? about Luda I Jinan in Players DB

[eds]

According to Sinodefence and Jane's the destroyer JINAN (105) is a Luda II and it has the capability to operate helicopters as the entry Luda II does in the PDB.
Also i believe the destroyer Hefei is a Luda I command, but does not have the same refit that the ships listed in the Pdb as Luda IV recieved.
Any thoughts anyone. It appears the information came from the HCDB AGSI. I think this information is probably slighly flawed. Indeed there may be differences between the refitted ships (ie the ones that currently come under the listing of Luda IV in the Pdb), although i will have to do some more research before i make any statements.

[Herman Hum]

Is that just a naming problem? If you disagree, you could just insert a Luda II and re-name it to Jinan. There is a lot of conflicting data out there. I doubt that anyone is wrong/right when dealing with a secretive nation like the PRC. Mostly, it is a matter of different interpretation of available facts. In general, we tend to follow the excellent work generously provided by the HCDB and its editor, Brad Leyte.

see also: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=881374#post881374

If you or anyone else needs a specific configuration (like a different Hefei), we can certainly get it added even if it is contradictory to something already present in the PlayersDB.

[eds]

Is that just a naming problem? If you disagree, you could just insert a Luda II and re-name it to Jinan. There is a lot of conflicting data out there. I doubt that anyone is wrong/right when dealing with a secretive nation like the PRC. Mostly, it is a matter of different interpretation of available facts. In general, we tend to follow the excellent work generously provided by the HCDB and its editor, Brad Leyte.

see also: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=881374#post881374

If you or anyone else needs a specific configuration (like a different Hefei), we can certainly get it added even if it is contradictory to something already present in the PlayersDB.


Renaming as you suggest seems to be a satisfactory solution.
There certainly is a lot of conflicting data out there from different sources, so, point definetly taken on that score.
It's good to know that the PlayersDB is always willing to accomodate specific configurations according to players needs.