Matrix Games Forums

Its 3/8/42, I seem to have a few Jap DD with radars appearing .

What is the best use of these first ships in the IJN with radar ?



Michael

That is a good question.  I also have a bunch of DDs with radar arriving over the next 4 game months.
 
The other question, and even more pressing, is whether or not the japanese radars will work as planned.  I seem to recall someone saying the the japanese shipborne radars were not working.  Does anyone know anything about this?

The first IJN ships equiped with radars are the CL Oi and CL Kitakami in 12/7/41.

Hi
In stock the japanese shipbourne radars type 13 ,21 and 22 have penetration values of 0 (zero) which means they are surface search , for a radar to be air search penetration value needs to be 500 . This is a database error that has been around since day one , if you are using a mod you need to check the database to see if it has been changed . Types 13 and 21 should be air search and type 22 surface search . also check the scen design/editor section some good posts on radars.

IF its an error , I assume it would have been fixed
I cannot believe after all these patches it could still be there as I assume radar is giving distinct advantages 9 mainly to the allies I assume ) .

In any event how many radar equiped ships are required in TF , is one enough or more the better ?

Michael

ORIGINAL: cavalry

IF its an error , I assume it would have been fixed
I cannot believe after all these patches it could still be there as I assume radar is giving distinct advantages 9 mainly to the allies I assume ) .

In any event how many radar equiped ships are required in TF , is one enough or more the better ?

Michael

Yup, it's an error.

One is sufficient until it is destroyed in an attack....

I'd put a few in the TF.

Nope, it's never been fixed, even though it's been shouted about for a VERY LONG time...

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Yup, it's an error....

and it is not going to be fixed...ever...

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Yup, it's an error....

and it is not going to be fixed...ever...

Problem is - radars were quite often dual purpose, but in game they can only be surface or air (see current discussion on SC and SR radar)
fb.asp?m=1373292

i think the problem has been adressed in CHS...

Problem is corrected in most mods. And someone put up little add-on called "fix13" or something to fix the radar in stock without having to use Editor. Just cannot find it now...well..now I found it....damn crappy forum search engine...

Unofficial fix for Japanese radar is to be found here:

tm.asp?m=1117737#

Use with caution, I don't know if it conflicts with later patch releases.

I have made the change myself to the 12/7 scenario. When I patch to later versions of the game, I shouldn't ever have to worry about it being changed back to zero with each patch, correct? They don't put the whole stinking database into each patch, but only what they might had changed, correct?

I hope so...

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I have made the change myself to the 12/7 scenario. When I patch to later versions of the game, I shouldn't ever have to worry about it being changed back to zero with each patch, correct? They don't put the whole stinking database into each patch, but only what they might had changed, correct?

The change you made counts as a whole new scenario, and the patches only affect the DB's of stock scenarios. No worries.

Actuially. the first Japanese ship that equipped radar is Ise and Hyuga.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I have made the change myself to the 12/7 scenario. When I patch to later versions of the game, I shouldn't ever have to worry about it being changed back to zero with each patch, correct? They don't put the whole stinking database into each patch, but only what they might had changed, correct?

The change you made counts as a whole new scenario, and the patches only affect the DB's of stock scenarios. No worries.

This confuses me a little. Firstly, if memory serves, I am copying the data into the actual scen18 and not making a seperate scenario from it. OTOH, it may not allow you to do that and force you to make a new scenario. If the game is allowing you to edit the actual scen18 and -not- have to make a seperate scenario from that save, then any future DB changes would be applied to a stock scenario which I had edited to correct the radar problem and ruin it. So if that is the case, then I have to ask again if they load the whole DB into patches, because if they do they are overriding my radar change. I must say that every time I start a scen18, I am thinking it still had that radar correction on there, whether it does or not. I simply can't recall ever saving the radar correction to a new file, and if I did I certainly wasn't running my new games off of it.

One cannot edit the first 16 official scenarios...that is, to save to those slots...IIRC. michaelm's "fix13" addition does that, though.

ORIGINAL: Philodraco

Actuially. the first Japanese ship that equipped radar is Ise and Hyuga.

In real life, yes, but not in the game...

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One cannot edit the first 16 official scenarios...that is, to save to those slots...IIRC. michaelm's "fix13" addition does that, though.

Given my lack of re-collection involving saving that fix to a different scenario and then never running it, I do find it a bit odd that the last time I opened the DB, presumably scen18, it still had the change. I only checked it because I was worried that the patch at the time might override it. If I truly didn't save it to a different scenario (and unless fix13 was part of an official patch I do not have it) and what is much more likely that I never opened such a forgotten scenario on a new game, then how did I see the change was still retained? Kind of screwy, I must have something wrong somewhere then.

Beats me. Have to check my game....

OK, checked Scen 15... Penetration is still 0. [:(]..so Type 13 is still classed as surface search radar and do not detect planes in Stock Scen 15 v.1.804. It should be surface-based air search radar with Penetration set to 500.

Correct.