|
John 3rd -> Change List (5/27/2014 5:09:03 PM)
|
This is the Change List I am working off of. If anyone does not see something we have spoken about please Post here:
Greetings, RA team!
Please consider these honest questions and observations, as I am not privy to the decision process. I am just going through the database (after a few months of being away from RA and AE in general) and asking about what feels weird to me :)
Fuso BB Class:
1697 has 8+8 1661's (15cm/50 41YT Singles)
1698 has 7+7
1699 has 8+8 again
Is that correct? It does not happen with Ise class.
Going by date, 1696 & 1697 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1700. Any reason they don't?
Ise BB Class
Going by date, 1705 & 1706 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1709. Any reason they don't?
Momi DD/E/APD Class
Bind 131 links 1382, 1395 & 1396, but 1395 & 1396 have neither convert TO nor convert FROM.
Wouldn't it make sense that 1385 and 1395 become only one class? To have two final-version Momi E, differing by 3x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.
Wakatake DD/E/APD Class
Wouldn't it make sense that 1389 and 1400 become only one class? To have two final-version Wakatake E, differing only by 1x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.
Mutsuki DD/APD Class
Bind 138 links 1418 & 1419, but they have neither convert TO nor convert FROM.
Kawachi CB Class
1738 & 1739 are not being used. Bind 1734 links 1738 to... nothing? This might just be an unused leftover, I included it just in case it is not.
CVL Ryujo's (KB1), and Zuiho's (KB2) planes are set to target Manila. Perhaps the default should be changed to Pearl Harbour?
CV Hiryu's and CV Soryu's (KB3) planes are set to target Pearl. Perhaps the default should be changed to Manila?
Found a small database error in RA6.6: A6M4-J has type 99 cannons while they should probably be Type 99-2s.
Also A7M2 seems to upgrade to A7M3-J(with upwards-pointing cannons that I'm not sure if they are of any use in fighter vs. fighter combat in the game) while the notes say it upgrades to M3. Bug or intended?
Some suggestions, nothing big but could be interesting historical/pseudohistorical details:
If you wish to boost IJN(if we stick just to the Navy) a bit more you could consider making the L2D transport available at start or soon - I think IRL the factories were running in 1942 already. Depending on source and which of the IRL production series is used for reference the G4M2 could perhaps have higher durability than the M1(new things being at least rubber protection to the bottom of wing fuel tanks), bit more range and maybe even armor(in game terms). That could make the G4M line more used late game instead of most players building G4M only because the factory happens to already exist after G3M3 becomes available.
On the other hand Ha-33 Zeros(the M4 project and M8) were apparently planned to have turbo-superchargers so they perhaps should have service rating of 2 instead of 1 or even 3 for the first model, like the J2M series in other scenarios.
Same with the A6M8-J
Ki-61-Ic Tony (aircraft 811), wpn 2: 166 (20mm MG151 Cannon)... that is an Allied cannon. Perhaps it should be weapon 191 (20mm Ho-5 Cannon) instead?
I think the Ic represents those Ki-61-Ias and Ibs that were field-equipped with German-made Mauser MG151/20 cannons. I think yes, because its not on the upgrade path either. The Japanese only ever received enough guns to equip about 300 planes, though.
Interestingly though the MG151 in-game has has the worst accuracy of 20 mm cannons... That one probably needs to be checked. It wasnt the least accurate nor had it the worst rate of fire. It was also belt-fed, I know Bf 109 had 210 shells for it and Fw 190's inner guns had 240(compared to, say, 60 to 120 for Zero and Spitfire). Maybe the reason behind that low ACC value is that there werent many spare guns available so they were probably unreliable in battle once they wore out. And I guess they had to use Japanese ammo too.
Well heres some more tiny details that might require look
The 2 Sutherlands have durability of 28(retains from stock scenarios) - probably should be a bit higher for a 4-engine patrol aircraft(in the 40s maybe?).
Corsair V(interestingly?!? just the Brit version), Hurricane IId trop, Hurricane IV, P-63A, F2G1 Corsair, Il-2s, Il-2 and the Tigercats have armor of 2. Probably only the Il-2s and Il-10 should have armor 2. Or at least I have a hard time figuring out why those Hurricanes especially have armor 2 and just about every other armor 1 plane in the game does not.
Yak-9 and 9D: should have 12,7 mm BS heavy machine gun in the place of 7,62mm ShKAS.
Technically Yak-9U and La-7 should have B-20 cannon instead of ShVak but AFAIK the performance was same for just weight savings IRL.
La-7: I think most or even nearly all examples after the pre-production run were fitted with 3 guns instead of 2.
A-36 could perhaps be called Apache or even Invader instead of Mustang? Apache was the first name of the plane used by the US, until the British-given name became popular outside of the RAF too.
Japanese air unit 677 Shokatsu-1, starts the game active, but is based... nowhere!
Partial List of Allied warships missing FP groups:
BBs - Richelieu, Jean Bart, Strasbourg, Dunkerque, Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Renown, New York, Arkansas, Texas
CAs - Sussex, London, Norfolk, Suffen (missing device data also)
CLs - Jeanne d'Arc, Emerald, Gambra, Bermuda, New Foundland, Nigeria, Uganda, Jamaica, Fargo, Duguay Trouin
Missing devices - CL Gloire, Georges Leygues, Duguay Trouin
Airframes:
A slight correct in some airframes replacement rates
Hurricane PR II - 1 to 3/month (would help in India in '42)
Beaufighter VIf (NF) - 2 to 4/month
P-70 Havoc (NF) - from 8/42 to 9/42 changed to 8/42 to 1/43 at 10/month (US Army)
F4U-2 (NF) - change to 9/43 to 3/44 at 4/month (currently none produced for USN)
Greg Boyington
Since RA is an Alt Hist scenario, there is one point I’d like to suggest… either allow all 4 Takao-class CAs to becom CAAA, or none. The Maya was a fortuitous occurrence, yes, so there is argument for none. I’d, of course, prefer all to be able to make the change ;P
Allied Navies:
There are a number of classes that upgrade to 0 instead of themselves. I gather that works fine?
King George BB Class
004 does not upgrade to 005. Is that correct?
Hawkins CA Class
034 does not upgrade to 035. Is that correct?
Dido CLAA Class
Nothing upgrades to 063, 064 or 065. Is that correct?
'C' CL CLass
074 upgrades to 073.
075 upgrades to 076 and then to 077.
That means that although 074 and 075 are identical, the upgrade paths are set in stone, and the player cannot chose what to do. Is that as intended?
Grimsby PC Class
169 upgrades to 168 and then to 167.
That means that the RIN Grimsby first loses DCs and gains AA, but then can regain the DCs and gain torpedoes? Just asking if this is as intended.
Pennsylvannia BB Class
308 upgrades to 310 and then to 312.
309 upgrades to 311 and then to 312.
308 and 309 are identical. 310 and 311 are identical but there is a 2-month difference in availability. Are those 2 months worth having 2 additional classes?
New Mexico & Colorado BB Classes
Although I understand the historicity of it, the upgrade trees are quite convoluted. Leave them as is, but man are they complicated. I wish the scenario editor had a cleaner, more elegant way of expressing the processes.
North Carolina BB Class
357 is redundant. It is identical to 355, and costs nothing to upgrade to. Perhaps it should be eliminated and have 355 upgrade to 358?
359 & 360 seem not to be used. Perhaps they should be eliminated?
Fletcher LB & HB DD Classes
I see no difference at all between them, not even in availability dates. What is the reason there are two separate upgrade trees for these?
Fr-M Cargo xAK Class
Bind 210 binds 905 & 906 (French) with 2066, 2111 & 2112 (Japanese). Should that be so?
Bogue-2 CVE Class
Should 923 upgrade to 924? Currently it does not.
|
|
|
|
