Re: Issues with scn 19 Goch-Calcar Road
 

I would draw attention to the scenario write up which gives BIG clues to why it is set up the way it is

Is that clear enough as to why this is set up as an assault where the "defenders" are set to advance ??

It's a German counter-attack on advancing Canadians which is why there are no defences and both sides are moving toward one another which is very creative use of the game system.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/85...c57d717421.jpg


For more clarity should anyone else play this down the road I will change

Battle Type: German Assault vs Canadian Defend*

to

Battle Type: German night Counter-Attack on a Canadian Advance.*



FUTHER.... I did discover a problem with this scenario that will be corrected when we release the next update. The German HQ, two trucks and a HT start the game on a grey border hex which means they are removed at start up. Now corrected but anyone can do that now with the in game editor. Simply load it in the editor and find the grey hex units and move them onto the actual map area then save the scenario in slot 19

Re: Issues with scn 19 Goch-Calcar Road
 

I would like to turn the clock back 20 years for many reasons not related to the game. :)

Re: Issues with scn 19 Goch-Calcar Road
 

You're not kidding with comment comrade.

Re: issues in scn 35 HG In Russia
 

Look for a number of changes to that scenario in the next release. The basics are the same but a lot of little details have been improved using the new tools we've put in since it was originally built

Issues in Scn 21 Jadgtigers in the West
 

1. Bridge hexes at 35,17 and 30,18 are shallow water.

2. AI never plots B-26 level bombers

3. Graphic for H1 and H2 (B-26s) are wrong (See attached)

Re: Issues in Scn 21 Jadgtigers in the West
 

OK. I will look into that

Re: Issues in Scn 21 Jadgtigers in the West
 

1 / Fixed

2/ The problem with those is the scenario is too short to allow the AI to plot the level bombers with the games built-in delay for level bombers. With the delay, by the time the AI decides what to attack with the delay added the game is over. At best on a "good day" the strike *might* arrive on the last turn but the simulation I ran showed the AI was on an 8 turn countdown to the B-26 airstrike on turn 10 of a 14 turn game so my choices are give it a predetermined target or change the Level bombers to Fighter bombers and that shortens the call in to attack delay keeping the attack in the AI's hand. EDIT.. found the perfect solution. French Personal of RAF No. 342 Squadron operated Douglas A-20C Havocs and those Havocs in the Brit OOB are ground attack and now there are French versions in the French OOB as FB so the delay for FB is manageable for the AI in a 14 turn game.

3 / Fixed. The photo is a Baltimore and the OOB that has evolved since that scenario was built does not have B-25's in French service ( I'm looking into that. It appears they did....) but it does have Baltimores so now they are correctly Baltimores and they DID have pre-planned targets and still do

Issues in Scn 22 Twilight of the Tigers
 

1. The following hexes are wooden bridges but do not show a bridge on the map:

47,17
49,14
49,25
50,12
50,26

Since there are no roads leading up to them I suspect they were supposed to be fords.

2. The ford at 49,35 is inside a wooden building.

3. The railway line runs in a trench. This could simulate a sunken road but there is no height difference between the trench and the adjacent hexes.

4. The AI does not plot the TU-2 level bombers. I would plot them strike on turn 0.

Re: Issues in Scn 22 Twilight of the Tigers
 

I'll look into this

EDIT

Those issues have been corrected. NOTE TO SCENARIO DESIGNERS do not give the AI unplotted bombers to use in a scenario under 20 turns.

These early scenarios were created before we bumped up the delay for calling in bomber support and that's why they are not showing up in those early scenarios.

The AI needs time to decide where the best target is and in short scenarios by the time the AI picks a target and the countdown delay ends, so has the scenario so the AI DOES use them but it needs a longer than <20 turn scenario so do so properly.

We have TU-2's as UC 44 FB now so I changed the level bomber versions to those and the AI will have time to plot them and I would rather keep that random factor in the scenario rather than pre-plotting.

The "bridge fords" trick was the only way to add a dedicated ford in the early days. When we added the ability to edit terrain height fords could be created at will. The game has evolved over 2 decades

Issues in Scn 24 Coordination
 

1. Republican 65mm guns O0 and L0 use different icons than the other 65mm guns. They look like long barreled AT guns while the others look like infantry guns.

2. The text mentions the first use of Molotov cocktails but neither side's units have any.

3. The AI does not use the Nationalist SB-2s even though the scenario is 30 turns long.

Re: Issues in Scn 24 Coordination
 

1/ There are no Republican 65mm guns O0 and L0 guns in this scenario but there are on the Nationalist side and the oddballs have been corrected

2/ They do now

3/ There are no Nationalist SB-2s but there are Republican SB-2s and the recommended side to play from is the Republican and that is how it is set up to start


Just remember if there is purple in the ID tags, that's the Republican side

Re: Issues in Scn 24 Coordination
 

Thanks. The Molotovs should make it less of a cake walk.

I never could keep track of who was who in the Spanish Civil War. Communists and Anarchists vs Fascists made it hard to determine who the "Good guys" were.

Re: Issues in Scn 24 Coordination
 

I sprinkled in a few Bomba Gasolina units on both sides....not all units.

A choice between which is the best and worst option when it comes to Communists / Anarchists / Fascists is a tough call and at the time I suppose it boiled down to who did you personally the least harm. There was nothing wonderful about all three choices and may have come down to the process of elimination that ends with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" even if that is not the choice you really want....... That and if you are standing in a mob in a town leaning towards the Fascists you don't start singing The Internationale.(if you want to continue breathing...).

When political sides get that far apart there is no middle ground. Keep in mind Mussolini was a Socialist newspaper editor and a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party before WW1. He was too much of an Italian nationalist to accept socialist internationalism but they are both two sides of the same coin.

Re: Issues in Scn 24 Coordination
 

The 'Good Guys' are the ones I am playing. Also all of the scenarios from the DOS version may have issues. Don't worry about them.

Re: Issues in Scn 24 Coordination
 

I don't mind fixing these things but there are about 300 that were made in DOS and converted to windows format.

The DOS-Windows conversion is not the issue. It's the way the OOB's evolved over time and as good as our DB checks are, there are still things only human eyes can catch. Like oddball gun Icons or that the bombers are not being used

issue in Scenario #25 Counter Attack at Milanow
 

The stone bridge at 91,25 is shallow water

Sound issue in Scenario #36 Goering Regiment at Uman
 

The Russian wagons (Formation Q) play truck sounds instead of clip-clop.

The field carraiges play the correct clip-clop sound.

Re: Sound issue in Scenario #36 Goering Regiment at Uman
 

They won't when the update is released.........

issue in scn 45 HG Panzer Attack in Sicily
 

The US 57mm ATG (Unit D1) is really a 37mm gun.

Re: issue in scn 45 HG Panzer Attack in Sicily
 

.....not any longer........57 now

Re: issue in scn 45 HG Panzer Attack in Sicily
 

Thanks. A 37mm ATG can't do much more than scratch the paint on a Tiger.

Issue in Scenario #52 HG at Hohenstaufen at Tarnopol
 

The Russian IS-2 (E1) starts dug in on a wooden bridge over nothing at hex 36,28.

One stray round and the bridge collapses, destroying the IS-2.

Re: Issue in Scenario #52 HG at Hohenstaufen at Tarnopol
 

I wonder if that isnt intentional. Sounds like something that could be based on some anecdote from a book.

Re: Issue in Scenario #52 HG at Hohenstaufen at Tarnopol
 

I had a look and that one is so strange it might very well be intentional. There is no other way to get that to happen except deliberately as the hex height is -2 and the hex height N - S of that position is 11 as are the hexes E-W of it..... though WHY that might have been done will remain a mystery as the scenario is 2 decades old but there is a very deliberate hole put there then bridged over tells me this was intentional for some reason.

Perhaps to simulate an underground sewer that collapsed from arty?? ....IDK But yes, it is kinda weird but it does not look like something that was the result of game code changes. What it looks like is a deliberate "game changer". There are only three German Stugs and that one IS-1 on the Soviet side. If that hex is hit with arty the game will, I suspect, play out differently than if it's not.

Re: Issue in Scenario #52 HG at Hohenstaufen at Tarnopol
 

The reds have 3 ATGs and a tank destroyer so the IS-2 is not pivitol.

If it is intentional (as it looks like it is) perhaps the IS-2 should be immobilized so it does not move away from the trap.

Re: Issue in Scenario #52 HG at Hohenstaufen at Tarnopol
 

IMO keep it at the back of your head. If you find a similar "setup" in a different scenario, it is probably some weird bug caused by some change. If not, I would leave it.

Re: Issue in Scenario #52 HG at Hohenstaufen at Tarnopol
 

There is nothing we did that would create a hole in the road that would put a bridge over it so this is an original design issue not something that happened as the result of code changes and if you find it in another of CB's scenarios its the designer not the game

This is a SS from winSPWW2v1.......same issue and that was released before we started expanding the map-making ability

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1617474724


If you are REALLY that bothered by it then use the editor and change it because personally I think this was done deliberately

Issue in Scenario #53 Villars-Bocage Normandy
 

With the exception of unit AB5 all of the Lloyd carriers use Halftrack icons.

Since AB5 has a carry capacity of 12 I think they were all supposed to be half tracks and they were just mislabled and AB5 used the wrong icon.

Re: Issue in Scenario #53 Villars-Bocage Normandy
 

No , I suspect that 20 years ago when this was built the Loyd carriers were probably Bren Carriers and at the time they had been set to carry a full squad and 20 years of OOB adjustments we ended up with a Halftrack that will hold the full section but is still using the old name and at some point, I will probably fix this but unfortunately ATM my HDD is showing signs of failing so I will be doing nothing more until that issue is resolved. The current patches are build and Andy is doing final checks and with what we have now they look good but there will be no further work done until I get this computer fixed and it's Easter Monday during a pandemic during another frigging lockdown so just imagine how happy I am ATM.

The units using a "loyd carrier" that have infantry should be Halftracks in this scenario so that is just a name issue and the ones pulling 6 pdrs should be loyd carriers and that is an Icon issue....both are minor issues and maybe one day that will be corrected. I do appreciate your attention to detail for pointing this though. That scenario has probably been like that for most of it's existance

issue in Scenario #56 HG Panthers in East Prussia
 

The stone bridge at 20,23 is a ford.

Re: issue in Scenario #56 HG Panthers in East Prussia
 

better check your co-ordinates

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1617935162

Re: issue in Scenario #56 HG Panthers in East Prussia
 

Wrong scenario. It is in Scn 56 King Tigers at Arnhem.

Re: issue in Scenario #56 HG Panthers in East Prussia
 

Ah! I went to the name you gave not the number

Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

1. The German 251/17s are 2 different types.

A1 and N2 are SPAA and J2, K4, L4, and M4 are gun APCs. They use different icons.

2. The Russian TU-2 level bombers don't strike. Same issue as the other old scenarios.

3. The German A0 panther has no main gun ammo.

Re: Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

Revised. This will not be in patch issued tomorrow.

Call it a 2022 sneak-peak

Re: Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

Drools in anticipation.....

Re: Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

Is it possible that the A0 Panther is supposed to be some kind of gunless "Befehls" model? I know these existed for some German tanks.

Re: Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

The early Befehls had their main gun removed ( like German unit 516 PzBfWg III D1 ) but not the Panthers that only had a slight reduction in main gun ammo

Re: Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

Ok, then it is probably an oversight.

Re: Issues in Scenario #60 10th SS in Pomerania
 

It's possible it's been like that all along and the designer way back when thought, like you, that there was no main gun and just removed the ammo not realizing it would be fine-tooth combed 16 years later. It doesn't matter why. It was identified and corrected

Re: issues in scn 35 HG In Russia
 

If you check it now you will see why the Iraqi ww2 era flag was added in the last update so it no longer needs to be a Brit vs Brit scenario so now its Brit vs "Blue"

issues in scn Scenario #63 Iwo Jima: First ashore
 

1.The Jap 13mm AAMGs (BG/BH)play high velocity cannon sounds

2. the 4.7 gun emplacements show no armor on the main screen but 25 on the info screen. (See attached photos).

Re: issues in scn Scenario #63 Iwo Jima: First ashore
 

If something has been modified by the scenario designer - the encyclopaedia screen reference does not change to match, so only the basic information is worth looking at. He could (say) turn a mortar into an AT gun, new icon etc, and the end user going for the "full info" will get the data for the unit in the encyclopaedia that was the basis before fiddling about.

basic info - comes from the unit data as in the scenario
full info - the info read from disk for the unit number in the encyclopaedia data in the OOB.

Re: issues in scn Scenario #63 Iwo Jima: First ashore
 

2/ Is most likely the reason Andy gave for the difference. The name "4.7" is not used in any Japanese OOB I have but I only have back to 2004 and they are named 120mm which is what 4.7 is so either the name was 4.7 when the scenario was built twenty years ago or the unit was modified to not have armour and the name was changed at the same time so that one I will leave as is. The "tell" for that is shown in Scenhack which shows a YES under Changed? which indicates that unit had been changed along with a few pillboxes so that means it WAS the scenario designer who changed it

EDIT: Next time you see something like that, open up the scenario with scenhack and check its "changed?" status. If it reports YES it's a scenario designer change so intended and it does not need to be reported unless it's doing something highly unusual.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1619262022

...and if you play this series in sequence there are quite a number that will not agree with the current encyclopedia because they show YES for changes made by the designer.

1/ however is a mystery. The sound number assigned now is an HMG sound and that unit has been a twin 13mm MG for as far back as I can check but you are correct, it produces a high-velocity cannon sound but that I can correct by "changing" them to the same unit using Scenhack ( which I have now done ) and they now play the correct sound FX but in the process of that fix I discovered we had two Japanese twin 13mm AAMG's..... the problem is that one of them is only a single and the photo for it is a single so I removed "twin" from the unit name.

Also, there are 13mm AAMGs in the next one but they give the correct sound in the test I ran

Re: issues in scn Scenario #63 Iwo Jima: First ashore
 

Yep, I could change it so a "this unit has ben modified by a scenario desiger" message instead of bringing up the (potentially waay out of spec) full-info encyslopaedia screen, but there is just the one "changed" flag for the unit and that gets set if anything was edited - which is usually something simple like editing the unit name and not a major remodelling/hack.

So it remains as-is, with the usual occasional "I founda bug!!!" report on these forums when a major rework of a unit leads to a completely out-of-whack encyclopaedia screen being displayed.

Issues in Scenario #70 SSpz 502 attacks Kustrin
 

1. King Tiger formations I, J, and K are all titled MKVI SSPZ 502 but only formation I uses the SS flag.

2. The Ju-88p-1s use a rocket firing sound when they fire their 7.5cm cannon.

Re: Issues in Scenario #70 SSpz 502 attacks Kustrin
 

OK. Wil look into those two items

Re: Issues in Scenario #70 SSpz 502 attacks Kustrin
 

ID tag issue fixed and I found out today that the 7.5cm version was soon replaced by the dual 3.7cm version and few if any of all types of the JU 88 P series survived past the end of 1944.

Issue in Scenario #72 Sacrifice of the few
 

Chines Unit I1 (37 mm cannon) has HE rounds but can not fire them indirectly (grayed out). It can fire smoke.

Screen shot attached.

Re: Issue in Scenario #72 Sacrifice of the few
 

Now corrected