Matrix Games Forums

This is B-Mod for AE,
Scenario 198 v.1 This is Stock Scenario 6 (Dec 8th 1941), with art enhancements, and changes made to fighter aircraft and warship stats.
Scenario 199 v.1 This is Stock Scenario 1 (Dec 7th 1941), with art enhancements, and changes made to fighter aircraft and warship stats.

Download all 6 files below, and place where indicated.

B-Mod changes:
Aircraft stats & maneuver ratings modified using original AE formulas and Dev Team Data. Aircraft guns range have been modified using exterior ballistics research for each gun type (a project I volunteered for during AE development - but never instituted).
The LaGG-3 & Mig-3 aircraft will begin being available to the Soviets at small rates in Dec 1941 instead of 1945, and the La-5FN will begin arriving in in Jan 1944 instead of 1945. This is historical (and less than 10% of Soviet production), and gives the Soviet Union some more advanced fighters (better than I-16) before 1945 - should the Japanese begin hostilities prior to 1945.
New Ship Art, as well as Cathartes new 'plane tops', for Allied & Japanese, are included.
New warship stats, using Nathan Okun's gun & armor Data, and standardizing warship tonnage and durability by "Conway's" Standard Displacement figures.
Also, Allied units starting in the Philippines, DEI, Malaya, and Borneo are free to move and relocate (except for large CD Guns), making strategic and tactical redeployment possible.
No other changes have been made, and no OOB changes have been made.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

What are general guidelines for your changes of aircrafts, and ships?

I recently discovered, that there were serious vehicles armor quality differences between nations, and it seems USSR produced best armor from all combatants. On the other way, USA quality was quite poor, especially for cast. I am wondering if this also applies for ships armor.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

What are general guidelines for your changes of aircrafts, and ships?

I recently discovered, that there were serious vehicles armor quality differences between nations, and it seems USSR produced best armor from all combatants. On the other way, USA quality was quite poor, especially for cast. I am wondering if this also applies for ships armor.

ORIGINAL: Big B

The aircraft stats were from AE Dev team data and formulas (which is proprietary), and gun armor stats were taken from Nathan Okun's data.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: Big B

The aircraft stats were from AE Dev team data and formulas (which is proprietary), and gun armor stats were taken from Nathan Okun's data.

Great page!
I took a quick look. So basically, it means, that some types of armor can be weaker, up to 5%?
Have you implemented it for every possibility, like:
Turret armor can have different quality, than hull armor,
Ships were build between wars, or even during WWI, and armor quality was then different
Ship was build by other nation (I think Japan had some British build ships)


How to quickly update ships/airgroups? When I change plane, or ship class, on-map airgroup/ship do not update automatically. I have to manually chose it, and get class from drop-down menu, for it to update to new statistics.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Heh, so I will also give links for page about vehicles armor, I have found recently:

USA armor quality

Soviet Union armor quality

Page is compilation of data. Also about how penetration tests were done in different Nations.

A detonation, even a partial one, will usually break up the projectile body around it into many small pieces, though the thick nose of a base-fuzed, small-to-medium-sized filler (under 6.5% detonating filler), Common/SAP or AP projectile will usually remain in one piece, with some large chunks flying forward in a ring around the central heavy nose piece.

ORIGINAL: herwin
OK, I see. Hardness, not resistance to penetration. Be aware that too high a hardness made armour brittle. The Soviet figures were high.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Uuu, uuu interesting fragment:

A detonation, even a partial one, will usually break up the projectile body around it into many small pieces, though the thick nose of a base-fuzed, small-to-medium-sized filler (under 6.5% detonating filler), Common/SAP or AP projectile will usually remain in one piece, with some large chunks flying forward in a ring around the central heavy nose piece.

I wonder if this also apply to smaller calibers. So, in-game terms, if filler OVER 6.5% should produce MORE pieces, and so - have more Soft Attack ability.

ORIGINAL: herwin
OK, I see. Hardness, not resistance to penetration. Be aware that too high a hardness made armour brittle. The Soviet figures were high.

There is there part, about Face Hardened armor, which tends to crack, when hit by larger calibers. But it seems, for most tank-tank engagements it will not be issue.