Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 9:09:52 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 181
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 10:06:36 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		Further checks also show the following USN RADM as having as Type of command Type 05 Ship - preventing their use (or preventing their use once they’re removed from their Editor-assigned ship) :
- #10158 : Ginder, Samuel Paul (« Cy » Ginder, another good CV TF commander)
- #9009 : Davis, Glenn Benson
- #12359 : McMorris, Chas H.
- #9311 : DuBose, Laurance
- #9010 : Hayley, Robert W. (EDIT: and he’s assigned to S-47, when he arrived with USS Honolulu originally and had nothing to do with submarines)

For the record, there is also a LCDR Ramsey, D., with identical stats to Saratoga’s CPT Ramsey, looking like a database error.

< Message edited by Ambassador -- 3/2/2021 10:33:39 AM >

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 182
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 12:38:38 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.


Rank is irrelevant. What is relevant is the type of leader as that solely determines which unit he can be assigned to. Hence to make a Sprague available for assignment to command any USN Task Force, they must be changed to a type 04 leader. Doing so of course makes them ineligible to command a ship.

Alfred

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 183
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 12:50:07 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		Rank is relevant.

For example, a TF with CV or BB can only have a TF commander of CPT or above, not LCDR for example.
A CV/CVE ship can only have a CPT as ship commander, not a LT/LTJG for example, nor a RADM.
A PG-type ship can only have a junior officer (IIRC it’s LT at the highest), whatever their tonnage.
A TF leader (type 04) of the VADM rank can’t be assigned to a single-CV task force, you have to include multiple CV (or BB). I don’t remember if it’s 2 or 3.
Etc.

As such, both Sprague are RADM with Type 05 as their command - they won’t be available when you try to assign them to a ship, even a CV. And they won’t be available to be assigned to a TF either, even one including one or more CV.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 184
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 1:03:58 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		That is not stated in the Editor Manual.

Alfred

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 185
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 1:10:24 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

That is not stated in the Editor Manual.

Alfred

Do you know not everything is stated in the Manual ?

In fact, a lot of crucial informations are NOT written in the Editor Manual.

But it’s not just a problem with the Editor : the limitations on assignment of leaders based on rank is seen in-game.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 186
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 1:22:08 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Your ship examples are irrelevant.

Read this thread and the two relevant dev comments.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2809493&mpage=1&key=leader�

Devs were not in the habit to state something was so if the the actual code was written to the contrary, irrespective if the "something" publicly disclosed. Naval leaders were handled differently from Land leaders.

Alfred

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 187
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 1:48:31 PM   
Evoken

 

Posts: 488
Joined: 10/23/2019
Status: offline 		Alfred you are wrong about this one , rank does change what type of ship or a task force leader can be assigned to , ambassador is right.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 188
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 2:17:08 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline 		Alfred, that’s like the third affirmation of your part in a week which is wrong (after the timeline of withdrawing Soviet units and the base where disbanded Soviet LCU’s reappear). Maybe you should start checking in-game how it really works, instead of exclusively relying on the Dev’s statements. Your extensive knowledge of their declarations, and of the Forum history, is commendable, but you’re not infaillible. I’m starting to find your attitude very irritating given those mistakes.

(in reply to Evoken)
Post #: 189
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/2/2021 2:20:30 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Your ship examples are irrelevant.

Read this thread and the two relevant dev comments.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2809493&mpage=1&key=leader�

Devs were not in the habit to state something was so if the the actual code was written to the contrary, irrespective if the "something" publicly disclosed. Naval leaders were handled differently from Land leaders.

Alfred

Besides, Don Bowen’s statement is regarding difference in performance.

Said nothing about ranks.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 190
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/4/2021 8:24:28 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.


The leader of PT-73 should be corrected as well, as in the picture below [;)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 191
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/4/2021 10:55:06 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.


The leader of PT-73 should be corrected as well, as in the picture below [;)




All good !

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 192
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/8/2021 5:06:37 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Bump

Sorry Yaab not going to jump into that one I lost my detailed squad relative firepower bible years ago when my laptop melted down so going to have totrust whatwe did at the time


Hi Andy anymore plans for any more updates? Help us Obi One you are our only hope! Is michaelm75au or any of the rest of the team still around? I guess 1126b will be the last beta patch? Since this looks to be the last WITP game ever I hope it continues to stay alive!

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 3/8/2021 5:54:16 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 193
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/8/2021 6:52:27 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Quinton McHale is good transport commander, for decent naval skill and low aggressiveness...

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 194
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/10/2021 7:06:33 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Both scenarios are AI and PBEM capable - although experienced players for either side will cream the AI in either scenario.


Just curious are you saying the AI is worse in your updated scenarios? Or the same or better?

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 195
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/10/2021 7:45:11 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Both scenarios are AI and PBEM capable - although experienced players for either side will cream the AI in either scenario.


Just curious are you saying the AI is worse in your updated scenarios? Or the same or better?


The AI is better in these updated scenarios - no doubt about that. However, these are still historical OOB scenarios (Japan gets more in Scen 2, but not a lot), and as history proves, they were running on a shoestring right from the start. A good human player will burn through AI Japan's air and naval OOB in no time, and after that it's curtains. For the Allies it's similar - not enough material at the start and by the time that's fixed, it's too late.

Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 196
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/11/2021 6:27:07 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Both scenarios are AI and PBEM capable - although experienced players for either side will cream the AI in either scenario.


Just curious are you saying the AI is worse in your updated scenarios? Or the same or better?


The AI is better in these updated scenarios - no doubt about that. However, these are still historical OOB scenarios (Japan gets more in Scen 2, but not a lot), and as history proves, they were running on a shoestring right from the start. A good human player will burn through AI Japan's air and naval OOB in no time, and after that it's curtains. For the Allies it's similar - not enough material at the start and by the time that's fixed, it's too late.

Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.


Thanks was worried this new update was only made for multiplayer games and the stock was better for SP. Getting my game on again with this one! Looking forward to the new changes and better AI!

_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 197
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/11/2021 7:52:48 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

With my regular playing against Ironman I now believe that in some cases it can be too much quality, not just quantity. E.g. it is mostly pointless to wage offensive air war against Ironman Japan - you have no hopes of denting AI forces in exchange for your regular bloody nose, and AI is everywhere. So the game becomes more trivial - you can only capture his air bases via land campaign, or bombard them to oblivion from the sea. Bombers become essentially useless in their primary role.

Not to mention regular Sydney vs Kormorant encounters that are even more one-sided than the real thing

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 3/11/2021 7:53:51 AM >

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 198
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/11/2021 1:44:04 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

With my regular playing against Ironman I now believe that in some cases it can be too much quality, not just quantity. E.g. it is mostly pointless to wage offensive air war against Ironman Japan - you have no hopes of denting AI forces in exchange for your regular bloody nose, and AI is everywhere. So the game becomes more trivial - you can only capture his air bases via land campaign, or bombard them to oblivion from the sea. Bombers become essentially useless in their primary role.

Not to mention regular Sydney vs Kormorant encounters that are even more one-sided than the real thing


Which level of Ironman are you referring to, since there are 3 for the Japanese AI? My current game is Scen 102 (Ironman 1 test version), and I find that bombers are quite effective. 2Es must fly at night, and while 4Es can survive day missions, the heavy attrition keeps most of them working nights as well. The AI does have a lot of good fighters and pilots, so there's plenty of bloody noses to be had, but well trained Allied pilots flying defensive missions can - just barely - stay ahead of the curve. The airframe losses are significant, but I actually like the fact that you have to ration out the replacements. As for those killer AMCs, yes that was a shock the first time they tore up a light cruiser TF, but hey? Once you know they exist, you operate differently.

In early 1943 I'm dealing with brutal air and jungle warfare along the Indo-Burmese border, a meat grinder in the Solomons, a slowly losing situation in China, and the opening moves of the Central Pacific atoll-hopping campaign. Against an opponent that is still deadly and dangerous, with most of KB alive, hidden, and biding it's time. What's not to like?

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 199
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/11/2021 11:28:30 PM   
Moltrey


Posts: 297
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Andy:

Could you please check your Scenario 1 at start and verify whether the Mauna Loa AE (C2 Lassen class) ship is at Pearl Harbor or even in the game, period?
I am working on your latest version as Allies and doing my first turn Dec 8th setup. Discovered she is missing and in none of the Intel lists or usual areas or reinforcement charts, etc.
Kull did some editor and other digging (see his War Room thread on the setup spreadsheet) and it looks like there is some confusing and/or conflicting game info concerning this ship.

Thanks!

< Message edited by Moltrey -- 3/12/2021 12:26:16 AM >

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 200
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/12/2021 4:00:02 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		There were two Mauna Loas in the Pacific, years apart.

SS Mauna Loa - a USSB-1013 cargo hauler built at Los Angeles. Chartered to haul military cargo, at sea on 411207, diverted to Sydney, later sunk at Darwin 420219. The SS Mauna Loa is the same class as the SS Portmar - "Isthmian cargo".

USS Mauna Loa (AE-8) commissioned 27 October 1943. Built at Tampa Shipbuilding, deployed to Pacific in late December 1943.

The AE-8 Mauna Loa starts the game in Pearl Harbor, and the scenario database lists it as sunk 420216. It looks like the later AE has been given the old 1013's history.





_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Moltrey)
Post #: 201
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/20/2021 6:41:36 PM   
Treetop64


Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Thanks was worried this new update was only made for multiplayer games and the stock was better for SP. Getting my game on again with this one! Looking forward to the new changes and better AI!


Jumping in late here so bear with me...

Not sure if it was discussed before but note that self-imposed house rules is essential when playing against the AI, especially on lower difficulty levels. This means that the player doesn't use "gamey" tactics and restricts himself to a style of play that would be plausible and respects the realities faced in a real-life situation:

- No using armadas of heavy, 4-engined bombers on low level ground support roles. "Why" should be self-explanitory.

- Using escort fighters instead of sweeps to support bomber missions. Player sweeps are often disproportionately effective, not that there is anything wrong with the game mechanics in sweeps, but players can always "up the AI" in altitude advantage, numbers, and repetition, eventually bleeding the AI air units dry. And the AI very rarely - if ever - reciprocates by conducting sweeps itself.

- Not maneuvering LCUs around enemy occupied hexs to cut off and surround them. Surroundings sometimes occurs in-hex via the algorithm depending on the situation (there is a notification during ground combat turn resolution when this happens), and can happen to either side fighting in the hex. But moving your guys around the hex to cut the AI off, though tactically sound, is again something the AI doesn't seem to do itself. It may move around your LCUs in a hex when trying to get somewhere else, but I don't think the AI is written to know how to maneuver around to surround and isolate an entire hex.

There are a lot more but I don't want to make this post any longer than it already is.

However, I'm not sure about Ironman difficulty since the AI is necessarily given some significant advantages to make up for playing against a human opponent.

_____________________________



(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 202
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/21/2021 5:29:38 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

There were two Mauna Loas in the Pacific, years apart.

SS Mauna Loa - a USSB-1013 cargo hauler built at Los Angeles. Chartered to haul military cargo, at sea on 411207, diverted to Sydney, later sunk at Darwin 420219. The SS Mauna Loa is the same class as the SS Portmar - "Isthmian cargo".

USS Mauna Loa (AE-8) commissioned 27 October 1943. Built at Tampa Shipbuilding, deployed to Pacific in late December 1943.

The AE-8 Mauna Loa starts the game in Pearl Harbor, and the scenario database lists it as sunk 420216. It looks like the later AE has been given the old 1013's history.






Is this fixable in the editor and if so how?

_____________________________


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 203
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/21/2021 7:55:19 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		In the updated scenario 001 , there is only one Mauna Loa now (ship id 5090), which arrives in Pearl Harbor in 430401. It is a C2 Lassen class ship. However, it seems AnydMac retained in the Editor the sunk date of the other Mauna Loa, and the sunk date is 420216. Will they ship actually appear in PH then?

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 204
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/21/2021 2:18:17 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Is this fixable in the editor and if so how?


It's not just one. The Allies have a LOT of ships with incorrect stats, arrival times in particular. LST has carried out a lot of research on this topic, and it's reflected in his "Bottlenecks" mod (which unfortunately does not have a functional AI). Running a comparison between his data set and AE would be an eye-opening exercise.

Unless you have a fixation on this particular ship or plan to research and correct the rest of the OOB, I'd suggest ignoring the issue - one fewer early war AE-class vessel is not going to be a problem for the Allies.

< Message edited by Kull -- 3/21/2021 2:19:04 PM >

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 205
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/21/2021 2:55:02 PM   
Moltrey


Posts: 297
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Yeah, it is definitely not a huge deal-breaker. But Andy has asked for any issues with the releases, so I imagine he will circle back around to check in due time.
I mentioned it before somewhere, but I "blindfold" myself by not starting any Japanese scenarios so the initial placement and limited AI alternatives still are something of a mystery to me, particularly while I am learning the game.
Makes it rather tense to be honest, exactly what I want to maintain as long as I can.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 206
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 3/22/2021 1:17:27 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Is this fixable in the editor and if so how?


It's not just one. The Allies have a LOT of ships with incorrect stats, arrival times in particular. LST has carried out a lot of research on this topic, and it's reflected in his "Bottlenecks" mod (which unfortunately does not have a functional AI). Running a comparison between his data set and AE would be an eye-opening exercise.

Unless you have a fixation on this particular ship or plan to research and correct the rest of the OOB, I'd suggest ignoring the issue - one fewer early war AE-class vessel is not going to be a problem for the Allies.


Gotcha thanks maybe one day someone will do this haha...

_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 207
Moltrey Mod for Kull's Allied Setup - 3/22/2021 1:45:25 AM   
Moltrey


Posts: 297
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline 		Kull:
I finished the stock Allied Scenario 1 modifications to your file.
Note I have not done any changes to your other tabs, so there are no descriptors of the additions, etc., I left that up to you.
Still working on the AndyMac Scenario 1 changes, including the new bases. Might take a while.
Cheers!

Moltrey Mod

Not sure this link is setup correctly, let me know.

< Message edited by Moltrey -- 3/22/2021 1:49:42 AM >

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 208
RE: Moltrey Mod for Kull's Allied Setup - 3/31/2021 8:40:26 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Havent fixed the ship above but had to fix a minor issue in scen 2 so re uploaded

(in reply to Moltrey)
Post #: 209
RE: Moltrey Mod for Kull's Allied Setup - 3/31/2021 9:07:56 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Can a person edit a game in progress? Noting serious but 180mm CD guns in a Cavalry unit in the mountains does slow it down just a little bit.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.142