New! v1127 Public Beta Available

[Kull]

A few errors I've reported in the past:

Admittedly the "Leaders" Database is a bottomless pit of opportunity, but here's two that were particularly irksome:

1) Pilot 984 (Flatley J.H.) has an "Is Leader" code of 22177, which is a blank slot in the Leaders database. It should point to 22072

2) Leader #212 Honma, Masaharu s/b: Homma, Masaharu

Elsewhere:

3) In Scenario 001 Ships 9967 & 9970 carry the same Name "Sumac". 2nd ship s/b "Lupine"

4) The I-6 doesn't have a Glen assigned to it, nor is there one in the database (s/b I.6-1)

[Omat]

4) The I-6 doesn't have a Glen assigned to it, nor is there one in the database (s/b I.6-1)

Hello

Regarding I-6:
The Hangar and catapult where both removed mid-1940.

[Kull]

4) The I-6 doesn't have a Glen assigned to it, nor is there one in the database (s/b I.6-1)

Hello

Regarding I-6:
The Hangar and catapult where both removed mid-1940.

+1 for the original naval team!

Edit: Although......in AE the Hangar is still present. So you could add a floatplane quite easily (and not necessarily a Glen, either)

[Kull]

Bomber defense against CAP at Night is overpowered. Dr. Hal explains the problem pretty well in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=392464

I will just add that in my longest running game (vs. Ironman Japanese AI), the loss ratio is roughly 250 (Japan fighters) to 1 (B-17/B-24). And that is literally a single B-24, despite hundreds of night bombing missions.

Conversely, bomber defense in the daylight is abysmal. Fighters of either side against any 1E/2E model of bomber rarely suffer even a single loss. To be clear, I'm not talking about CAP vs. the escort fighters (that works fine) but rather what happens when they take on the bombers themselves. It's worth noting that early war US Carrier CAP was performed by Dauntless Dive Bombers, and they were moderately successful at it, scoring quite a few kills. Try that in AE (not that you could) and every one of them would be quickly splashed.

[Blackhorse]

A couple years back, Blackhorse created a thread on "how to fix the US TD units". Should definitely be added to v1127:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... t=369068se

Thanks for remembering!

[Kull]

A few more nits (I confirmed that these issues are still present in v1127):

1) Ship Class ID-266: Thronycroft HDML (HDML) - Typo. The manufacturer's name s/b spelled "Thornycroft"

2) Ship ID ID-353: Typo. The ship name "Etofuro" should be spelled the same as the ship class name, "Etorufo"

3) Ship ID ID-894: Typo. The ship name "Hayamoto" is incorrect. It s/b spelled "Hayatomo"

[Kull]

Ship Weapon facing issues. There are a TON of these problems, and although I haven't personally performed a comprehensive search, Cardas listed several in Post #15 of this thread (https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4093347) while Omat has several more in the post at the bottom of page 16 of this thread (https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... &start=300).

In addition to those, here's one more:

- Farragut Class (ID 447) has both K-gun mounts on the "Left Side"

Btw, I did confirm that even though Cardas was looking at DaBabes, several of his issues apply to Scenario 1 in v1127. For example, weapons facing for Abdiel (276), Lexington (679), and Soya (2174) are still incorrect, and I suspect the same is true of all the rest.

[Kull]

After reviewing the changelog, I can see that several code fixes were made to TRACOM, but what I don't see is any mention of a fix for the truly serious problem - the ability of large numbers of TRACOM instructors to drive the pilot pool experience levels far above the national averages, as discussed extensively in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p4579569

[Moltrey]

Welcome back Kull! Good to see you around the board again.

[Kull]

Going through my Japan Spreadsheet, and kudos to the team for fixing many of the air unit issues highlighted there-in. That said, quite a few remain:

1) AirGroup ID 1012 (8th Sentai Det B): The unit starts off as Dinah I and the first upgrade is also for Dinah I (which effectively means there is no upgrade). However, the upgrade list then continues with Dinah II and a pair of entries for Dinah III, which means the original intent was for this unit to have two active upgrade options.

2) AirGroup ID 1082 (81st Sentai Det): Similar issue. The unit starts off as Dinah II and the first upgrade is also for Dinah II (which effectively means there is no upgrade). However, the upgrade list then continues with Dinah III and a pair of entries for KI-95, which means the original intent was for this unit to have two active upgrade options.

3) AirGroup ID 1128 (20th I.F. Chutai): This transport unit is based in Rabaul but is assigned to the 4th Air Division, a restricted Kwangtung Army HQ. Far more likely that it really belongs to the 4th Air Army HQ, which operates several other air units, also starting from Rabaul.

4) AirGroup IDs 1269 thru 1288 and 1347-1348 (22 air units): These transports have an error in their upgrade path. They are supposed to upgrade to the Ki-115a Tsurugi but the next upgrade in sequence is the Ki115b Tsurugi. Which won't work because all upgrade paths must end with TWO identical airframes. So either they are supposed to end with a double Ki-115a (the "b" being a typo) or there's a missing (additional) ending upgrade to Ki-115b. No idea which, but the existing setup is a problem.

5) AirGroup ID 40: This unit resizes to 36 in 11/42 (from 27) and then it resizes to 36 AGAIN in 3/44

6) AirGroup ID 222: This starts off with 36 airframes and "resizes" to 36 in 3/44

7) AirGroup ID 272: This unit resizes to 36 in 4/44 (from 27) and then it resizes to 36...again...in 3/44. LOL, wut?

8) AirGroup ID 374: This starts off with 36 airframes and "resizes" to 36 in 3/44

9) AirGroup IDs 1003, 1008 and 1009: These three units start off with 27 airframes and "resize" to 27 in 3/44.

10) AirGroup ID 1010: Similar. The unit starts off with 27 airframes and "resizes" to 27 in 7/43.

11) AirGroup ID 1129: This unit resizes to 12 in 4/44 (from 9) and then it resizes to 16 - one month earlier on 3/44.

12) AirGroup ID 1156: This starts off with 12 airframes and "resizes" to 12 in 4/44.

[Kull]

Welcome back Kull! Good to see you around the board again.

Thanks man, good to see you too. (Clearly they need me.....)

[Platoonist]

(Clearly they need me.....)

Oh yeah!

[Zovs]

Welcome back Kull! Good to see you around the board again.

Thanks man, good to see you too. (Clearly they need me.....)

[Kull]

A big THANK YOU to the v1127 team for adding near term withdrawal dates to so many of the Dutch submarines. It was a major pet peeve to see most of them running rampant through the SRA for the entirety of the war. In real life, half of them (9 of 18) never made it past March 1942, and the remainder were anything but "scourges of the sea".

Now if only something could be done about the US S-class submarines. They were horribly engineered and remarkably ineffective, and to see Allied players rely on them as a more-than-adequate substitute for the Fleet boats and their faulty torpedoes? Ugh. They should incur damage at a fabulous rate - just by leaving port - and the idea of extended cruises is simply laughable.

Hyman Rickover describes his first cruise aboard S-48: He relates that the pneumatic control valves used to submerge the ship never “synchronized [properly and thus when diving] she [always] lurched to one side or the other…to as much as twelve degrees.” Rickover wrote about his first cruise in July of 1930. Less than an hour into the cruise, a malfunctioning electrical controller forced the sub to stop. Once fixed, the gyro compass repeater then “went haywire…[making it] impossible to steer a correct course,” he reported. About an hour later, an exhaust valve stem cracked, forcing another stop. It was repaired and “then three…cylinder jackets of the port engine developed leaks… [Rickover, fearing the Captain] would become disgusted [with his performance] took the chance and ran with the leaky cylinder jackets…” If that wasn’t enough, several hours later “the electrician reported…something wrong with one of the main motors.” Crawling into the bilges to check out a “jangling in the bow,” he discovered the anchor chain was loose, “the control panel for the anchor windlass had become grounded.”

So yes, one day in the life of an S-boat. Sign me up.....

[Kull]

If folks assumed I was exaggerating about the anti-CAP abilities of 4-E bombers at night, here are the pilots for a single 12-plane B-24D unit working over the Japanese airfields in Burma. 50 kills as of May 1943. And yes, this unit flies night missions exclusively.

[GetAssista]

2) Ship ID ID-353: Typo. The ship name "Etofuro" should be spelled the same as the ship class name, "Etorufo"

Should not it be "Etorofu", as is the island in the Kuriles

[Kull]

2) Ship ID ID-353: Typo. The ship name "Etofuro" should be spelled the same as the ship class name, "Etorufo"

Should not it be "Etorofu", as is the island in the Kuriles

Good point - the class name (IDs 1292 thru 1296) is incorrect as well!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etorofu-class_escort_ship

[BBfanboy]

2) Ship ID ID-353: Typo. The ship name "Etofuro" should be spelled the same as the ship class name, "Etorufo"

Should not it be "Etorofu", as is the island in the Kuriles

Hmmm - the second island in the Kurile chain is named 'Etorofu'. Seems likely that is the intended name for the class.

[Kull]

Assuming that v1127 is using the original art files, 11 of the AE Japanese shipsides have incorrect borders. Specifically, the 1-pixel wide border on the left is 2 pixels, and there isn't any border on the right (see attachment):

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/down ... id=1052580

I've linked the original attachment from the Japan Camo thread, and hopefully that works (it has the names and bmp numbers of all the affected shipsides).

[Kull]

Even with v1127, there are still some oddities associated with the final upgrades of the North Carolina class BBs:

ID 357 (BB North Carolina): There is no upgrade delay in going from 357 to 358

ID 358 (BB North Carolina): 358 upgrades to 358 which ends the string of upgrades, but there are two more listed (359 & 360), so it should probably upgrade to 359. Again, no upgrade delay.

ID 359 (BB North Carolina): 359 upgrades to 359 but should probably upgrade to 360. And yet again, no upgrade delay. This is a strange looking upgrade, since the only change is to reduce the number of 20mm Oerlikons from 56 to 36.

ID 360 (BB North Carolina): This is the final upgrade, and occurs very late (October 1945). However it looks somewhat more accurate than 359, because Oerlikons increase (to 57, albeit with different numbers on each side) and it adds a new radar type (1644 SR AS Radar). That is the same radar that many other US BB classes receive in their final upgrades, but the NC class will never get it unless this record is activated.

Adding to the confusion, even though BB Washington is considered part of the North Carolina class and uses the same IDs and participates in all the same upgrades, it has a lone "BB Washington" record (ID 356). Which is an orphan, since nothing upgrades to or from that ID.