Unit Errata
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
I'm not doing the order of battle changes. Just busy enough with unit database.
Also, there are no Spanish or Austrian region available.
Here is the list of available regions:
http://www.supremewiki.com/node/46
I'll check the rest
Also, there are no Spanish or Austrian region available.
Here is the list of available regions:
http://www.supremewiki.com/node/46
I'll check the rest
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Captain
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Oct 07 2016
- Human: Yes
- Location: Austria
Re: Unit Errata
Zuikaku wrote:I'm not doing the order of battle changes. Just busy enough with unit database.
Also, there are no Spanish or Austrian region available.
Here is the list of available regions:
http://www.supremewiki.com/node/46
I'll check the rest
then crab one of these
"
Unused region codes
P Unused
[ Unused
\ Unused
] Unused
^ Unused
"
SRU 9.0.73.1 (Steam) / W7Pro-64 eng
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
I'm neither programmer nor I'm working for BGs so I'm unable to comply Only George can help you with this.merlinx_at wrote:Zuikaku wrote:I'm not doing the order of battle changes. Just busy enough with unit database.
Also, there are no Spanish or Austrian region available.
Here is the list of available regions:
http://www.supremewiki.com/node/46
I'll check the rest
then crab one of these
"
Unused region codes
P Unused
[ Unused
\ Unused
] Unused
^ Unused
"
Please teach AI everything!
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
-
- Captain
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Oct 07 2016
- Human: Yes
- Location: Austria
Re: Unit Errata
Maybe you can rename it to ASCOD Ulan AFV?Zuikaku wrote:ASCOD IFV is already in the game.
there was also an Ulan 2 and i think, the Ulan is a little to weak (firepower & range).
Ulan has a 30-mm-MK 30-2 + 7,62-mm-MG FN-MAG (koaxial)
Puma has a MK 30-2/ABM + MG4 5,56 mm
MK 30-2: Evolved variant, shooting of 30 × 173 mm steel ammunition,
cadence 700 rounds / min,
ammunition capacity is 400 rounds; 200 ready to fire and 200 in storage
MK 30-2/ABM: as MK 30-2, but fitted out for the shooting of air burst ammunition (ABM) as the AHEAD ammunition,
cadence 200 rounds / min,
ammunition capacity is 400 rounds (just 1/2 is ABM); 200 ready to fire and 200 in storage
both have a effective Range of 3000m
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCOD#Ulan & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV) & https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_30
SRU 9.0.73.1 (Steam) / W7Pro-64 eng
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Then I also have to add ASCOD Pizzaro which is basically the same thing. By doing that region E is going to be extremely messy with cloned designs, and region E , along with regions T and Z, is already overpopulated with similar and overlapping designs. So, I'm not in favour of doing this. But I'll add ASCOD II Ajax for sure (although not for region E).merlinx_at wrote: Maybe you can rename it to ASCOD Ulan AFV?
I don't think that ASCOD is underpowered but I'll check once again...
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Captain
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Oct 07 2016
- Human: Yes
- Location: Austria
Re: Unit Errata
Zuikaku wrote:Then I also have to add ASCOD Pizzaro which is basically the same thing. By doing that region E is going to be extremely messy with cloned designs, and region E , along with regions T and Z, is already overpopulated with similar and overlapping designs. So, I'm not in favour of doing this. But I'll add ASCOD II Ajax for sure (although not for region E).merlinx_at wrote: Maybe you can rename it to ASCOD Ulan AFV?
I don't think that ASCOD is underpowered but I'll check once again...
thanks
great
i think, its not possible to activate your mod to an running game
SRU 9.0.73.1 (Steam) / W7Pro-64 eng
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
No, it works only if you recache and then start a new game.merlinx_at wrote:
thanks
great
i think, its not possible to activate your mod to an running game
I don't think ASCOD is underpowered. Also I have added both ASCOD II and Ajax designs in the next release of my mod.
Also, many new designs are pending to be added ,when enough data will be available on them (like new Dreadnought class submarine).
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Captain
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Oct 07 2016
- Human: Yes
- Location: Austria
Re: Unit Errata
it seems prices for new Units are to high ... or for old one to low?!
have seen a bunch of units
have seen a bunch of units
SRU 9.0.73.1 (Steam) / W7Pro-64 eng
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Inflation did thismerlinx_at wrote:it seems prices for new Units are to high ... or for old one to low?!
have seen a bunch of units
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Corporal
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Jun 15 2006
-
- Board Admin
- Posts: 2918
- Joined: Sep 29 2008
- Human: Yes
- Contact:
Re: Unit Errata
From Steam;
"chrisahl [developer]
Noted. Ticket 21353"
"chrisahl [developer]
Noted. Ticket 21353"
https://www.youtube.com/user/GIJoe597
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
Older/retired gamers, who do not tolerate foolishness.
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/USARG
-
- General
- Posts: 2550
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Unit Errata
In the '49 scenario, DDG-173 Kongo has the model of a battleship that I assume is the Kongo instead of a destroyer model.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
-
- General
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Jan 11 2016
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
Considering it was brought up in another topic I thought I would post it here. There might very well be more aircraft with problems but these are the ones I found.
Basically several of the early cold war bombers have wrong missile payload and max size. I will using the B-29 Superfortress (ID 12126) as reference.
The B-50 series of superfortresses (A version is ID 12673 and D version is ID 12688) is a revision of the standard B-29. Having them be less capable as nuclear bombers as the model is improved is wrong. Their payload should also be max size 10 and 120 capacity.
The B-32 dominator (ID 12113) was never used as a nuclear bomber but I see no reason why it should not be capable of carrying a Mk-I nuclear bomb and its total bomb payload was comparable to the B-29 so I guess 10 max size and 120 max capacity is fitting.
The B-47 Stratojet has a higher payload capacity than the B-29 though not by that much so it should probably have 140 capacity. It also flew with bombs of a similar size so max size should probably be at least 10.
The Tu-4 (ID 12140) is a reverse engineered B-29 Superfortress. It should have the same capabilities.
Now onto the biggest offender I have found so far the B-36. I am going to go into detail with this aircraft as it is basically going to break all standards for 1949.
This plane is massive. When it was completed it was a monster compared to any other bomber ever. It is the crazy world war 2 concept bombers made real. Here is a picture of the size difference between it a B-29 and B-17.
The B-17 in front weigh less fully fuelled and loaded than a full B-36 weapons payload and an empty B-29 together with a Mk-1 or Mk-3 nuclear bomb would also be lighter. Crushed up it would probably fit in the bays too!
It was actually never designed to carry nuclear weapons but it did a good job doing so. It was by far the only bomber capable of carrying early hydrogen bombs such as the TX-16, Mk-17 and Mk-24. The TX-16 is basically a weaponised Ivy Mike design.
All have a staggering weight of roughly 20000Kg. That is over 4 times the weight of the weapons dropped on Hiroshima.
Unlike the contemporary Tu-95 that had to be modified to carry the AN-602 Tzar Bomba this aircraft could more or less have done it as the Mk-17 is only slightly smaller.
So what would an appropriate max missile size and payload be? Compared to the B-29 it would be somewhere around 500. Going by more similar payload aircraft such as the Tu-160 blackjack (ID 12245) that is at 720 max capacity and the B-52H (ID 12205) has 456 max capacity 700 or 600 missile capacity respectively.
Max size should also be huge as this aircraft basically flew with some of the largest nuclear bombs ever loaded onto a plane. At least 40 does not seem wrong to me. For the record we also need these bombs added at some point. ^_-
The early B-52 variants such as the B (ID 12156) and D (ID 12157) also appear have inferior nuclear bomber performance compared to the later G (ID 12171) and H (ID 12205) variants.
The G and H variants with their 38 max size and 456 payload does not seem far off when compared to the B-29 Superfortress but the B variant with 16 max size and 216 payload and the D variant with 24 max size and 288 payload certainly does. There is little attack capability increase so why this much in missile carrying capability?
They are all based on the same airframe so such a jump seems incorrect to me and again the G and H variant seems about right compared to the B-29 so I would suggest giving the B and D variants the same capabilities as the G and H variants.
Basically several of the early cold war bombers have wrong missile payload and max size. I will using the B-29 Superfortress (ID 12126) as reference.
The B-50 series of superfortresses (A version is ID 12673 and D version is ID 12688) is a revision of the standard B-29. Having them be less capable as nuclear bombers as the model is improved is wrong. Their payload should also be max size 10 and 120 capacity.
The B-32 dominator (ID 12113) was never used as a nuclear bomber but I see no reason why it should not be capable of carrying a Mk-I nuclear bomb and its total bomb payload was comparable to the B-29 so I guess 10 max size and 120 max capacity is fitting.
The B-47 Stratojet has a higher payload capacity than the B-29 though not by that much so it should probably have 140 capacity. It also flew with bombs of a similar size so max size should probably be at least 10.
The Tu-4 (ID 12140) is a reverse engineered B-29 Superfortress. It should have the same capabilities.
Now onto the biggest offender I have found so far the B-36. I am going to go into detail with this aircraft as it is basically going to break all standards for 1949.
This plane is massive. When it was completed it was a monster compared to any other bomber ever. It is the crazy world war 2 concept bombers made real. Here is a picture of the size difference between it a B-29 and B-17.
The B-17 in front weigh less fully fuelled and loaded than a full B-36 weapons payload and an empty B-29 together with a Mk-1 or Mk-3 nuclear bomb would also be lighter. Crushed up it would probably fit in the bays too!
It was actually never designed to carry nuclear weapons but it did a good job doing so. It was by far the only bomber capable of carrying early hydrogen bombs such as the TX-16, Mk-17 and Mk-24. The TX-16 is basically a weaponised Ivy Mike design.
All have a staggering weight of roughly 20000Kg. That is over 4 times the weight of the weapons dropped on Hiroshima.
Unlike the contemporary Tu-95 that had to be modified to carry the AN-602 Tzar Bomba this aircraft could more or less have done it as the Mk-17 is only slightly smaller.
So what would an appropriate max missile size and payload be? Compared to the B-29 it would be somewhere around 500. Going by more similar payload aircraft such as the Tu-160 blackjack (ID 12245) that is at 720 max capacity and the B-52H (ID 12205) has 456 max capacity 700 or 600 missile capacity respectively.
Max size should also be huge as this aircraft basically flew with some of the largest nuclear bombs ever loaded onto a plane. At least 40 does not seem wrong to me. For the record we also need these bombs added at some point. ^_-
The early B-52 variants such as the B (ID 12156) and D (ID 12157) also appear have inferior nuclear bomber performance compared to the later G (ID 12171) and H (ID 12205) variants.
The G and H variants with their 38 max size and 456 payload does not seem far off when compared to the B-29 Superfortress but the B variant with 16 max size and 216 payload and the D variant with 24 max size and 288 payload certainly does. There is little attack capability increase so why this much in missile carrying capability?
They are all based on the same airframe so such a jump seems incorrect to me and again the G and H variant seems about right compared to the B-29 so I would suggest giving the B and D variants the same capabilities as the G and H variants.
-
- Colonel
- Posts: 257
- Joined: May 19 2010
- Human: Yes
Re: Unit Errata
German 1914 Infantry is missing its icon with SR1914 DLC. (unit id 191, icon id 907).
Same for Russian Empire infantry unit id 191 icon id 905
I have blank icons.
Same for Russian Empire infantry unit id 191 icon id 905
I have blank icons.