Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[Perforated Chicken]

I'd like to add that there is another typo in the French Heavy Cruiser namelist. It is supposed to be "Algérie" not "Algerié", furthermore, the actual heavy cruiser in game is correctly named "Algérie" as well as its ship template but the namelist is incorrect which causes any next Heavy Cruiser to be called "Algerié".

 

[Axe99]

I'd like to add that there is another typo in the French Heavy Cruiser namelist. It is supposed to be "Algérie" not "Algerié", furthermore, the actual heavy cruiser in game is correctly named "Algérie" as well as its ship template but the namelist is incorrect which causes any next Heavy Cruiser to be called "Algerié".View attachment 580892

Very well spotted Perforated Chicken

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I'd like to add that there is another typo in the French Heavy Cruiser namelist.

You should report this as a bug as well.

To everyone:
Is there any thing wrong about Ship and TF names, namelists etc?
Post it it here and propose how to improve it!

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

You should report this as a bug as well.

To everyone:
Is there any thing wrong about Ship and TF names, namelists etc?
Post it it here and propose how to improve it!

I'll be honest, I found so many errors/misspellings I started overwriting a bunch of them and lost track of what was wrong... (I also spent a lot of time on ahistoric names just to fill out empty namelists, so I can't always remember which lists were broken and which were just small).

1.) Numerous names spelled wrong or inconsistent between the given ship name and the class name (resulting in two of the same ship; i.e. España and Espana).
2.) Names duplicated in multiple namelists don't check each other before building. This is particularly bad with the British BC and BB namelists which start with several of the same names (Anson and Howe), and sometimes 3 or more namelists use them. The USA has a number of duplicates, some even in the same namelist, due to sunken cruisers being rebuilt (with CA names in the CL list, and duplicates on names like Juneau in the CLAA list). Ideally all 3 US cruiser namelists would check each other and the Cities namelist before assigning a name*.

*I should point out that this error, at least, is commented on in the namelists themselves as a known bug*​

3.) Names attached to the wrong list due to ship conversions (i.e. Seydlitz being a carrier rather than a heavy cruiser name). See above for the likely explanation, but since Seydlitz was laid down as a heavy cruiser it really should have stayed a heavy cruiser name.
4.) Names that were historically shared by multiple class types being restricted to very few, such as German CA names using historic BC names (such as Seydlitz and Lützow), or vice versa with the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Bismarck (all previously armored cruisers). Despite the fact that it is entirely-possible to code in a wide range of classes for ship namelists (such as enabling heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, and carriers to all share an interchangeable list of names), this is rarely actually done except for enabling some interplay between BB/BC names and CL/CA names.
5.) Missing historic names when too few names are available (i.e. Lemnos, Vasilefs Konstantinos for Greek battleships).

I'd have to dig in to find more, but I've been pretty tired lately and getting back into that list would be a bit of a slog. The AI is also really dumb about them, and never switches its names when, for instance, converting a CL design into a CA. Admittedly most of my nitpicking was on the 2nd and 5th points (repeating names, empty namelists) then just the repeated frustration of the España/Espana and Algérie/Algerié (among others). I remember also stumbling on some leftover errors from the old namelists that they fixed in the MtG versions (aka the default lists, which are used if no namelist is applied to a ship class).

 

[SchwarzKatze]

You should report this as a bug as well.

To everyone:
Is there any thing wrong about Ship and TF names, namelists etc?
Post it it here and propose how to improve it!

From an earlier thread of mine regarding the IJN

Naval name list:

I noticed that most of the obvious typos have been fixed, so I don't know if the remaining issues are intentional.
These issues are copied from the old post, minus the part that have been fixed in the name list file. If ship names are linked across name lists now then these are mostly non-issues (aside from certain conversions that won't necessary take place)

JAP_CL_HISTORICAL:
The entire line 82 is a dupe of the CA list.

JAP_CA_HISTORICAL:
The Mogami class shouldn't be here as they were built as CL and are already in the CL list.

JAP_BB_HISTORICAL:
I don't think the Kongo class should be here. They were built as BC and had BC names.
The game doesn't seem to check if a name has been used by a vessel of another class, so having "Kaga" here could result in name collision.

JAP_BC_HISTORICAL:
Same reason above for "Akagi", "Atago", and "Takao"

JAP_CV_HISTORICAL:
"Kaga", "Akagi", and "Shinano" are conversions from other classes.
"Soryu" "Hiryu" "Shokaku" "Zuikaku" "Junyo" "Hiyo" "Taiho" "Unryu" belong to the early theme "flying creatures", of which "Junyo" "Hiyo" are conversions from civilian vessels: All IJN carriers bearing the name "-yo" (hawk) were conversions from non-combat vessels.
"Amagi" "Katsuragi" "Kasagi" "Aso" "Ikoma" "Kurama" belong to the late theme "mountains" (same as BC and CA), and 4 out of 6 also appear in the said lists.

JAP_CVL_HISTORICAL：
"Chitose" and "Chiyoda" were converted seaplane carriers that retained their old names. They violate the naming convention of flying creatures.
"Ibuki" was a converted CA hull and should not be here.

JAP_PREFECTURES：
This is a mix of historical provinces, Hokkaido provinces that existed for just 2 years (Oshima and line 300), and modern prefectures (line 301)

JAP_RIVER_MOUNTAIN:
This is essentially an incomplete mix of the CL and CA name lists that contains only 3 unique names ("Ayase" "Minase" "Otonase")

 

[Ketchup & friends]

@Paul.Ketcham @SchwarzKatze
Since not checking the other namelists is a Bug, removing names that appear in multiple lists seems excessive. Once the bug is fixed, the problem would disappear.

I started overwriting a bunch of them and lost track of what was wrong... (I also spent a lot of time on ahistoric names just to fill out empty namelists, so I can't always remember which lists were broken and which were just small).

Can you post them here or in a new thread?

JAP_CV_HISTORICAL:
"Kaga", "Akagi", and "Shinano" are conversions from other classes.
"Soryu" "Hiryu" "Shokaku" "Zuikaku" "Junyo" "Hiyo" "Taiho" "Unryu" belong to the early theme "flying creatures", of which "Junyo" "Hiyo" are conversions from civilian vessels: All IJN carriers bearing the name "-yo" (hawk) were conversions from non-combat vessels.
"Amagi" "Katsuragi" "Kasagi" "Aso" "Ikoma" "Kurama" belong to the late theme "mountains" (same as BC and CA), and 4 out of 6 also appear in the said lists.

The Japanese Historical carriers list is extremely short. There are not enough names to cover the number of historically planned CV.

Somewhat off-topic, the IJN for some reason changed the naming scheme after Unryu. Originally, all purpose-built CV were named after noble flying creatures (Crane, Dragon, Phoenix) and the Hawk names fit thematically but the later carriers were named after mountains like BC and CA.

 

[Xiziz]

Something else I thought of regarding German submarines. Would it be an idea to add cruiser submarine tech to 1936 start and use this as the basis for the Type IX instead of teir 2 hull, they were after all long range submarines. Along with the already suggested teir 2 engine and 1 teir 2 torpedo module.

Japan and I think USA starts with this tech already.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Something else I thought of regarding German submarines. Would it be an idea to add cruiser submarine tech to 1936 start and use this as the basis for the Type IX instead of teir 2 hull, they were after all long range submarines. Along with the already suggested teir 2 engine and 1 teir 2 torpedo module.

Possible. But currently we’re split on you proposal and would like to consult the Community.

What do other people think about @Xiziz 's proposal? Do you support it, and if not why?

 

[Znail]

I consider size to be the main requirement to be considered a cruiser submarine and Type IX is simply not large enough to qualify as that would open up even US submarines as several types was larger.

 

[Axe99]

Aye, the Type IX was only large relative to the Type VII, which was quite small for an ocean-going submarine. I'd err on keeping it as-is, rather than making it a cruiser sub in terms of the in-game stats.

 

[Xiziz]

I was going more on range than displacement when thinking of it, but I do buy the size argument too and thought it needed a discussion atleast.
By keeping the loadout light(not using the optional slots keeps it kind of small), the range opens up the whole Atlantic and Caribbean to Germany.

Allowing the extra fuel tanks on standard submarine hulls would probably be able to make a similar result so the IX can operate alongside the VII but in different zones. (actually the more I think of it this would be a cleaner solution)

 

[Hoi Neuling]

To Focus the Cruiser Submarine 1936 is not so heavy. There were 2 Prototypes build which where the first Step to Type IX subs. But therefore the important things are to far away.

But you are right. I tried to implementing more ships and try to build with the EXP more of them (like T-Boats 1935, 1937 etc.).

 

[Znail]

Unlocking extra fuel tanks for regular subs sounds like a good idea.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Unlocking extra fuel tanks for regular subs sounds like a good idea.

What about a Variant to 19XX hulls, akin to SHBB? Give it higher base range, but no more slots, because fuel tanks would then compete with radar/snorkel, which appears daft to me? Smaller differences between type VII and IX, like dive time, maneuoverability, could also be modeled through different visibility/spotting/defence/etc stats.

 

[sekelsenmat]

What about a Variant to 19XX hulls, akin to SHBB? Give it higher base range, but no more slots, because fuel tanks would then compete with radar/snorkel, which appears daft to me? Smaller differences between type VII and IX, like dive time, maneuoverability, could also be modeled through different visibility/spotting/defence/etc stats.

Why such a complex solution when adding fuel tanks is trivial, already exists and will only require 3 lines of text? Here is fuel tanks for cruiser subs, just needs to be added to hull level 1:


cruiser_submarines = {

enable_equipments = {
ship_hull_cruiser_submarine
}
enable_equipment_modules = {
ship_extra_fuel_tank
}

 

[Zauberelefant]

Why such a complex solution when adding fuel tanks is trivial, already exists and will only require 3 lines of text? Here is fuel tanks for cruiser subs, just needs to be added to hull level 1:


cruiser_submarines = {

enable_equipments = {
ship_hull_cruiser_submarine
}
enable_equipment_modules = {
ship_extra_fuel_tank
}

That is one way, but you can only put 1 extra module on hull 1, or 2 on hull 2, which rules out radar on these subs.

 

[Znail]

That is one way, but you can only put 1 extra module on hull 1, or 2 on hull 2, which rules out radar on these subs.

Why shouldn't the fuel tank take up a slot? Type IX doesn't need extra slots to be made. And for other subs so does it make sense as larger fuel tanks deffinitly eats up space for other things.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Why shouldn't the fuel tank take up a slot? Type IX doesn't need extra slots to be made. And for other subs so does it make sense as larger fuel tanks deffinitly eats up space for other things.

Type IX was ~ 1.5 the size of Type VII, so the larger fuel tanks certainly did not eat Up space. In fact, long range subs were larger than Type VII or coastal subs and more comfortable. In reality, Type VII was an odd sub, because you had a "pocket long range sub" with crammed Conditions.

And slots do only very roughly correspond with internal Space. Additional Torpedo tubes would eat little interior space, as would a snorkel or radar.
Anyway: I propose to simulate Typ IX with a distinct hull instead of extra tanks (which existed, Type IX D2 with 33000 nm of range).

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Fuel Tanks would properly simulate the difference between coastal and long-ranged subs of the same hull tier (e.g. Type XXI and Type XXIII)

What about a Variant to 19XX hulls, akin to SHBB? Give it higher base range, but no more slots, because fuel tanks would then compete with radar/snorkel, which appears daft to me? Smaller differences between type VII and IX, like dive time, maneuoverability, could also be modeled through different visibility/spotting/defence/etc stats.

Why such a complex solution when adding fuel tanks is trivial, already exists and will only require 3 lines of text?

It's indeed a better solution, but @Zauberelefant 's idea could work for the base game, without MtG techs.

That is one way, but you can only put 1 extra module on hull 1, or 2 on hull 2, which rules out radar on these subs.

the sub hulls can use 1 more custom slot that would be useable only for non-weapon modules (Fuel tanks, Radar etc.). (This should probably be continued in @Paul.Ketcham 's Thread)

 

[Axe99]

In terms of slots, don't forget it's possible to have slots that can only take one thing - so a slot for and only for extra fuel tanks is possible.

Additional Torpedo tubes would eat little interior space,

While I agree with radar and sonar (although there's still a meaningful amount of space in submarine terms required for both the equipment, and the personnel to operate them), torpedo tubes take up a lot of submarine real-estate. Submarine torpedoes were 7-8m long (the G7a and G7e were 7.2m), and the tube generally wasn't at the extreme end of the bow (due to streamlining), so at a minimum, with no reloads and no facility to load the submarine except directly into the tubes, you've got 8-9m of space required (as the tubes and space to operate them are longer than the torpedoes themselves). A Type IXA was only 76.5m long, so if you're looking at bow tubes only, with no reloads and a pretty clunky reloading facility, that's 10-12 per cent of the length of the sub. Add in reloads and you more than double that (as more than the length of the torpedo is required to move them around) - although the torpedo storage space was usually used for accommodation as well, so unlike the tubes could at least do double duty.