Matrix Games Forums

How about the Rockets on later class Japanese ship upgrades? Unryu class for example?
 
They don't work properly IIRC?

How about the Rockets on later class Japanese ship upgrades? Unryu class for example?

or what about the "rocket" landing ships for the allies. At least remove these worthless ships since they can't be used as intended

i saw that the late war british CVLs (Vengence et al) have a 0 rating for belt, deck, and tower armor. Seems unlikely that they would be completely unarmored (like a CVE).

this is scenario 15

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
Will you be using any tools to look for errors such as my editor and witpchk? Also an officially corrected
Pwhex.dat file would be nice.

I suspect that map corrections are not part of pry's review, but if you are aware of any errors in the stock pwhex.dat file, can you please let me know about them? I can add them to my stock map data fixes.

Thanks,
Andrew

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

i saw that the late war british CVLs (Vengence et al) have a 0 rating for belt, deck, and tower armor. Seems unlikely that they would be completely unarmored (like a CVE).

this is scenario 15

Unlikely, perhaps, but nonetheless historical fact...

1.  Most of the R-class and QE-class BB don't have a float plane.  That -may- be historical.  But they have capacity, and no plane.
 
2.  Any chance of fixing the LCI(M), LCI(G), and LCI(R).  The weapons should be of type "Naval Gun" or "DP" gun in order to fire back at shore batteries and troops.  However, if you do that, they become nasty buggers in Surface Combat (unrealistic).  Whatever.  Right now, they do absolutely nothing.

I would consider the low build rate of the F6F in the stock scenarios as an error. After a bit of work on this for CHS I settled on a build rate of this aircraft of 230, as opposed to the stock value of 144. Quite a difference.

Of course there are issues with changing data such as this - namely play balance - but I am reporting it here as I view this as a genuine fault with the data.

There are other aircraft build rate and availability date errors as well - Allied and Japanese - but this is one I can recall from memory. I expect that others who are more knowledgeable that I am could come up with a good list...

Andrew

Oooh yes I agree that one Andrew !!!!!
 
I had nearer 300 total for F6F's of which c 30 should be the nightfighter variant but any improvement in this would be welsome

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
Will you be using any tools to look for errors such as my editor and witpchk? Also an officially corrected
Pwhex.dat file would be nice.

I suspect that map corrections are not part of pry's review, but if you are aware of any errors in the stock pwhex.dat file, can you please let me know about them? I can add them to my stock map data fixes.

Thanks,
Andrew

Unfortunately I've made corrections to my original so I can not give you a complete list. However you can d/l my editor and check for yourself. The routine looks for:

1. Checking for hexside mismatches.
2. Checking for land hexes adjacent to ocean. This is an error according Mike Wood, quote "Hello...I have noticed on some maps, that one hex will be ocean and the adjacent hex will be land. Just want to make sure you folk know that if you make a map, you must place a shore hex between an ocean hex and a land hex or the path finding routine will become very confused. Bye...Michael Wood"
3. Checking for hex type / terrain incompatibilities.
4. Checking for coastal atoll without a base/beach, most if not all Ca type hexes are base/beach hexes. It's been reported several times on the forum about troops unloading into seemingly ocean hexes only to discover that they have been mistyped as Ca.(while technically this may not be an error, everyone that I found turned out to be an error, 11 of these IIRC).

One error that it does not check for is coastal behind other coastal hexes when it should have been land, not sure if it matters that much but, I have found a few of these only by looking at the map.

Some of the errors the routine found can be corrected in more than one way so, that's why I was hoping for for an offically corrected version.

Hope this can be of some use.
Thanks

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Oooh yes I agree that one Andrew !!!!!

I had nearer 300 total for F6F's of which c 30 should be the nightfighter variant but any improvement in this would be welsome

says Andy Without Fighters I....

[:D][;)]

ORIGINAL: pauk
says Andy Without Fighters I....

[:D][;)]

It was Andy's problems that first alerted me to the F6F issue. His and PzB's AARs are the only stock map AARs that I read. They are too entertaining to miss!

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I would consider the low build rate of the F6F in the stock scenarios as an error. After a bit of work on this for CHS I settled on a build rate of this aircraft of 230, as opposed to the stock value of 144. Quite a difference.

Of course there are issues with changing data such as this - namely play balance - but I am reporting it here as I view this as a genuine fault with the data.

There are other aircraft build rate and availability date errors as well - Allied and Japanese - but this is one I can recall from memory. I expect that others who are more knowledgeable that I am could come up with a good list...

Andrew

I bumped up F6F production a bit too....partially in compensation for making the early F4U not carrier capable. (it too bumped up in production)

Fix Oscar II stats

what's wrong with them?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

what's wrong with them?

Quote from an old post:

ORIGINAL: Honda
Isn't it clear Oscar is an underperformer in the game vs. RL? The point isn't to make it have 1-1 vs. Corsair or Hellcat but just to give a chance to 80+ exp pilots in Oscars to hurt 50-60 exp Corsairs or Hellcats. It don't see that happening due to game mechanics. OscarI seems to perform rather historicaly. However OscarII needs some help to get around in 43+ environment.
Some facts (Christopher Chant, WW2 - Aircraft):
1. OscarII had some primitive selfsealing tanks and armored pilot seat.
2. It was modified to carry 250kg bombs.
3. It's top speed at 4.000 meters was 540 km/h (A6M2 was 533 km/h at 4.500 meters)
4. OscarIII went into production in May '44. Don't know exact stats but had an engine with 25% more horse power then OscarII. If the game forces Japanese players to stick with Oscars till the end (which is historicaly accurate) it could at least give them the '44 upgrade. BTW there was also a '45 version, a high-altitude interceptor armed with two Ho-5 20mm cannons, but it never saw mass-production 'cause the war ended.

Yes, Oscar was hopelessly outdated in 43+ but not in the scale the game suggests. Help Oscars! They're your friends!

Compared to an Oscar I:
Mrv rating of Oscar II is lower. Why?
Self sealing tank and armoured pilot seat should be reflected with a better durability than Oscar I.
As it is oscar II is a quite useless aircraft in WITP. In real life, its performances weren't so bad.

Self sealing tank and armoured pilot seat should be reflected with a better durability than Oscar I

 
In WitP, self-sealing tanks and some pilot armor is conisdered an armor rating of "1".  It looks like Oscar II has a rating of 0, so it sounds like it should be "1".
 
-F-

ok.

well most of your concerns were addressed in my mod (armor....mvr etc) the 250kg bomb thing i declined as the JAAf didn't positively test and ratify arming the Ki-43II with that heavy a bomb till very late in the war in Burma(i'd have to look in Shores for the exact date) but up to that point the plane never regularily lugged such a beastie around.

Hey Pry! Good to see your still at it. Thanks!

a few aircraft changes....
 
Dornier 24K did not carry torpedoes - had underwing racks for up to 12 110lb bombs. Top speed is probabbly a bit high also, closer to 195mph would be better.

How about including the Avro Anson - worthless as far as game play, but was certainly there historically. Australia, UK, Canada, Netherlands, etc all used them.