Missing Lost Scenarios?

[zovs66]

Okay, so I loaded the 3 you had issues with.

428, I am not seeing anything goofy by looking at the deployments and setup with the units. So I'll play it through and see if I spot anything.

429, I also did not see anything goofy in the editor, but it would help, if I knew which exact AT inf units were using smoke dischargers.

431 (not 430) is Cavalry Raid, and I fixed the 12.7 HMG sections to actually be correct HMG. Will post when I have enough others edited.

[RetLT]

The ATG units in 429 are: M4, M5, N4, N5, P2, P3, T2, T3, U2 and U3.

All of the ATG units have them so it is probably in the OOB rather than a one off issue. I have not seen this in any of the other Swedish scenarios.

I am looking forward to your mini-campaign.

[DRG]

An important factor to consider is the original age of the scenario as you originally found it.....many OOB's have undergone major reconstruction over the years and I ( try ) to keep up with that in the scenarios issued with the game. Those are checked before every release so if an OOB has a number of changes made over time the game scenarios get upgraded each step of the way......but if you dig up one that is 9 years old and has never been upgraded you could find weird things especially if the original was made with units that were infantry then over time the OOB was changed and there ended up with a vehicle uni in what had been an infantry unit.

I have copies if all OOB's for both games going back to the last DOS versions and sometimes I have to check when a scenario was built to find our why odd things are happening but it's rare as I rarely have to deal with " found" old scenarios

[zovs66]

Great points Don. I'd have to dig up the original zips if you wanted the original files to find out the exact details. Or you could use the ones I dug into. They mostly seem to work find with the tweaks I made. Some are pretty logical guesses on what to fix, but some slipped through and when RetLT found them, I fixed them

[RetLT]

Scn 432 Larry, Curley and Moe:

The turn zero air strike targets are too close to friendly troops. I lost several Bradleys to friendly fire. I don't know if this is intentional or not.

One suggestion I would make would be to increase the value of the Ammo trucks. the scenario is about protecting them yet they are of normal value.

[Mobhack]

If you make the ammo trucks expensive then you can run into the problem of artillery overload points as they are classed as artillery units (because they are a force multiplier for humans, but not the AI, so this is deliberate to penalise human players for their use).

If the scenario designer wants some expensive trucks to guard - then best to use heavy trucks and set their points high. If he wants to make then explodable, then he can give them an explosive weapon (see the suicide trucks in the PLO(?) OOB) - but then the AI may use them as suicide trucks of course, so that may not be the best idea if they are on the AI side.

[Imp]

Stick an ammo container in them?

[Mobhack]

Ammo container is still an ammo truck, so is charged for.

(it has special code to allow it to be picked up by a transport, as well as giving reduced supply rate. The pick up code seems to have been borked by something in the last release, so that needs unborking it seems)

[zovs66]

Well the main problem is that for these 50 some scenarios we have no (?) contact with the original scenario designer and or his intensions. So we can make tweaks the best we can I suppose?

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Ammo container is still an ammo truck, so is charged for.

(it has special code to allow it to be picked up by a transport, as well as giving reduced supply rate. The pick up code seems to have been borked by something in the last release, so that needs unborking it seems)

Thinking was could keep ammo container at cost or cheaper and increase the price of the carrying truck so it will have little impact on artillery overload costs.