Matrix Games Forums

Stanislav:

Have had a couple of queries regarding when this big modification to the Mod might be out. What is your status?

John

another general question - I might simply have overlooked the answer - if so - my apologies:

when you say "Full DBB-compatible" - does that mean that you will input the huge changes to the Allied-OOB that comes along with DBB? - I mean the reduced Aviation Support, all those small little engineer and port units etc...I rechecked RA 5.3 (my latest version) and it wasn't there yet - still the stock standard OOB...

thx for the answers!

Ok, let's see if I can get this in the right thread.


Having played RA into March '45, have you considered increasing allied air production slightly? In this mod, with all the streamlining of Japanese air production, you can get airframes almost a year ahead of RL production( the M8 Zero comes to mind, sitting here at work). As Allies, you have so many LSI's and LST's you can walk across the pacific if you put them bow to stern. But virtually every air campaign will come to a halt due to a lack of airframes. Fighter pools are very tight, so are heavy bomber pools, and light bomber pools will dry up. Reducing Landing Ship inventories and increasing airframe production would seem an intelligent trade off. Real Life production was drawn down due to the fact that the Japanese economy, and by association it's war machine, was noticeably being impacted by early '44. Air superiority had been achieved. That is not the case here, where the Japanese war machine can sustain itself with "banked" industry far beyond historical norms.

Just an opinion.

Sorry for absence from forums. However, I was not idle this time, and the rewrite had advanced significantly. See the current changelog:



CRUISERS (RELUCTANT ADMIRAL)

(1)Modifications from the previous versions of RA are copied. Small-calibre flak upgrades for heavy cruisers are brought more in line with my earlier work for the Perfect War mod, however, they are available on later dates in RA.

(2)The Tone class is corrected to Durability 58, belt armor 140. It is unclear why its durability and protection are reduced in stock, while IRL Tones were the most sturdily built and heavily armored IJN cruisers. This change makes the Tone-kai class from previous RA version largely redundant, Iwaki and Hikari now belong to the Tone class.]

(3)Effective range for 5500-ton cruisers is reduced to 5000(14) across the board, to reflect their RL state by 1941 (see Lacroix/Wells p.555). Flak armament and its wartime upgrades tweaked, with the final configurations reflecting the most interesting RL versions of AAA armament and its positioning, but avaialable earlier than IRL.

(4)As surface Allied superiority often proves an even worse problem than air superiority by 1944, all conversion of old cruisers to CLAAs (provided for Tenryu, Kuma and Nagara classes) are optional. A player can keep them all as surface combatants. Nagara CLAAs also keep their torpedo armament.

(5)4 Yahagi-class cruisers (as Oyodo, but constructed as destroyer leaders with full armament) are present in the mod currently (slots 106-109). I've noticed that the cost of Agano vs Oyodo was just 26 400 vs 31 160 thousands of yen (again, from Lacroix/Wells). This, of course, does not fully reflect relative complexity of construction, but it still made me more inclined towards the latter type. Also, it is far closer to what the RA mod player are already familiar with, so maybe we should stick with this type? Art needed (see the beginning of the thread).
However, statblocks for the Modified Agano class also are provided in the file, in case the final vote will be in their favor.



FIRST-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS (RELUCTANT ADMIRAL)

(1)120/45 guns on Mutsuki-class destroyers are changed from the 10YT (DP) to the historically correct 3YT (non-DP), so that these ships have practically no AA potential at the beginning of the war, as they should.

(2)Upgrades for the Mutsuki class are tweaked in line with the most optimal historical configuration. Less reduction in anti-surface armament during the late war, but ASW potential is reduced (AA potential is lower too, due to #1).

(3)The Mutsuki class APDs are not converted to escorts lare in the war (that didn't happen IRL), upgrades are tweaked accordingly.

(4)Destroyer upgrades are tweaked. Reduction in surface armament in late-war upgrades is nonexistent or much less severe. In particular, torpedo armament is always retained. However, much fewer automatic AA guns are installed in the same upgrades. If surface combat was as important IRL as it is in the game, Japs would do the same.

(5)As the result of points above, Japanese destroyer fleet generally has far weaker and almost bordering on nonexistent AA armament throughout most of 1942. However, as Akizuki-class destroyers start to appear in large numbers, upgrades happen earlier than IRL, and some upgrades actually switch pure naval guns from DP guns (althought usually the same 127/50 3YT, which have pretty bad AA stats), and other DP guns aren't removed (as every old player should know, DP guns are the core of any TF's anti-air defense; they have a chance of firing at any attacker, while automatic guns seem to only protect a ship which carries them), the anti-air potential of IJN combat screen rapidly increases far above the stock levels.

(6)14 Yugumo-class destroyers (including 6 late-war hulls) are removed from the scenario (slots 159-166 and 2938-2943). The remaining 14 DDs of this class are available earlier, in 1942 - first two months of 1943. The Yugumo class is moved to slots 153-166.

(7)Shimakaze is removed from the scenario.

(8)18 Akizuki-class desroyers are added to the scenario (slots 142-148 and 8235-8249). Also, all Akizuki-class destroyers arrive early (before the end of 1944). 10735-10756

(9)Matsu and Tachibana classes are modified. Their standard displacement is increased to 1500 tons, and they carry 2x2 100/65 T98 guns as their main armament. Quintuple and sextuple torpedo launchers are used instead of quadruple (using larger torpedo launchers was planned for these classes IRL, but they were not ready in time). Matsus can upgrade to Kaiten carriers in mid-1945.

(10)9 Tachibana-class destroyers are added to the scenario for late 1945. In addition, other destroyers of Matsu and Tachibana classes arrive much earlier, starting from July of 1943. There is no large numerical increase, because these types are larger than in stock.



SECOND-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS

(1)20 old 2nd-class destroyers of Momi and Wakatake classes are converted to numbered patrol boats, undergoing a major reconstruction (using old AA weapons removed from first-line ships). The PB-51 class of patrol craft is added to the scenario. Armament includes 1x120/45 3 YT, 1x2 40/61 T91, 2x4 13.2 T93, 1x2 53cm torpedoes, 48 DCs. Speed 25 knots, endurance 5000(14).

Wakatake (PB-51), Kuretake (PB-52), Sanae (PB-53), Asagao (PB-54), Fuyo (PB-55), Karukaya (PB-56), Yugao (PB-57), Hasu (PB-58), Kuri (PB-59), Tsuga (PB-60), Nire (PB-61), Take (PB-62), Kaki (PB-63), Ashi (PB-64), Sumire (PB-65), Hishu (PB-66), Kiku (PB-67), Susuki (PB-68), Tsuta (PB-69), Yomogi (PB-70) are included in this class.

Kaya, Nashi - decomissioned 1940 IRL, become PB-71 and PB-72 (slots 416-417).

(1.2)Added upgrade options for those destroyers of Momi and Wakatake classes that start the war converted to APDs.

(2)2 old destroyers of Momo class begin the war as second-rate escorts. Not reconstructed beyond replacing cannons with DCs and AAMGs.

(3)The Tomozuru class is renamed to Chidori class, for historical accuracy. All TBs remain classified as TBs, insread of Es, as they retain their torpedo armament.

(4)120/45 guns on unupgraded Minekaze and Kamikaze classes are changed from the 10YT (DP) to the historically correct 3YT (non-DP), so that these ships have practically no AA potential at the beginning of the war, as they should.

(5)6 old Minekaze-class DDs are convered to APDs in 1941, instead of 2 (Tachikaze to Nadakaze, slots 317-322), to compensate for absence of Momi/Wakatake APDs. These ships undergo a thorough reconstruction with installation of DP guns and increase of radius at the expense of speed. Those APDs have options for both APD and E upgrades for late war.



SECOND-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS (RELUCTANT ADMIRAL)

(1)All ships of Minekaze and Kamikaze classes (that aren't converted to APDs and escorts) receive upgrades to the Kamikaze class standards.






ESCORT SHIPS

(1)The only historical class of escorts in the scenario is Shimushu. All other escort classes presented in the scenario are derived from Sokuten/Hirashima minelayer class, rather than Shimushu class. Also, all escort hulls differ only in their degree of simplification and adaptation for rapid building techniques, no building of different-sized ships.

(2)The first class of new escorts is Matsuwa class, first ships laid down in the last months of 1941 and entering service in late 1942. Consists of 12 ships (slots 353-364). 725 tons of standard displacement; initial armament of 2x120/45 3YT (non-DP guns), 2x3 25/60 T96, 60 DCs; Speed 20 knots, Radius 4000 (14).

(3)The second class is Miyake class, first ships laid down in second half of 1942 and entering service in second half of 1943. The slightly improved variant of the previous class, the main differences are replacement of old 120/45 3YT guns with 10YT DP guns and 120 DCs. Consists of 10 ships (slots 365 - 374).

(4)The third class is Okinawa class, built through 1943 to 1945, with the first ships entering service at the end of 1943. A simplified and improved design, with slightly inreased fuel storage. 730 tons of standard displacement; initial armament of 2x120/45 10YT, 3x3 25/60 T96, 120 DCs; Speed 20 knots, Radius 4500 (14). 48 ships (slots 375-412).

(5)C and D class escorts are using the same hull and basic armament as Okinawa class, but less powerful and simpler to make engines. Armament is the same as IRL. Speed is slightly higher, while endurance is lower. Consists of 157 ships (slots 416-546, 613-622 and 6981-6999).

(6)Only 10 subchasers of the Ch-28 class are ordered (Ch-28 through Ch-37, those laid down before the adoption of the Circle Perimeter program), and the concept of the large subchaser is abandoned thereafter, to save manpower and resources for construction of large escorts and destroyers.

(7)3-ship historical Ch-251 class is added to the scenario (slots 8337-8339).



AMPHIBIOUS TRANSPORT SHIPS

(1)4-ship historical Kibitsu Maru LSD class is added to the scenario, arriving from December 1943 to 1945 (slots 2991-2994).

(2)16-ship historical SS LSI/LST class is added to the scenario. The number of ships is lower (16, slots 7385-7399), but they are available early in 1942-early 1943.

(3)Type SB (previously T-101) LSI/LST class is available from summer of 1943, and the number of ships in it is increased to 95 (slots 7441-7499 and 8575-8599) as production contunues throughout 1945.

(4)The number of Type 1 LSI/APDs is increased to 50 (slots 7411-7440 and 8550-8596), as the fist ship become available in mid-1943 and production continues until the end of the scenario.




MINE WARFARE SHIPS

(1)3-ship Ajiro minelayer class (slot 2898 and 14407-08) is added to the scenario (IRL this class consisted of 1 ship, not represented in stock), arriving in late 1943-early 1944.

(2)12-ship Kamishima minelayer/minesweeper (convertable both ways) class (slots 14410-21) is added to the scenario for late 1944 and 1945 (IRL this class also consisted of only one ship).

(3)2-ship Eijo minelayer class (historical) is added to scenario (slots 2899-2900).

(4)W-19 destroyer minesweeper class consists of only 4 ships. 13 more ships starting from W-23 are not ordered, with priority being given to escort construction and, later, smaller minelayers on a standardized hull.

(5)W-101 minesweeper class (historical ships made from captured British hulls) is added to the scenario (slots 624-625).

(6)Many small changes to flak upgrades are introduced for practically every class.





AUXILARIES, GUNBOATS, MERCHANTS, ETC

(1)The old former cruiser Asahi (slot 14405), reconstructed as a submarine tender, is included in the scenario.

(2)Three very old Japanese cruisers (Yakumo, Izumo, Iwate, slots 14402-4) are included in the scenario as patrol gunboats. Just don't expect them to participate in naval combat...



MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS

(1)All Japanese motor torpedo boats in the scenario belong to S-30 class, purchased from Germany or built on license: http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_s30.htm

(2)195 of new S-30 class large MTBs (slots 880-885 and 8040-8115, 8120-8229) replace 585 MTBs and MLs from the previous versions of Reluctant Admiral. Deliveries begin in May of 1943 and end in January of 1946. Note that expanded PT boats production also replaces nearly all of midget submarines' wartime production.


GENERAL

(1)In-game fuel loads on various cargo ships, auxilaries, escorts, and mine warfare ships are reduced by 1/3, to compensate for the reduction of their cargo loads compared to stock. These ships effectively take less fuel to travel the same distance. In some cases, where data regarding historical fuel loads is available, it is used instead of the normal reduction, as the game seems to burden Japanese auxilaries and small ships with excessive fuel consumption anyway.

(2)Many upgrades are tweaked. In general, the number of AAMG increased on many classes, but is often lower than in stock before upgrades.

(3)Displacements and other stats on Japanese warships are brought in line with data provided by Jentschura (and most of the sources). Capital ships usually have lesser dispacements than in stock, many older destroyers have bigger (past pre-war reconstruction), and so on.

The only remaining annoying part is subs. Manually seeking through the files to see what has been changed in RA so far was very frustrating. Still, I hope to complete everything by the end of May at the latest.

Also, a couple things regarding the air side. No "modding" strictly speaking, just realism tweaks:


(1)D3A range.

In the real life Vals (D3A2s) flew, for an example their attack against Guadalcanal/Tulagi during the I-Go operation on 7 April of 1943 after refueling at Buin (the Shortlands hex, in AE). This is the minimal attack range of 8 hexes, which is not possible for AE. The low range of Val in the game also doesn't fit well the numbers in Francillion and other sources putting its range to around the same values as B6N1. The normal range of D3A2 should be at least around 8 hexes, and D3A1 slightly higher.


(2)Ki-61 range.

In the real life Ki-61s (probably of Ia model, but possibly Ib), flew combat missions from Wewak to Cape Gloucester and Arawe:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdun ... 48th-3.htm

This is 8 and 9 hexes, respectively in the game, and therefore flatly impossible (beyond extended droptank range).

Then Ki-61-Id (and following models) had its range greatly improved, carrying more internal fuel than Oscar and slightly less than A6M3a, the longest-ranged Jap fighter in the game (550 liters for Ki-61-Id and every following model up to Ki-100-II, 570 for A6M3a). Note, that for Id the engine was not more powerful (and thus more fuel-demanding) than Sakae, although less-fuel efficient, but still. But still, the in-game range for this series seems to be severely underrated. Ki-84, by comparison, hauled only slightly more than 20% extra internal fuel, had an engine with 50% to 30% more horsepowers, but still has much higher range than any of late models from the Ki-61 family.

The conclusion is, Ki-61 is undermodeled, and commonly restated in the books and articles data on its low range must contain some form of error, in the light of actual combat examples.

(3)Ki-84 climb.

Speaking of Ki-84, its climb is heavily underrated. As far as I can see, the game uses the initial climb figures, and that is 3790 ft/min for Ki-84 (at least of late production series of Ki-84-Ia). I didn't raise this issue before, because Frank was the Allies' nightmare already, but as the recent betas introduce massive nerfs to air support, both with tne new model for large airfield and overall increase of service times for aicraft with high SR, I think it should be OK, as now maintaining 100% or near-100% operational readiness of Franks seems to be extremely hard even in the periods of total lull in combat. In the bad news for Frank fans, Ki-84-Ib should not have 4x20mm armaments - that was a rare configuration, maybe only 10% or less of all late-series Ki-84-Is

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


Having played RA into March '45, have you considered increasing allied air production slightly? In this mod, with all the streamlining of Japanese air production, you can get airframes almost a year ahead of RL production( the M8 Zero comes to mind, sitting here at work). As Allies, you have so many LSI's and LST's you can walk across the pacific if you put them bow to stern. But virtually every air campaign will come to a halt due to a lack of airframes. Fighter pools are very tight, so are heavy bomber pools, and light bomber pools will dry up. Reducing Landing Ship inventories and increasing airframe production would seem an intelligent trade off. Real Life production was drawn down due to the fact that the Japanese economy, and by association it's war machine, was noticeably being impacted by early '44. Air superiority had been achieved. That is not the case here, where the Japanese war machine can sustain itself with "banked" industry far beyond historical norms.

Just an opinion.

My opinion on the air balance is still colored by my own Allied experience in JuanG's mod, where odds in the air shifted in the Allied favor in late 1942, even though in that mod all Japanese aircraft were faster. And to be honest, I think that outside of Scen 2 the problem with Japanese production is overrated. By the end of 1944 at the latest my pilot training program for IJNAF will be completely dry in my Scen 70 game even if I maintain a roughly 1:1 kill ratio (which is only achievable by fighting the air war defensively, even with RA airframes and the most meticulous pilot management), and at this point it won't matter how many airframes I make (and it won't be actually more the Allies will have by that point).

However, I'm playing with the very old mod versions. Certain things in the more recent versions might have made the air situation easier for Japan. So I think air production for some types can be increased. As long as we aren't talking about cutting edge airframes - adding more Thunderbolts will just make the Allied player auto-win the air war regardless of skill.

ORIGINAL: MAurelius

another general question - I might simply have overlooked the answer - if so - my apologies:

when you say "Full DBB-compatible" - does that mean that you will input the huge changes to the Allied-OOB that comes along with DBB? - I mean the reduced Aviation Support, all those small little engineer and port units etc...I rechecked RA 5.3 (my latest version) and it wasn't there yet - still the stock standard OOB...

thx for the answers!

No, I've only introduces the additions to the naval OOB from Big Babes.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Having played RA into March '45...

And forgot to ask: any comments on new and improved airframes? Flak? Did anything performed especially well in 1944-45 (A6M8 is cool for 1943, but clearly lacks performance against Thunderbolts/Corsairs/Spitfires, I found myself deploying primarily Georges until Sam became available).

Stanislav!

Good to see you Posting. I've read through everything you've just listed and think it matches all that we have talked about and emailed on. Looks GOOD.

We need to add the Flightdeck Cruiser (as part of a TF protecting the Pensacola TF) as talked about earlier. Am thinking we could have the USS Charlotte, an Omaha CL, and 4 newer DDs. These would add more ships to the DEI fo rthe Allied player without getting too carried away. I'd just pull them from the West Coast, PH, or Panama. Thoughts?

I think we can certainly tweak the Allied Air stuff mentioned above. Got to make sure the Wildcats comes with a CV-Capable Recon Version. Think you already fixed this but just wanted to add it back onto the list in case it hasn't been fixed.

As about the Allied air reinforcements. I've made a list of production adjustments that already exist in RA 5.0 (only increases are listed, not the total production).

Wildcat V +8/month
Wildcat VI +10/month

Blenheim IV +4/month
Blenheim VD +10/month, produced until 8/44
Hurricane IIb Trop +5/month
Hurricane IV +10/month, produced until 12/44
Mohawk IV +2/month
Spitfire Vc Trop produced until 12/44
Sunderland III +1/month
Sunderland GR.V +2/month
Vengeance IV +20/month


A-20G produced until 9/45
A-24 +3 month, produced from 12/41 to 10/42
P-40E +10/month
P-40N1 produced until 7/44
P-40N5 produced until 12/44
P-61C +15/month
P-70A-1 +15/month


F4F-3A +4/month
F4U-4 +50/month
PBJ-1J +6/month
PBM-3 and PBM-5D +3/month
PBY-5 and following models +2/month
SBD-3 +12/month.
SB2C5 +90/month, produced until the end of the scenario.
TBM-1C +40/month

Also minor additions to initial pools for several types.

This means that (a)The Allies get a few more fighters and divebombers to survive 1943; (b)Some tight spots, like NF and patrol planes production, are partially fixed; (c)There are over a thousansd more Warhawks, plus some Hurricanes and older Spitfires to cover for the slump in USAAF stock fighter reinforcements in 1944; (d)Production of USN/USMC aircraft continues at its maximum intensity until the end of the scenario.

Should that be enough already?

Stanislav,

I pulled up my version of RA and looked at the Allied fighters. I see a few places that I would change.

P-40N1 @ 70/mo - 7/43 to 7/44
P-40N5 @ 55/mo - 7/43 to 12/44

The N1 has better speed while the N5 has betters stats. One of them ends in early '44 (around 3/44 or before). By this time they are best just as escorts.

P-47D2 @ 56/mo - 7/43 to 2/44
P-47D25 @ 175/mo - 3/44 to 6/44
P-47N @ 100/mo - 3/45

Change the D25 to 90/mo and have it go from 3/44 until 2/45.

P-38J changed from 10 to 20/mo. Thus, the P-38L which comes out in 6/44 will produce 90/mo.

Doesn't look too bad to me. Good thoughts Michael.

When we get back from Iron Man 3 (after church) I am going to try and 'build' the Charlotte and Post it here for viewing and commentary.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Stanislav,

I pulled up my version of RA and looked at the Allied fighters. I see a few places that I would change.

P-40N1 @ 70/mo - 7/43 to 7/44
P-40N5 @ 55/mo - 7/43 to 12/44

The N1 has better speed while the N5 has betters stats. One of them ends in early '44 (around 3/44 or before). By this time they are best just as escorts.

P-47D2 @ 56/mo - 7/43 to 2/44
P-47D25 @ 175/mo - 3/44 to 6/44
P-47N @ 100/mo - 3/45

Change the D25 to 90/mo and have it go from 3/44 until 2/45.

P-38J changed from 10 to 20/mo. Thus, the P-38L which comes out in 6/44 will produce 90/mo.

D25 should be reduced to at about 65/month if it is to be produced until 2/45. The overal delivery still be higher (780 vs. 700 airframes). Extra Lightnings are not so bad, they are limited by high SR, at least but Thuds? All versions of Thunderbolt are the most overpowered fighters in the game because they have amazing stats AND SR 1.


Otherwise - OK.

What about the many American FP groups (size 18) that are able to upgrade to the SBD-3s and/or -5s also being able to upgrade to the Avenger airframes. I would attach a PP cost for this to happen to slow it down. You could balance it by not increasing the SBD production and having some FP groups able to convert to Avengers without paying PP cost. They could fill in for some of the low Army bomber production/replacement rate.

THAT is an outstanding idea!!!

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
THAT is an outstanding idea!

How about this one?

Come up with lots of very interesting specs for later war J aircraft. Now I know the plane designers used Francillon a lot and tried their best to keep their sources unitary, consistent, and comprehensive; a good thing. But I am seeing vast differences between the Francillon data and the actual performance data as measured by TAIC for later model J planes.

There’s really no accounting for this, since I checked the test data and saw that every single plane tested used simple 92 octane avgas (ok, Japan used 87 octane, but so what?). Did Francillon use original Japanese data? And how was that data collected and under what conditions? Is Francillons data consistent across nationalities given their different testing/reporting conditions?

I really like the TAIC stuff because it is so completely consistent and uniform for every airframe tested and it has graphs and charts and notes up the wazoo. The Allied stuff is dead on Francillon’s numbers. The Japanese stuff is waaaay off. To a lesser extent, the German, Italian, and Russian stuff is a bit tweaked as well.

So I have N1K1-Js at 405 mph.; N1K2-Js at 414 mph; and Ki-84-Is at 421 mph. Right off the performance charts. If I do a Hp/Wt calculation, it fits super well and I can get some decent numbers for other late model planes that weren’t tested.

Following the evolution of the A6M series, my algorithm works great for the M2, M3, M5 models and returns numbers closer to the TAIC test results than “internet received wisdom”. So pumped it up for the A6M7-63 and A6M8-62 and got 378 mph for the A6M8 given nominal weight conditions (exactly the ones used in the TAIC tests).

Anyway, all this is fine, but for the altitude differential of maneuverability. Read many reports of performance at altitude and have a sketchy algorithm running, but nothing definitive. Gonna take a lot of game runs with different scenarios, at various times, to capture and render the data, so it’s not straight forward. Needs a lot of work, but is looking good in our scenarios, so far.

JWE

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

What about the many American FP groups (size 18) that are able to upgrade to the SBD-3s and/or -5s also being able to upgrade to the Avenger airframes. I would attach a PP cost for this to happen to slow it down. You could balance it by not increasing the SBD production and having some FP groups able to convert to Avengers without paying PP cost. They could fill in for some of the low Army bomber production/replacement rate.

I have no problems with this idea. But how does one sets optional upgrade possibilities in the editor?

ORIGINAL: Symon

How about this one?

It is most excellent, and I'll be very glad to see your set of TAIC-based performance data. Though if it is used, MVR rating for some Japanese airframes can probably be reduced if it is use. Assuming, as I do, that MVR in the game generally corresponds to wing loading, and it wasn't that different for, say, F6F-5 and N1K2-J as it is in the game (184 vs 166 kg/m2; but MVR 30 vs 19 in the game - more difference in the in-game stats than between Hellcat and P-47D with its massive 284 kg/m2 wing loading).

FatR,

From DBB Scenario 30, I found two air groups that have the data for SBDs and Avengers.

ID 2841 (VS-53) has the FPs and SBDs upgrades.
ID 2681 (VMTB-233) has the SBD and Avenger upgrades.

Hope this helps.