Matrix Games Forums

British LCT(R) are incorrectly classed as LCT(8). My fault and found just too late to be fixed for the beta.

Fixed. That was easy. Still working on the armor stuff.

Ok, well tried the 1 Tk = 2 Tks thing and it didn’t work too well. Nerfed the assault value of the Armored units too much; so, back to the drawing board.

Issue is that, originally, game Load Costs for AFV/Vehicles was their combat weight. This is problematic in terms of unit troop count for places like Atolls. Your average M4 Tank Bn will have about 60 AFVs, so troop count is about 1380 against an actual of 750. But the unit also needs Sup, which adds another 810 troops, so the unit actually counts out as 2190, which is 3x actuals. Makes it difficult to put a Combat Regt, a Tk Bn, and an Arty Bn onto an Atoll, without over-stacking.

There is no real reason to set AFV LCs to their combat weight. LC is a game abstraction that has implications for both loading and troop count – occasionally, mutually exclusive. Ship load factors automatically multiply all AFV and Vehicle LCs by 3 to calculate their “effective” load costs, so a useful algorithm can be devised that gives a more reasonable troop count, but results in an “effective” load cost equal to or greater than the device’s combat weight. Weight is a consideration, of course, but in loading ships, footprint is of concern (a GMC truck takes up as much hold space as a Sherman, and more than a Stuart).

So .. we are looking at a mix of footprint and crew size to give things more of a central tendency. Looking at Sqrt(Wt) + crew size to model both the footprint and troop count parameters. So an M4 Sherman (original LC of 23) goes to 10, which gives a much better troop count, but still “effectively” loads at 30. An M3 Stuart (original LC of 11) goes to 8, which gives a much better troop count, but still “effectively” loads at 24.

Given all this, the average M4 Tk Bn, will now have troop count of 680, plus roughly 700 Sup, for about half the original, and “reasonably” close to the actuals. It will load at about 4150 cargo total, so will fit on one big cargo ship – as it did.

So far, looks reasonable.

This is really insignificant but the West Coast naval base units can load into an amphibious TF.
Numbers 5005 San Diego USN, 5006, 5011, 5012 ...
maybe because the restricted Naval Districts are not restricted permanent?

Also, should Asiatic Fleet's (142) devices be set up the same as the rest of the naval districts? (81 Support, 36 Aviation and 81 Naval) I read some ware it was the Sixteenth Naval District

I may be totally wrong in this, but device # 715... shouldn't it be "Observer Squad" instead of "Observor Squad"?

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
I may be totally wrong in this, but device # 715... shouldn't it be "Observer Squad" instead of "Observor Squad"?

I don’t know. They are all spelled that way. Andy did those, so maybe that’s how they spell it in Scotland.

ORIGINAL: drw61
This is really insignificant but the West Coast naval base units can load into an amphibious TF.
Numbers 5005 San Diego USN, 5006, 5011, 5012 ... maybe because the restricted Naval Districts are not restricted permanent?

Maybe so. But we did want some units assigned to Naval Districts to be mobile. Think the best way to fix that is to put a static garrison device into the units we don’t want have move.

Also, should Asiatic Fleet's (142) devices be set up the same as the rest of the naval districts? (81 Support, 36 Aviation and 81 Naval) I read some ware it was the Sixteenth Naval District

No. Asiatic Fleet is different. Naval Districts are administrative HQs for places with big time Naval Bases. Asiatic Fleet is an operational HQ, and Cavite wasn’t that big.

Anybody have any alternative thoughts for the armor thing?

Different people did different things with warship weapons. Most went for irl launcher numbers, but were either light or heavy on ammo to give “some” ships their irl DC load out, and “some” ships their ‘effective DC loadout. However, both the ‘launcher’ and ‘ammo’ numbers are inconsistent among Nationalities, and don’t quite play in accord with the rules/desires of the combat algorithm.

So Japanese ships typically have a gazillion launchers (as irl) and a gazillion ammo for certain launchers (as irl) that totals out to the irl DCs carried. Allied ships typically have fewer launchers, and much smaller ammo than irl. So an Ukuru escort can DC from 9 launchers with ammo 15, while a Bristol can DC from 6 launchers with ammo 4 and Buckley can shoot from 10 launchers with ammo 4. So that’s kinda, roughly 135 vs 24 or 40.

Now the ASW ‘rating’ is the number of launchers, so maybe they are close in that regard, but one must also look at how many times they can launch (how many times the ‘rating’ is applied to the algorithm). It’s a power law thing.

Understand the imperative of giving every ship it’s exact and specific historical weapons, but maybe the game engine requires a bit of abstraction in order to function properly.

We have a USNR Lt, from San Diego, who wants to push this. She got an engineering degree from Tufts, so it’s likely she can do math: besides, she likes things that go boom. Won’t take a lot after she gets her stuff together, so would ya’ll like that, or should we back off and let things sit as they are?

Always fun to see somebody else's take on this stuff... Let her in, John.

Agreed with Terminus if you think she can help make your Mod better let her in.

Question What do you call a Female "Grognard" ? 

Grogneuse?

Maybe a Grognette?

I like "Grognette"

Let Grogina have a shot.

ORIGINAL: che200
Question What do you call a Female "Grognard" ? 

You call her 'Ma'am'.

Jennifer Nelson, Lt USNR, FISC USNB San Diego. Jenny was a collegiate All American sailor at Tufts (go look it up, you'll find her). She's been my second helm since Sargon was a corporal. 5' 4", blonde, blue eyes, just a sweetie; but called her 'honey' once, and my nads ain't been the same since. Ooh yeah, we got a winner here, folks.

Ma'am Grognette ?

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: che200
Question What do you call a Female "Grognard" ? 

You call her 'Ma'am'.

Jennifer Nelson, Lt USNR, FISC USNB San Diego. Jenny was a collegiate All American sailor at Tufts (go look it up, you'll find her). She's been my second helm since Sargon was a corporal. 5' 4", blonde, blue eyes, just a sweetie; but called her 'honey' once, and my nads ain't been the same since. Ooh yeah, we got a winner here, folks.

Sounds like a winner John. But there's still that "R".

Question on class 821 LCT(R). Ammo columns for weapon device 1767 shows 00. Is this correct or should it be 01?

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Question on class 821 LCT(R). Ammo columns for weapon device 1767 shows 00. Is this correct or should it be 01?

Dat's a whoops!

I just noticed the 2nd marine division is available on Dec 7, was this intended?

ORIGINAL: oldman45
I just noticed the 2nd marine division is available on Dec 7, was this intended?

Nope not intended. Yikes. The 2, 6, 8 Marines should point to 2nd MarDiv, not 1st. And I see we've lost 1, 5, 7 Marines in the move. Ok, will fix.

Thank you.

Slot 953 Aus Inf Section upgrades to 954, which is blank

Slot 957 Aus Cmbt Eng Sect should not upgrade to 958 Aus Amph Eng

Slot 1114 USA Recce Squad upgrades to 000 should be slot 1115

Thanks, Daryl