Unit issues 6.1.8

[Erik2]

The Chevrolet was an integral part of the Long Range Desert Group. I think it was intended as such a unit in OOB.

[Erik2]

The Oerlikon 20mm Portee costs 4 land command points while regular AA/AT with transport costs 3.

[GabeKnight]

The Oerlikon 20mm Portee costs 4 land command points while regular AA/AT with transport costs 3.

The German mobile AA also uses 4 supply, for example. I think that's okay for a mechanized switch unit.

But I have a similar question: Most mechanized recon verhicles use 2 supply, the British just one. Intended or an oversight from earlier versions where the Brit tanks also used less supply than similar other faction's units?

Screenshot 551.jpg (676.64 KiB) Viewed 3320 times

[Shards]

The Russian ones use 3...

They're different units though, so I'm not sure if it's justified?

[terminator]

Hs129.png (35.96 KiB) Viewed 3291 times

In units.csv available from 17/6/1944

Hs129.JPG (35.17 KiB) Viewed 3291 times

[Erik2]

I just noted that a Bren carrier is able to attack ie an airstrip, but not a truck (at least an Italian).
A sling-shot should be able to attack a truck.

[terminator]

StuH 42 :

Switching unit :

- StuH 42 ART : faction = germany and waffenSS

StuH42ART.png (26.03 KiB) Viewed 3277 times

- StuH 42 AT : faction = germany

StuH42AT.png (29.72 KiB) Viewed 3277 times

waffenSS faction missing for StuH 42 AT

StuH 42 AT : class = tank

[GabeKnight]

I just noted that a Bren carrier is able to attack ie an airstrip, but not a truck (at least an Italian).
A sling-shot should be able to attack a truck.

The truck's defense type=mechanical, the hangar's defense type=infantry. The Bren, like the Sdkfz_251 have only inf attack values, no mech. attack...
Would it really be reasonable to change truck defense to infantry? Just asking, as this seems the only feasible solution other than making the transports "mech warriors".

Something else I've noticed: if you put the Brit SAS into air transports, those transport PLANES can be placed on infantry deployment hexes. I don't really mind, but it seems inconsistent with the game's usual mechanics and rules.

airforce deployments

Screenshot 561.jpg (465.17 KiB) Viewed 3269 times

SAS with Skytrain deployments

Screenshot 562.jpg (462.6 KiB) Viewed 3269 times

[Shards]

I think that's consistent with other paratroopers?

[Shards]

StuH 42 AT : class = tank

Assault guns / anti-Infantry support vehicles fall under Tanks in Order of Battle.

[GabeKnight]

I think that's consistent with other paratroopers?

Sorry then, I don't use those that much usually.

[terminator]

Autoblinda AB 40

03/03/1941 = correct availability date
In Panzer Corps, the availability date is 03/03/1940

The Autoblinda AB 40 was the first model produced, however in feeble quantity, with only 25 built. Its main feature was its twin machine gun, low-profile turret. There was no radio at first, only flag bearing poles installed on the four fenders for signals and units identification. The AB 40 was propelled by a Fiat SPA ABM 6-cylinder water-cooled inline gasoline engine. Production began in mid-1940. The handful of them played a minor role in the Italian invasion attempt of southern France, in June 1940. They were sent in Libya soon afterward. However, in the fall of 1940, a new specification requested a modified version, equipped with a high velocity, quick firing Breda 20 mm (0.79 in) autocannon. The fast solution was to adapt the L6/40 tank turret, which allowed cheaper production with standardized parts. The prototype was thoroughly tested. Production in limited quantities followed, but proved that this formula was much more potent and, ultimately, the upcoming series of the AB 40 were converted to this new version, the AB 41.

AB40.JPG (30.44 KiB) Viewed 3209 times

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/i ... 1_AB43.php

[GabeKnight]

The British BB Admiral and BB Renown cost the same RP amount but the Admiral's stats are better in every (relevant) aspect. Intended?

Also I think the BB King George primary guns stats for small naval targets are wrong, as they usually don't go up that high with the other nation's BBs:

Screenshot 568.jpg (637.59 KiB) Viewed 3208 times

[GabeKnight]

Now that's definitely not right:
I'm able to deploy my Brit land-based dogfighter on a carrier. (Although I can't take-off from it...EDIT: wait, yes it can. So the Spitfire's actually a carrier-plane or what?)

Screenshot 571.jpg (821.09 KiB) Viewed 3201 times

[Erik2]

Please add all French unit types to the Free French faction.
Please add relevant British unit types to the Canada, New Zealand and South Africa factions.
I assume these factions will never get their own campaigns/unit types anyway.

Copying unit types from one faction to another is a lot of extra mouse clicks.

The Germans have captured French and Soviet units in their inventory.
Wht not a few selected British units like Mathilda, Cruiser, Crusader, Valentine or lend-lease tanks like Stuart and Grant?

[GabeKnight]

The Jap. BCV Ise (P) has the wrong model listed in the "models" column of the units.csv file:

Now it's "BCV_Ise 0 0" and should be "BCV_Ise_P". Otherwise the turrets of the Primary Guns won't turn towards the enemy.

Probably been like this forever...

(after the change)

Screenshot 650.jpg (778.68 KiB) Viewed 2992 times

[bebro]

StuH 42 :
StuH 42 AT : class = tank

I think it is intentional that the StuG types that are primarily artillery can switch to AT setup, but are not AT class. The point is that AT class always provides AT cover, but those arty Stugs were usually not dedicated tank destroyers (or prominently used in that role).

So right now it's:

StuG III early short barrel, StuPz IV, StuH 42 - these can lower the gun to attack normally, but don't give AT cover

StuG III long barrel F, F8, G - no switch, AT class, so give AT cover

[terminator]

StuH 42 :
StuH 42 AT : class = tank

I think it is intentional that the StuG types that are primarily artillery can switch to AT setup, but are not AT class. The point is that AT class always provides AT cover, but those arty Stugs were usually not dedicated tank destroyers (or prominently used in that role).

So right now it's:

StuG III early short barrel, StuPz IV, StuH 42 - these can lower the gun to attack normally, but don't give AT cover

StuG III long barrel F, F8, G - no switch, AT class, so give AT cover

The main problem is the explanation in the "Unit Traits" saying that the "Unit can switch to an Anti-Tank setup" but it will not be an Anti-Tank is very confusing (viewtopic.php?f=372&t=86770).
It would be more just to say : "Unit can switch to an Anti-Tank or Tank setup".

[GabeKnight]

The main problem is the explanation in the "Unit Traits" saying that the "Unit can switch to an Anti-Tank setup" but it will not be an Anti-Tank is very confusing

Fully agree. I found the wording very confusing and irritating at first, too, as "anti-tank" is a specific unit category in OoB providing support fire...

[terminator]

The SU-76 and SU-76M in Anti-Tank version do not have the good weapon animation.

They pull two blows with a trajectory in bell as artillery (ex at the top) instead of having a direct shooting (ex below) :

SU-AT.png (441.2 KiB) Viewed 2837 times

The version artillery fires only once while the version anti-tank fires twice


Weapon animation actually :
- SU-76 & SU-76M version Anti-Tank : 2 indirect shootings every time
- SU-76 & SU-76M version Artillery : 1 indirect shooting every time

Weapon animation, like that should be :
- SU-76 & SU-76M version Anti-Tank : 1 direct shooting every time
- SU-76 & SU-76M version Artillery : 2 indirect shootings every time

I noticed it by playing this good scenario (Courland Pocket 1944) : viewtopic.php?f=374&p=742508#p742342