Okay, with the "newbie" poster restriction gone here's a more thorough walkthrough of the issue. This is copied from what I've already sent to some modders. If the stock scenario is changed then you surely have your own models for setting the correct maneuver values, but I include my proposed values for modders. Hopefully that's okay, thought it would be a good idea in case there is no change to the stock scneario. The graphs use values based on DBB-C, but that doesn't really change the underlying issue. The problem stems from the stock scenarios.
Okay, to begin with I'd like to emphasize that
a) I'm as I said unsure as to exactly how the maneuver values were calculated for the small boats, they don't seem to follow a clear formula (or at least not one that I've identified). With larger ships its a bit more clear.
b) It's hard to find definite data for the Dutch boats when relying on the internet only, especially when it comes to how much fuel and endurance they have.
So ultimately my suggested values are no more than guesswork.
Now most ships have a maneuver value that is roughly dependant on the max speed divided by length. There is probably a bit more to it, but that gets you close enough for modding work in my opinion. I haven't really looked that deeply into the merchant ships because they are partly generic class and thus difficult to it's difficult to specify exact values. This is illustrated by these graphs (using maneuver values as found in DBB-C that I've plotted out, so not the stock scenario directly). Note that if I haven't found the waterline length for a ship then I've simply made a reasonable guess as to what it could be. Also this is obviously not exactly every ship in the database, but certainly enough in my mind.
The x-axis is 100 multiplied by the max speed divided by waterline length (200*(max speed/waterline length)) while the y-axis is the maneuver value. So we got a grouping of DDs, CLs, ships except DDs and CLs larger than 500 ton and finally boats (less than 500 ton). Clearly the DD, CL and ship groupings doesn't exactly follow a linear value but close enough I'd say. But then you get to boats and values are all over the place, obviously the Dutch vessels makes up the ones you find at 30 maneuver. It gets very difficult to find a clear reasoning behind these values.
The Fairmile B and the SC-453 110' are the first boats above 85, yet there are several boats that have better max speed/length values that are way below that. The Thornycroft and Admiralty HDML are examples of this. Some of the lower values are from the landing crafts however, and it could reasonably be that they follow a different calculation model from the other boats. Still, it's a mystery to me. I've chosen a linear increase that would put most boats around 70 (slow) to 95 (fast) maneuver. Anything below 70 uses the same linear calculation as generic ships. You could make an compelling argument for going with some other function, but this gives you something to start with at least.
Or to visualize this, here you have a plot of how the maneuver value would be assigned according the calculated value. The boats plotted out in this chart is restricted to the MTB, HDML, PT, SC, ML and MGB classes. So the affected Dutch ships aren't included as they are of the AMc and PG/AVP/AG classes. It also cuts out the landing crafts which could very well be a special case. The three boats below 55 maneuver here is the Thronycroft HDML (should be Thornycroft?), Admiralty HDML and finally the P1 Mot. Launch. I think these should also have their maneuver bumped up, but they aren't as "wrong".
Anyway, this is the data I used for length and the suggestions I've got. I haven't got any good fuel/endurance data, it's simply made up so your guess is as good as mine.
Length (m) - cruise speed - fuel - endurance - maneuver - ship name
56 - 8 - 180 - 3070 - 43 - Sm.Gouv.Mar. (Bellatrix)
59,75 - 8 - 235 - 3550 - 40 - Med.Gouv.Mar. (Fomalhaut)
41,9 - 8 - 30 - 1200 - 67 - A class
22,25 - 8 - 15 - 625 - 71 - Merbaboe
31 - 10 - 33 - 1300 - 71 - Alor
34 - 10 - 43 - 1700 - 70 - Djember
26,65 - 12 - 13 - 600 - 73 - Ardjoeno
70,5 - 12 - 275 - 4040 - 51 - Arend
There is an endurance value of 10 knots/1400 nm for the Arend on navypedia, but I don't fully trust navypedia when it comes to endurance values so I made up my own. To put the 1400 nm at 10 knots fuel efficiency value in perspective that'd be almost twice as bad as, say, the large C1 cargo ship at 14 knots cruise speed. The generic Coastal Cargo class gets 4000 endurance for 221 fuel as another comparison point (1050 ton and 8 knots cruise speed). You also have a 12 knot max speed on Arend while navypedia claims its 18 so I don't know what's up with that.
Merapi is, from what I can tell, a ship of the Merbaboe class and if that's correct then it shouldn't be a separate class. DBB-C has replaced it with the coastal minesweeper class Soemenep. This is my value for that class.
38 - 7 - 45 - 1500 - 53 - Soemenep
This is for issues unrelated to the maneuver values.
The SC-453 110' and the Admirable (both USN ships) stand out quite a bit due to their very low fuel consumption. The SC-453 gets ~83,3 nm/fuel while the Admirable gets ~60,7 nm/fuel. That's very high, especially considering their size. Even small (20 ton) ships tops out at around 50 nm/fuel of the ships I've looked at.
The Admiralen Batch I has 300 fuel and the Admiralen Batch II has 330 while both get identical endurance, I'd boost the endurance on the Batch II slightly.
There are also some armament issues with the Dutch ships. Just as with most other things it's not easy to find good info about it on the net so take everything I say with a big grain of salt.
I believe many of the 7,5 cm guns on the Dutch ships weren't DP capable, being mostly old WW1 era guns/mounts (7,5 cm/40 No.3 from Krupp and later Bofors). It might even be so that only the ones on the Admiralen destroyers, Van Oranje and perhaps Soerabaja were DP guns (7,5 cm/55 No.7 to No.9). Some of the ships with the 7,5 cm/40 might have received British 12 pdrs later.
When it comes to the small and medium Gouvernmentmarine ships I'd also say they are over-armed. Many seems to either have had two ancient 3,7 cm guns (3,7 cm/20 Gericke or Hotchkiss revolver guns maybe? probably not AA/DP capable) or a single 7,5 cm/40 gun and lacking any AA defence at all (even a machine gun).
The Admiralen class is also wrong. At the moment both batches has a 12 cm twin mount forward and a 12 cm twin mount aft, while in reality it should be two single mounts forward and two single mounts aft. The other weapons is also wrong, essentially the Batch I should have the weapons that Batch II has and vice-versa. The 7,5 cm gun is, from what I've found, a 7,5 cm/55 DP (Bofors or Siderius).
Lastly from the original plans it does look like the Batch I would only have had four MGs, two singles to the right and two to the left (not center, although that's a minor point). The Batch II however doesn't have two twin 40 mm Bofors, it's four singles (two left, two right, not center) and they are probably 2 pdrs rather than the Bofors. Same as with the Batch I the 12,7 mm MGs on the Batch II are also singles and with two to the left, two to the right (not center, but again, a minor issue).
Another minor thing, the plans for the P17 motor launch it with 20 mm guns (1 forward, 1 aft). Actually getting them in the DEI might have proven difficult.
Small potential armament changes, but I'm unsure about them.
Alor: 2 x 37 mm, 2 x 7,7 mm
Merbaboe: 2 x 7,7 mm
Djember: 1 x 12,7 mm
Ardjoeno: 2 x 7,7 mm
Soemenemp: 2 x 12,7 mm
< Message edited by cardas -- 5/24/2016 6:36:20 PM >