1917 scenario-ship missing?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1917 scenario-ship missing?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> 1917 scenario-ship missing?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1917 scenario-ship missing? - 5/15/2020 12:53:10 PM

hottegetthoff

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/7/2020
Status: offline

In the Fate of Nations scenario, ive noticed that for some reason the Szent Istvan dreadnought is missing. In the 1914 scenario, it is finished in 1915 iirc, and historically, it got sunk in 1918, so i see no reason why its not here, especially with already big naaval advantage the entente has.
its a very minor issue though.

Post #: 1

RE: 1917 scenario-ship missing? - 5/15/2020 1:12:23 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

Don't forget that one unit counter doesn't equal one ship. For the larger navies it's more like one counter per 3 or 4 ships. Maybe it's included in another AH dreadnought?

_____________________________

1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!

Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!

(in reply to hottegetthoff)

Post #: 2

RE: 1917 scenario-ship missing? - 5/16/2020 8:41:42 AM

hottegetthoff

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/7/2020
Status: offline

I know, but in 1914 scenario you get more ships than in 1917, and i think its because of a simple mistake.
In 1914 scenario, second dreadnougjt gets built in 1915, and historically it wasn't lost until 1918.
In 1917 scenario, you have just the first one.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 3

RE: 1917 scenario-ship missing? - 5/18/2020 8:24:45 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Good point, looking at it now, I'm not sure there's an argument for not having it. It must be an oversight.

_____________________________

(in reply to hottegetthoff)

Post #: 4