The '13550' figure I see in my version of the annex might be transposed, i.e. oughta be '31550'.

 

But that would still be full load displacement, and Harpoon doesn't use full load displacement to calculate DP.

 

As Gunny has said, DP may then be discounted for merchant construction (-50%), being an auxiliary (-25%), and other factors.

 

Yes, I would at least fix the displacement, simply because it looks odd, even if it does not actually affect gameplay. (Especially because another ship is described as being smaller than the Fort Victoria but has a displacement that is currently much larger.) Thanks.

As you'll see in the latest files, I've changed the displacement's figure, but in the real DP calculation, it's Harpoon rules that are enforced.

 

FG

Suggested addition for An-24/26...

 

TRP #033 - 1 Generic Squad

 

(Simply because other nations use it besides Russia.)

 

ANW

HUD 4 v1.11

OK Mark, this one I'm adding now since it won't delay any progress in HUD4 updating. Expect next version on Sunday,

 

FG

Thanks!

Both of the Spyder SAMS seem to be missing an actual weapon. When you hit the Mount button, you get the Spyder launcher, but when you then hit the Weapon button, there is nothing there. I don't know if this is a database issue, a glitch of the game (i.e., it works but just does not show up in the platform display), or something else.

 

ANW

HUD 4 v.1.11

Issue corrected, will be part of next release.

 

FG

It is time...release the Kraken!

 

Class Name: Sea Monster

 

Type: Submarine (but it can attack surface targets if it can reach them)

 

Length: 100 meters

Weight: 10,000 tons

Crew: 0

DP: 500

Max. Depth: 5000 meters

Engine: Nuclear

 

Max Speed: 40 knots

Settings: Creep: 5 knots; Cruise: 10 knots; Full: 20 knots Flank: 40 knots

 

Not sure how to handle how quiet it is...I figure it is as quiet as a whale when the whale is NOT using sonar, which I imagine is very quiet indeed.

 

Sensors (use existing database entries although two should be renamed for aesthetic purposes): Biological Echo Location, Biological, Natural Vision (use data for Field Glasses or Marine Binoculars), Night Vision (use data for Night Vision Goggles)

 

Mounts: Sea Monster Melee Attack (Rate of Fire: 1; Capacity: 600; Warhead: 20 DP ; Min Range: 0 nm; Max Range: 0.1 nm; % Hit: 90% for all of Air & Surface, Min & Max; Legal Targets: Submarine, Surface Vessel, Aircraft, Missile, Runway, Land Structure, Hardened Structure, Soft Target, Hardened Target)

 

Technically, I suppose you could give it a magazine with extra loads for its Melee attack; it probably needs a reload time of 8 hours (i.e., it goes to sleep and then wakes up and goes on another rampage)

Database text: A gargantuan creature from the depths, rising to wreck havoc on the pitiful humans who have disturbed it.

ANW

HUD 4 v1.11

Editor's note; platform rejected, since it doesn't meet HUD4 criteria.No sci-fi units will be integrated.

 

FG

Editor's note; platform rejected, since it doesn't meet HUD4 criteria.No sci-fi units will be integrated.

 

FG

 

Oh well...it would have been fun to have them in the database.

 

I'm guessing "dragons" and "costumed superheroes with heat-ray vision" probably won't make the cut, either, will they?

No, they won't appear either, same for the "flying submarine". Only non-existing platforms accepted are the ones that could exist, but for some reasons (end of Cold War, finances...) never went beyond a sheet of paper.

 

FG

Only non-existing platforms accepted are the ones that could exist, but for some reasons (end of Cold War, finances...) never went beyond a sheet of paper.

 

FG

 

Challenge accepted!

 

(As for the others, too bad--it would have been fun to be able to recreate the battles from films like "It Came From Beneath the Sea"--but it does make sense.)

 

I'm guessing you don't even want to think about this...

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/1031/No-prank-On-Halloween-US-military-forces-train-for-zombie-apocalypse

Mark, look at "my" Montcalm cruiser as an example. This ship will never become true, I suspect unitary cost around EUR 2bn, not a priority in such period, but it has elements (weapons and sensors) which exists.

 

FG

Mark, look at "my" Montcalm cruiser as an example. This ship will never become true, I suspect unitary cost around EUR 2bn, not a priority in such period, but it has elements (weapons and sensors) which exists.

 

FG

 

Oh, I know what you mean. Actually, most of the ones I would have suggested are already in the database. Although there are a couple I might suggest, like a modified Montana-class battleship (e.g., this presumes they did build them, had them done by 1950, saw that the age of the pure big gun battleship might be over but that a battleship with SOME of its guns removed and replaced with a lot of missiles would have potential...so by 1980, you've got something similar to the missile-equipped Iowa-class, but bigger, tougher, and with some additional missiles).

 

Of course, all this is moot. I know you probably won't have time to add new platforms for a while. I am mostly posting suggestions so when you do have time to add new platforms, all of the information (or at least what I was able to find out) will be here in one convenient place. I know you're focused on the new calculation system and fixing the few pain-in-the-neck bugs like why the Mavericks and some of the AIM-4 and AIM-7 missiles don't work. And considering that there is something like a hundred suggested platforms waiting for review, research, database entry, bug-testing, etc., it is going to take a while to work through all of them.

 

As for the missiles, by the way, I wonder if a short term fix would be to simply take a missile that DOES work, like the AIM-7M, and use it as a template for the others, changing things like range, etc. but leaving all the datalinks and anything else that might be causing bugs alone. It would sacrifice a bit of realism (e.g., the AIM-7E probably doesn't work exactly like the AIM-7M, in terms of its sensors, etc.) but it would be close enough as a short term solution and it would give people missiles that actually shoot until the real database issue could be identified.

 

Anyway, I'll stop yammering. Thanks again for all your work on this.

Mark;

 

Issue doesn't come from the weapons per se, it comes from the guidance. From what I've seen, seemingly IR/Laser guided weapons are affected, I've tried a workaround in the next version of HUD4 1.11. We'll see if that's what I think.

 

FG