Unit Errata

Place bug reports / questions here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 508
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: Unit Errata

Post by dax1 »

Balthagor wrote:
Dec 12 2019
The Centaur can carry 26 aircraft. that's about 1.4 Squadrons. Rounds down to 1...
little OT,
I would like in future use for limit, not squadron number on carrier, but the effective number of airplanes...so In that specific case I could be able to set 2 half squadron (1 interceptor and 1 tactical bomber) with 13+13 airplanes and load on this carrier...
Con forza ed ardimento
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

HMS Centaur as built is 42 aircraft. 26 is indeed with jet aircraft.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-N ... -class.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Centaur_(R06)
Depending on what you set each aircraft unit to that is either 2 or 3. Personally I like to count them as 15 when modding carriers (to get some average between recon unit with strength 6 and regular units with strength 18).

Also the problem with aircraft carriers is not just that they count work with squadrons instead of aircraft but also that long deck aircraft are long deck aircraft no matter what. I agree that the game counting a 6 aircraft recon unit to be the same as an overstrength 35 aircraft fighter squadron but simply counting aircraft is not going to make aircraft carriers work properly either.

That still will keep it as it is right now where a Grumman FF and a Grumman F-14 are identical as long as the carrier have sufficient cargo space which a carrier like Midway does. The total cargo capacity is lower yes but Algol + Midway has more cargo capacity than a Gerald R Ford and cost significantly less.
Basically carriers reach their peak in 1945.

The current missile system might be able to be adapted to work where each vehicle in a unit have a weight and size and each carrier have a total max weight and max size. Naturally if such a change is going to happen at this point is the question but honestly I would say it would also be an improvement for Galactic Ruler so there is that.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

dax1 wrote:
Dec 13 2019
I would like in future use for limit, not squadron number on carrier, but the effective number of airplanes...
I'm not in favour of this and certainly not this late in the life cycle of the game.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:
Dec 13 2019
dax1 wrote:
Dec 13 2019
I would like in future use for limit, not squadron number on carrier, but the effective number of airplanes...
I'm not in favour of this and certainly not this late in the life cycle of the game.
But for GR it might make sense. I agree with it not being changed now. But Centaur needs some love as depending on which era and what planes, you get different number of planes carried. I think my book at home has the service history with squadrons embarked at different times in it.
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: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

This may simply be a unit were we can't satisfy all it's criteria. There are some limitations to the game that are not important enough to put development hours into it.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

Nerei wrote:
Dec 13 2019
HMS Centaur as built is 42 aircraft. 26 is indeed with jet aircraft.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-N ... -class.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Centaur_(R06)
Depending on what you set each aircraft unit to that is either 2 or 3. Personally I like to count them as 15 when modding carriers (to get some average between recon unit with strength 6 and regular units with strength 18).

Also the problem with aircraft carriers is not just that they count work with squadrons instead of aircraft but also that long deck aircraft are long deck aircraft no matter what. I agree that the game counting a 6 aircraft recon unit to be the same as an overstrength 35 aircraft fighter squadron but simply counting aircraft is not going to make aircraft carriers work properly either.

That still will keep it as it is right now where a Grumman FF and a Grumman F-14 are identical as long as the carrier have sufficient cargo space which a carrier like Midway does. The total cargo capacity is lower yes but Algol + Midway has more cargo capacity than a Gerald R Ford and cost significantly less.
Basically carriers reach their peak in 1945.

The current missile system might be able to be adapted to work where each vehicle in a unit have a weight and size and each carrier have a total max weight and max size. Naturally if such a change is going to happen at this point is the question but honestly I would say it would also be an improvement for Galactic Ruler so there is that.
Interestingly, the 42 figure comes out of David Hobb's British Aircraft Carriers book. Since this was the initial design maybe this should be the used one? Especially as Midway has a cap of 6 due to it being designed to operate 137 aircraft originally. According to same book, the ship (Centaur) carried around 1200 ton of fuel just for the aircraft. (350k gallon of avcat)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

Midway is somewhere in the middle for aircraft capacity. The initial capacity would be closer to 7,5 while the final capacity is more like 4. The current capacity of 6 is comparable to the upper end of what an Essex class could have carried when commissioned. The current capacity of 4 is too low if that is the time for which it is set but not too far off if it is set for the class when decommissioned.
They did however operate smaller aircraft than the Midway so 4 for Essex is not comparable to 4 for Midway. In general the problem US Navy had with the Essex class was that it was too small to operate the larger jet aircraft that started to appear later in their lifetime. Even Midway ended up being deemed too small as aircraft grew in size.

Naturally setting Midway to 7 or 8 and Essex to 6 renders the super-carriers all but entirely pointless. Not that there is that much point to them with Midway as it is. Midway is just ridiculously good and there really is no way to fix it.
YaYo7
Lieutenant
Posts: 91
Joined: Feb 07 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by YaYo7 »

1.Does the game have missiles US MGM-31A Pershing IA and MGM-31C Pershing II? I did not find them or they have a different name in the game?
2.Russian 3M-54 Kalibr ID- 8988(NATO codename SS-N-27 Sizzler) is anti-shipping variant deployed by the Russian Navy with range 660km(launch type-submarine 3M-54K,surface ship 3M-54T), maybe it’s worth renaming according to nato codename and rebalance as full anti-ship?
3.Russian 3M-14 Kalibr(NATO codename SS-N-30A Sizzler) is the inertial guidance land attack variant which is deployed by the Russian Navy with range 1500-2500km(launch type-submarine 3M-14K,surface ship 3M-14T). Consider adding to the game?
4.Russian cruise missiles: 9M728 (SSC-7 Stone KS) published range up to 500 km, but real maybe ~2500km?? and 9M729 (SSC-8 Stone KB) published range up to 500 km, but real maybe ~5500km??.. Consider adding to the game?
5.Russian anti-ship missiles: Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile ALBM (AS-X-36 Stone AH). Flight ceiling =20 km (65,617 ft), speed Mach 10–Mach 12 (12,250–14,701 km/h), operational range ~2000-3000km. 3M22 Zirkon(SS-NX-33) is a scramjet powered maneuvering anti-ship hypersonic cruise missile developed by Russia. Speed ~9,800–11,025 km/h, operational range ~1000km, launch platform- submarine ,surface ship. Consider adding to the game?
6. SS-N-30 Bulava SLBM(ID- 8146, tech year 1986) rename to SS-N-23 Skiff SLBM(R-29RM Shtil)? And SS-N-30 Skiff SLBM(ID- 8369, tech year 2012) rename to SS-N-32 Bulava (RSM-56 Bulava)? I think it would be more logical and would suit their tech years.
SS-N-23 Skiff SLBM(R-29RM Shtil) year 1986.
SS-N-23A Skiff SLBM(R-29RMU Sineva) year 2007.
SS-N-23B Skiff SLBM(R-29RMU2 Layner) year 2014.
SS-N-32 or SS-NX-30 Bulava (RSM-56 Bulava) year 2011.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 288
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by sparky282 »

I believe units 258 and 259 SAS is still missing from U.K.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Zuikaku »

I'm in favour of units havin original official names and not codenames. So, Im in favour for Ki-61 Hiean and not "Tony" and also for Kalibr and not "Sizzler".
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

SR.45 Princess (ID 14164).

TL;DR max cargo weight should probably not be higher than 25,000kg
Also you might consider if you want to have this aircraft at all as I cannot find any references to it actually having internal landing gear.


Beware calculations ahead.


This aircraft is just plain silly. 64 tonne cargo capacity other than being broken for the time is most definitely not feasible.

Yes I have seen sources say that much (well a bit less) but for all practical purposes those numbers are useless.
First off the same sources also list the aircrafts empty and max takeoff weight. If you factor those in you get:

Lets go with what wikipedia lists.
link
max takeoff weight = 156,501kg (or 3450,25lb)
empty weight = 86,183kg
max disposable weight = 62,142.2kg

max takeoff weight - (empty weight + max cargo weight)
156501 - (86183 + 62142.2) = 8175.8 or just over 8 metric tonnes to spare if we go with max takeoff weigh.


Keep in mind this from what I can find is empty weight not empty operating weight. We have not factored in that the aircraft cannot effectively empty the tanks 100% so our effective fuel is less than that.

Even ignoring that fact do you think you can fly 9225km on that little fuel?

The wikpedia listed fuel capacity is 14000 imp gallons or 63645.3l

Commercial jet fuel is around 0.8kg/l meaning that a full tank is around 50,916.24kg or just under 51 metric tonnes.

Basically filling the entire 62 tonne listed cargo capacity means we only got around 16% full fuel tanks assuming we do not go above the listed max takeoff weight.



Now the intersting part is I found some papers from the ministry of supply from 1956.
link
These lists the max takeoff weight as just 320,000 lb or 145,149kg.
If we stick with the wikipedia listed empty weight that means we actually only got

145,149kg - 86,183kg = 58,966kg free weight.

That is less than the listed cargo capacity meaning that if we assume both that papers max takeoff weight is right on top of the wikipedia listed empty weight we will exceed the max takeoff weight just by adding cargo.

But wait it gets even better.

The same paper lists a normal landing weight as 250,000lb or around 113,400kg. It is possible to land with the takeoff weight in an emergency but you would not do that in normal operations.

Again sticking with wikipedia for aircraft weight that means we only got

113,400kg - 86,183kg = 27,217kg free landing weight.

Note that has to include some fuel unless you want to land it as a glider.

My recommendations is that he princess should not have more than 25000kg cargo capacity. Maybe a bit less.


Also just for the record I cannot find any references to the aircraft actually having any landing gear (all pictures show it having them attached externally) meaning that from a practical perspective the aircraft would not be able to land at a normal air field.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 1985
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Unit Errata

Post by SGTscuba »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_Princess

Fun fact, the building it was built in is still there, and no, from my memory of visiting the Saunders museum on the side of that building, it was a pure flying boat, and would require a trolley to leave the water.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Viper151
Warrant Officer
Posts: 39
Joined: Aug 12 2016
Human: Yes
Location: X: 460 Y: 176
Contact:

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Viper151 »

At the request of a friend and myself I am notifying you that the Espana Battleship (17292) is incorrectly listed as a carrier.
Cold War Enhanced Mod: viewtopic.php?f=91&t=29123
Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/bYvRMUP
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20519
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Balthagor »

Viper151 wrote:
Jan 22 2020
At the request of a friend and myself I am notifying you that the Espana Battleship (17292) is incorrectly listed as a carrier.
This one is fixed for the next update.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Nerei
General
Posts: 1126
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Unit Errata

Post by Nerei »

HUS-1 Seahorse (ID 14236)
This helicopter can only land on short deck carriers. It should be able to land on both.


Yak-60 (ID 14765)
This helicopter can only land on long deck carriers. It either should be able to do both or none.
Really though it should be none of them as it is a monster.

Image

The "small" helicopter in above picture is a Yak-24. It is the size of a Boeing CH-47 Chinook (a bit longer actually). The Yak-60 is over twice the length and around 5 times the weight. No carrier have the lifts to properly handle it meaning it and its 11 friends are stuck on the aviation deck. Naturally that is assuming we can find the space to land that many helicopters.

It would be the heaviest aircraft to ever land on a carrier by a significant margin. It would also be the longest. That is even when comparing it to the US Navy landing a C-130 on the USS Forrestal in 1963. That was found to be impractical and we are basically talking about landing 12 significantly larger aircraft. Note that at the time the Forrestal class was only outdone in size by the new USS Enterprise so it is not really like we can find a much larger carrier to work with.
Post Reply

Return to “Issues and Support”