Joined: Jan 16 2018
Human: Yes

Foreign Legion is broken: please fix

Post by Schmidty »

A WW2 special forces unit takes 46 days to build. Foreign legion have more close attack than it and only a couple less hard/soft attack and a couple less defense values yet take only 9 days to build. Combat time is the same. Obviously this is a problem. Stats are not necessarily the problem, it is the build time that is the problem. Marines take 30 days and foreign legion are better than Marines but worse than special forces so I would recommend 35 days considering special forces are 46 days. This would fix the overpowered Foreign Legion. This post is on behalf of myself and sgtscuba.
Last edited by Schmidty on Nov 14 2019, edited 1 time in total.
Schmidty
Warrant Officer
Posts: 35
Joined: Jan 16 2018
Human: Yes

Please fix the 1943 class CA-134 Des Moines.

Post by Schmidty »

The Iowa class 1943, or the Montana 1944 class is not the best U.S. battleships stat wise currently in the game during the WW2 period. The 1943 class CA-134 Des Moines is the best U.S. battleship by far in WW2 currently and even up to the early cold war. It builds in 220 days less time then the BB-61 Iowa and has better stats in attack value, attack range and overall. Please nerf this ship and make either the 1943 Iowa class or the 1944 Montana class, the best WW2 American battleship. In addition, the is CA-134 Des Moines is actually a heavy cruiser with 8in guns that could be outranged by the 16in guns of the Montana. This post is on behalf of myself and sgtscuba.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2036
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

^those 2
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Nerei
General
Posts: 1139
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

Lets add CA-122 Oregon City (ID 17201) and CL-144 Worcester CL (ID 17207) as they are also pretty broken. CLAA-119 Juneau (ID 17736) can also do with an overhaul as naval surface attack is probably around 500-550 points too high if the preceding CLAA-52 Atlanta (ID 17725) is accurate (and it certainly looks more accurate) Juneau stripped some of the 5in cannons and all torpedoes for greater light and medium AA armament. Basically Atlantas excel at shooting aircraft not ships and Juneau takes this further.

In terms of stats consider Oregon City and Des Moines improved CA-68 Baltimores (ID 17728) with Des Moines being the better ship (particularly in AA), Worcester an improved CL-55 Cleveland (ID 17726) and as mentioned Juneau is an improved Atlanta that sacrifices surface attack for greater AA attack.

Note: I am not saying the Baltimore, Cleveland and Atlanta are entire accurate (I have not checked that thoroughly) but they are far closer than these ships so simply making them improved versions of these ships will improve the situation.
Ideally though the entire world war 2 set of ships could do with an overhaul but I know that is quite unlikely.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2036
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

CLG-3 Galveston (17226) has a cargo capacity of 17227tons when its a light cruiser, it should have 0 cargo capacity.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by milivoje02 »

Add unit 7030 SA-341 Gazelle to X group, Yugoslavia had producing a SA 341/342 Gazele bu French licenc(https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/SA_342_% ... 0%BB%D0%B0),and Serbia contiune menteinenc and production capability as the first successor state. Serbia has now about 90 helicoperts SA 341/342 Gazele in service. From gazelle experience Serbia has been developing Hornet/Strsljen/X-01 Unmanned Helicopter(https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi ... helicopter)

Add unit 5639 SA-8 Gecko to X group and Serbian production production capacity(https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi ... -and-r-60d) Serbia Sa-8 gecko with R-60 (missile) produces for itself and has offered it for export.

New unit M84 AB1 tank third level of devoloping m 84 in Serbia,have a Shtora-1 armor and Kontakt-5 like on T 90 and T80 m2,firing 9M119 Svir/Refleks like T 90,T 80,T84 tank range of 5000 m. engine diesel V-46TK1,200 hp operation range 700 km and speed 75 kmh. (https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi ... attle-tank )( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84AS)
There is a unit 2329 m 84D is in caracteristichs like M84 AS1 (https://www.yugoimport.com/en/proizvodi ... attle-tank),it is close to the new tank in x group and with modified of values ​​for ground difence on 38(like other tanks in same armor family) and hard atack on 52 like tanks from same femily using a 9M119 Svir/Refleks and name change im M84 AB1 it can do the job.


And one question: X group have a 2515 MVT SR-13 tank at the wheels.It is somehow not natural here because the countries that develop tanks from the x group are developing a tank with a caterpillar that evolved on the plateau of the basic Russian tank. So it should be replaced with some more cordial when it comes to the direction of technology.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20589
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

milivoje02 wrote:
Nov 21 2019
Add unit...
I've quoted your post into the other thread you started, I"ll reply there;

This thread is about unit stats with errors.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”