RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates

RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support

Message

PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (12/30/2013 11:21:17 PM)
Whew! Got it right ... so much stress! [:D][:D][:D]

Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (6/26/2014 5:00:53 PM)
Can we please get this stickied? [sm=00000947.gif]

savingthegalaxy -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (8/8/2014 11:43:26 PM)
Hi guys, I've tried many times to download several different scenarios in this thread but the file is always damaged and refuses to unzip. Does anyone know what I might be doing wrong? Thanks for any assistance.

Jace11 -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (8/9/2014 12:20:14 AM)
From what I remember, having downloaded the Guadalcanal Update 1 a few days ago... Download it, rename its file extension from .zip to .exe, run the extractor... however I think the extractor/install program extracts to the wrong folder by default. If I were you, I'd give it a new folder when it asks for the game location to extract to; and then manually place the 11 or so scen files in the games /SCEN folder and any art file into the /ART folder etc. If you extract to the default location, I think all files (art, scenarios, briefings) all end up in the games root directory where they won't be read and you'll have to pick them out!! Bit of a mess, but easily sorted... If you've done it correctly, the titles of the scenarios should change to Coral Sea Update v1 or something...

Jace11 -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (9/6/2014 6:30:35 PM)
ai001 Script 672 (JP) - feeds capital ships at Pearl Harbour... This may be the script in question that someobody posted about recently but Andy stated that problem would end if Akyab or Noumea are captured - but this script is triggered to end when Efate is captured, so it may be a different one. However it raises another issue... [image]local://upfiles/42898/F2B732F7874541248D04881F0EEF8F21.jpg[/image]

Jace11 -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (9/6/2014 6:41:31 PM)
Here is script 672, The SCTF target is set to BOTH current assault target AND a named destination. It appears to be ignoring the current assault target in favor of the destination (the Pearl entry may be an erroneous anyway) but this raises another problem... There are MANY more of these in the AI scripts that have BOTH a named target and a current assault target. Infact, I'm seeing them constantly. So in effect the current assault targets, that may require naval support aren't getting it, instead the AI is sending all TFs that have been entered like them to only the 1 named destination. Note also the SCTF is supposed to be an amphibious lead, yet its sailed to a target without any amphib, probably because its not listed as a base assault target for the LCUs. [image]local://upfiles/42898/341C537378354BC8BC2F2D95AEE37496.jpg[/image]

Jace11 -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (9/6/2014 6:50:58 PM)
Thirdly, I am also seeing Large Barge Task Forces off Pearl Harbour.... Why? It turns out the other TFs in this script are barge TFs but it looks like whoever wrote these didn't intend them to sail anywhere, infact they probably never intended them to spawn as no destination is set, neither named or as a current assault target... YET the AI IS spawning these TFs (i.e TF #2 and #3 in the script) but is sending them to the same place as TF #1. WTF..? Is this a result of no target being set for TF2 and TF3? Anyhow, similar barge TFs and other types of task forces without targets can be found in other scripts. [image]local://upfiles/42898/8829E8094296410194415F081118BF60.jpg[/image] I was under the impression that different AI TFs in a script acted independently unless set to follow, I was not aware they could take a target from another TF.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (10/25/2014 9:04:15 PM)
bump

Disco Duck -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (10/25/2014 10:46:06 PM)
Is there any easy way to determine that the Scenario was updated?If I go to the Scenario folder it says it was modified today. If I open the folder, the most recent date modified is 6/20/2012 Edit. I have answered my own question. Once I started a scenario it asked me if I wanted to use the new data....

quertice -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (10/29/2014 12:31:12 AM)
a thing I don't understand in scenario 17 (Ironman beware of the dorniers) CV Essex will arrive in may 42, it'll have corsair F4U-1A as fighter, but this plane will be available in pool only from 10/43, and for repleacements of essex? [&:][&:][&:][&:] similar thing for bunker hill and his hellcats, available in pool only from 1/43 Essex and Bunker hill will be useless without fighters for repleacement, or AI doesn't care about planes in pool to have repleacements?

Barb -> RE: Patch 07 unofficial data scen updates (10/29/2014 12:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: qwetry a thing I don't understand in scenario 17 (Ironman beware of the dorniers) CV Essex will arrive in may 42, it'll have corsair F4U-1A as fighter, but this plane will be available in pool only from 10/43, and for repleacements of essex? [&:][&:][&:][&:] similar thing for bunker hill and his hellcats, available in pool only from 1/43 Essex and Bunker hill will be useless without fighters for repleacement, or AI doesn't care about planes in pool to have repleacements? I believe it represents the actual situation: quote: Despite the decision to issue the F4U to Marine Corps units, two Navy units, VF-12 (October 1942) and later VF-17 (April 1943) were equipped with the F4U. By April 1943, VF-12 had successfully completed deck landing qualification. However, VF-12 soon abandoned its aircraft to the Marines. VF-17 kept its Corsairs, but was removed from its carrier, USS Bunker Hill, due to perceived difficulties in supplying parts at sea. In November 1943, while operating as a shore-based unit in the Solomon Islands, VF-17 reinstalled the tail hooks so its F4Us could land and refuel while providing top cover over the task force participating in the carrier raid on Rabaul. The squadron's pilots landed, refueled, and took off from their former home, Bunker Hill and the USS Essex on 11 November 1943. Source: Wikipedia

Justus2 -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/6/2014 8:18:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Woos quote: ORIGINAL: floydg The Yokoyama Tai outside PM seems to be missing components. Is this intentional? [image]local://upfiles/12459/F95BA957369F465098CE50FCF5FC5289.jpg[/image] Problem still exists. Also some Headquarters and replacement units show this. Seems to be caused by all these units refering to Devices in the 265-296 range which was already outdated and has now been removed (and good all WitP still does not check database consistency). You have to replace the following devices in the editor (sometimes best guesses as devices changed names) 265->709 267->711 280->736 281->739 282->740 284->745 285->746 286->747 296->770 in the Yokoyami Tai LCU, some Naval HQ at the beginning of the location list and to locations 4440-4442. No idea if editing and saving from the editor completely destroys the scenario, though as the editor is supposed to no longer handle all attributes. Edit: At least the AI files get copied only partially. Just starting a new Guadalcanal scenario as the Japanese, and I noticed this same problem with the Yokoyami Tai (and the other units referenced). I made the changes in the editor to use the updated device numbers, and thought I would post the SCEN files in case anyone else wants to use them. Below are what each device refers to, and the units affected: 265->709 IJA Infantry Squad 267->711 IJA Engineer Squad 280->736 47mm Type01 AT Gun 281->739 81mm Mortar 282->740 90mm Mortar 284->745 70mm T92 Howitzer 285->746 (75mm Infantry Gun, but the units have 0 devices) 286->747 75mm T82 Mtn Gun (only Yano Bn has any) 296->770 20cm 41YT CD Gun (the 3 Naval HQs have these) Units: Yokoyama Tai 35th/2nd(Kitao) 4440 35th/2nd(Kuma) 4441 Yano Battalion 4442 Combined Fleet NavHQ Southeast Fleet NavHQ Southern Fleet NavHQ

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/7/2014 12:24:26 AM)
Thanks for that work on Guadalcanal! Is there a way of knowing which scens are affected by this? Is it all of them?

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/7/2014 1:15:59 PM)
Also (because I'm new to this), can the Andy Mac updates in this thread be used with the Andrew Brown extended map?

Justus2 -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/7/2014 2:00:10 PM)
I don't know of any way to identify other missing devices, maybe someone else would knwo more. I just noticed it when getting ready to play the Japanese side of the scenario, and found the listing of missing units when I searched the forums. As for the extended maps, I wouldn't think so. The scenarios use a limited portion of main map, and (at least in Scen4) use different values for the bases. You can create multiple installs of the game in seperate folders (I do that for DaBabesLite), so you can keep your Extended Map in one folder, and another for the scenarios.

Symon -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/7/2014 6:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts Thanks for that work on Guadalcanal! Is there a way of knowing which scens are affected by this? Is it all of them? 'Official' scenario 004, Guadalcanal, has none of these issues. All LCUs/Devices work just fine. Babes Guadalcanal scenario 034, has none of these issues. All LCUs/Devices work just fine. Andy has tweaked some small map scenarios with Babes specifications, but hasn't thought through the database. That's what you are seeing. One group does the database and Andy does his upgrades, and never do the twain even talk. Bad news for you guys. One big reason we are moving to a different paradigm and leaving the standard WiTP/AE game system alone.

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/7/2014 7:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon One big reason we are moving to a different paradigm and leaving the standard WiTP/AE game system alone. As a newcomer to the world of WITPAE mods, I'm at sea here. What's the new paradigm?

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/8/2014 12:56:23 AM)
Also, does this imply that Andy Mac's AI revisions are essentially broken, or what? I'm trying to decide what to use before starting a game.

btd64 -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/8/2014 1:57:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts Also (because I'm new to this), can the Andy Mac updates in this thread be used with the Andrew Brown extended map? Andy's new AI scripts work with the Stock scenarios, not any of the mods that use the extended map....GP

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/9/2014 7:56:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts Also, does this imply that Andy Mac's AI revisions are essentially broken, or what? I'm trying to decide what to use before starting a game. Just a bump for this question. I'm thinking of trying a learning campaign, but I want to know if the AI files in this thread are good to use or if data issues cripple them. Thanks!

Andy Mac -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/9/2014 11:00:13 PM)
Not around much these scens all work on the standard map and are not configured for extended map. Sorry just a fact of life Guad Scen has some other device bugs which I missed on original translation and have not had time to fix - only guad scen is affected

PaulWRoberts -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/9/2014 11:36:16 PM)
Thanks for the reply, Andy. And I appreciate your work!

stretch -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/11/2014 7:03:59 PM)
Dang I've already put in hours and hours on a Allied first turn vs AI using babesliteB (scen 26), which needs the extended map, and I had installed the scenario 1 updates. Is that going to absolutely trash the AI in my game?

Tejszd -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/12/2014 3:34:38 AM)
Thank you Andy Mac for updating the scenarios! Thank you Justus2 for the fix for scen004!

Lecivius -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/13/2014 3:54:19 PM)
Scenario 1, I cannot use Abadan. I can access Aden, and all the other Off Map bases. I can access Abadan from the base icon, and create a task force. But I cannot move ships to & from that base. That will cause a setback [;)] What am I doing wrong?

witpqs -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/13/2014 4:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius Scenario 1, I cannot use Abadan. I can access Aden, and all the other Off Map bases. I can access Abadan from the base icon, and create a task force. But I cannot move ships to & from that base. That will cause a setback [;)] What am I doing wrong? It's 'normal'. I don't mean intended, I mean that it was covered a long time ago in support, and the answer is that at the map edge they had to make special arrangements. It turns out to be a lot of work to do that, and so you cannot click on those TF. But Michael put in a toggle into the TF list (hot key "T") that switches between on-map and off-map TFs. You can use that to access any TF you want.

Lecivius -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/13/2014 5:23:58 PM)
Cool, thanks [;)] I thought I had heard something along these lines, I couldn't find it. <edit> hmm, only place I can go is Cape Town or Mombasa, endurance needed 399999. Any other place and you can't move directly onto map.

stretch -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/14/2014 3:46:07 AM)
I've abandoned my babes lite game since I installed the scenario update and extended map prior to beginning. No big deal. It seems clear from prior posts that's not a good idea.. but if anyone could provide a definitive statement it might clear things up. It seems to either be : Stock (with latest beta ok too) + Andy's scenario updates or Anything with extended map (and beta ok too) + stock scenarios. Am I correct?

Tejszd -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/17/2014 5:48:22 AM)
As a new owner/player of this game I do not know the AI tricks in the original scenarios can these be added in the empty slots instead of over writing the originally included scenarios?

Justus2 -> RE: Scenario 4: Guadalcanal (12/20/2014 7:21:33 PM)
I found another issue with the Guadalcanal scenario. Glen Chutais were pointing to the wrong subs, so some Glen-equipped subs enter the game with no planes, and other subs have a plane attached, but no Aircraft Capacity to operate it (it can be tranferred to base, however). I used the editor to point all the Glen Chutais (I1-I45) to the correct I-Boat (many of which are not active). The I-boats that are active, and have aircraft capacity, now have the correct Chutai assigned. I renamed the scenario to #044, and have included all the device changes in the post above as well. I looked at the Babes Guadalcanal scenario, and I like the expanded scope, but it says it's not AI-friendly, and I'm not ready to graduate to PBEM yet (time constraints as well). So I am trying to make the best of the existing scenario. Let me know if anyone finds anything else to update!

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.625