RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

GaryChildress -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/28/2014 4:16:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Juan,

I can tell you that this will work. I've been doing something similar to this in my mod. I never thought to create new off-map bases like you did though. I was using Port Stanley for the purpose and putting all of the convoys there. Your solution is far better.

I also have not been able to get planes to arrive without pilots, what I do is set the exp of the groups to 10. That basically puts the pilots to the trash bin.

I also had not come up with your idea of using created leaders to force the PP expenditure. Brilliant. I was using an outboard system to keep track of the expenditures and using VP's instead.

This looks really good and you've taken it really far. When are you going to be able to post the pwhex file for us? [:D]

Brilliant work!

[&o][&o][&o]


Should have this ready in a few hours - the best bit is that it actually does not require pwhex changes. The only things needed are the appropriate additions to the locations file (for the bases themselves) as well as the changed map artwork. The only downside to this approach appears to be that one cannot directly click on the bases on the map and must instead use the airgroups menu. Not a big deal in my opinion.

Now, technically one could flip these hexes in the pwhex to be part of some offmap area, but the few experiments I ran with this didn't work out so well and in most cases allowed the aircraft to transfer somewhere, etc. which is undesirable.


If you hover the mouse over the off map bases will it at least show what groups are there? Or is the air groups menu the only way to access this info?


Yes, it will. You just have to use the bases/airgroups menus to access them.


Then it doesn't seem like much of a big deal to me either. In fact since you're dealing with reinforcements and replacements it seems more appropriate to use the menus to access them. This idea is getting better and better. Also, not having to mess with PWHex makes it relatively easy to implement. Once again, GREAT IDEA!! [&o]

EDIT: Since dabbling with art is a preoccupation of mine, I would get rid of the grass texture on the "reserve" bases. Since we're really not dealing with any kind of actual base, nor even a single base for that matter as these "bases" represent entire countries' stockpiles, I would use some sort of special hex to denote where the player can go to check on his reserves. It should be a sort of "dashboard" feature, almost like part of the GUI. Just some random thoughts. Something like the below might be a nifty idea to start with...

[image]local://upfiles/17421/6E1A72FFA26943EDAFC667FA5D6A7844.gif[/image]



GaryChildress -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/28/2014 5:03:11 AM)

Or maybe something like this.

[image]local://upfiles/17421/344ECE89F1A3451881915AA8E64FB81D.gif[/image]



JuanG -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/28/2014 5:17:18 AM)

This is the texture they currently have. Its a simple striped dark gray - I could not settle on anything decent, the grass was a 'quick fix' at the start copied right from the 'terrain tiles' above the US on the map.

[image]http://imageshack.com/a/img24/2679/iig0.png[/image]

I am no artist, so I will leave that those who have the skills and eye for doing this stuff.

Ok, here are the files, one based on DBB-C Scen 28 and one on DBB-C Scen 29. I have moved the scenario numbers to 128 and 129 to avoid potential conflicts and overwrites.

Additions to the files are in the following locations, and this is also the order (top to bottom) in which to make them to a new scenario if desired.

Locations File
#1550 - British Off Map Base
#1551 - Commonwealth Off Map Base
#1552 - USAAF Off Map Base
#1553 - USN/USMC Off Map Base
#1554 - Minor Off Map Base

#7765 - Base Force for British Base
#7766 - Base Force for Commonwealth Base
#7767 - Base Force for USAAF Base
#7768 - Base Force for USN/USMC Base
#7769 - Base Force for Minor Base

Leaders File
#29500 - 120PP Release (example leader)
Make sure you set all these to Delay 470101 or something similarly post-war to ensure they do not return with reinforcements which have a 'random' leader.

Air Groups File
#4500 - P-36A Reserve Group (example air group)

I have set the pilots to come in at 10 experience as per suggestions here. Personally, I think 25-30 might be more appropriate and would allow them to be recycled into on map training squadrons the same way normal pilot reinforcements are.

As it is they will likely linger around as rejects forever, and deduct one airframe within a few days from any operational squadron they find their way into via automatic pilot replacement.

I increased the Starting PP for Allies from 100 to 150 in both scenarios so that one can easily release the available 120PP airgroup if desired for testing. Apart from this no other alterations have been make to the scenario files.

The folder includes the two sets of scenario files (128 & 129) in the SCEN folder, as well as the two map tiles (WPEH13 & WPEH13) in the ART folder.

If somebody wants these in different scenario slots then please let me know and I will create them.

ZIP Format; http://www.mediafire.com/download/gx1g80055573d7x/AAP_Concept.zip
RAR Format; http://www.mediafire.com/download/gvcw76rak1u8h2j/AAP_Concept.rar

Looking forward to seeing just where this goes.

Regards,
Juan



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/28/2014 12:55:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Now slap me silly - never scrolled far enough down in the weapons slots of a convoy to see that from slot 2000 onwards there are airframes that can be assigned. Interesting...

Yepperino !! If one adds 2000 to the slot number of an airplane, it can become a "device". A B-17E device is 2285 [:)]


Seems aircraft can be assigned to any kind of LCU. But when the LCU is disbanded (with "devices to pool" option set of course), I don't see the aircraft being added to the pools. The other decives in my test LCU (like aviation support) are being added to the pools nicely - but not the aircraft. Aircraft only show up in the pools if the LCU is designated a "convoy unit" and auto-disbands after 3 days. At least in my tests.

This is unfortunate. If it were possible to have aircraft disband into the pools from non-convoy units like ordinary devices, we could create LCUs loaded with "emergency" deliveries of aircraft which cannot disband to pool until PPs are paid - "unfraudable" so no house rule and leader swapping required. And the PP costs could be adjusted at will by adding meaningless devices to the LCU (like a "PPs" device without any other function but to bloat the PP costs of the unit).

Any chance to talk Michael into looking at the disband-to-pool-options for aircraft?



John 3rd -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/28/2014 2:36:44 PM)

I like this idea more and more. Juan and Gary: This is outstanding. Juan---When you have your files set (I like 128--129 for Scenario Numbers) I will use them for Modding the new Treaty Mod as well as a revamped RA. Shoot me the zipped scenario files when you get the chance. Am emailing you right now so you still have my email address.



Symon -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/28/2014 4:41:26 PM)

OK, two separate responses to two separate thread thingies.

@JuanG and @John3rd
Juan's idea is excellent. In function, it doesn't work too well with stock based scenarios, but there's absolutely no reason why his map-edge bases can't be implemented in the standard Extended Map as a matter of course. Without his LCU/Aircraft functionality they would be just pretty icons in the grey area; but they would exist, in data, for functional implementation. I think this would work for everyone. I will do it forthwith. It won't hurt any ongoing games, because Juan's functionality it's just non-op bases and non-op base forces.

I would not do anything special for the Art. It's not important, and only makes for a difference (and bigger files) in Map Art downloads, which would only confuse people. Juan's bases and LCUs will show up where they are supposed to, on the usual Ext Map (and even the Stock Map) without any addl Art.

I will do this for all Babes right away.

@LST
Doing that would require new code that also links through to the whole PP system. Not sure Mike would want to go there just to make a few modders happy [8D] Whole idea with "convoy" based pool reinforcement was to give "income" some hills and valleys, instead of just being a "flat-line" always 10-per-month value. It works extremely well in an umpire-based system, where the ump can inject plasma, if needed, but not so much for a "grip-it-and-rip-it" standard GC game [8D]

JuanG has a good "Payment" based system going that looks very useful. For your mod, you might wish to consider Juan's approach. I will be putting the necessary infrastructure into all the appropriate Babes scenarios. Yes, I will make a changelog [:D]

Ciao all. JWE



PaxMondo -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/29/2014 9:07:09 PM)

Thanks John. It will be a nice addition.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/30/2014 12:58:57 AM)

Understood, John. Will use JuanG's excellent idea - just need to find some base slots (all used already in my mod to dot-base the CBI - choices, choices...)



Symon -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 3:24:53 PM)

Whoops, found a teensy problem. If you put the air-reinforce bases into the "Gray" area at the edges, you can mouse-over tham, but can't open them, or any units in them. To do that, you need to modify the pwhexe.dat file to place a "valid" hex type in each x:y location. This would introduce yet another pwhexe file to the pot .. not too goodnik, I'm thinking.

But wait !! Not only do you get a bug report with your order but, if you act now, you get a free, Yes! Free!, solution to this dilema .. the solution is suitable for treatment of teonail fungus, incontinence, the scroufula, and minor instances of erectile dysfunction.

I moved the base hex locations to the arctic wastelend, above where it says Arctic Ocean. Those white hexes are of "valid" type, so everything works as it should. No worries about arctic conditions because everything is '"static" anyway. If one wants an identifying background, one only need play with the Art. No new pwhexe.dat files. Makes life simpler, and allows one to 'rise' to the occasion, as it were, without too much effort. I'll post up a pic and a changelog, if this is of interest.

Ciao. J



Lecivius -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 3:28:43 PM)

I like the solution [;)]  I'll take it, it appearently corrects some of my problems (and I ain't sayin which ones!)



JuanG -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 4:03:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Whoops, found a teensy problem. If you put the air-reinforce bases into the "Gray" area at the edges, you can mouse-over tham, but can't open them, or any units in them. To do that, you need to modify the pwhexe.dat file to place a "valid" hex type in each x:y location. This would introduce yet another pwhexe file to the pot .. not too goodnik, I'm thinking.

But wait !! Not only do you get a bug report with your order but, if you act now, you get a free, Yes! Free!, solution to this dilema .. the solution is suitable for treatment of teonail fungus, incontinence, the scroufula, and minor instances of erectile dysfunction.

I moved the base hex locations to the arctic wastelend, above where it says Arctic Ocean. Those white hexes are of "valid" type, so everything works as it should. No worries about arctic conditions because everything is '"static" anyway. If one wants an identifying background, one only need play with the Art. No new pwhexe.dat files. Makes life simpler, and allows one to 'rise' to the occasion, as it were, without too much effort. I'll post up a pic and a changelog, if this is of interest.

Ciao. J


John,

I pointed out this 'problem' to Gary at the top of this page (and probably should have pointed out in the first post), and I sincerely do not see it as such.

Yes, you are correct in that, you can only get information from them via mouseover on map, and can't click them for direct access.

On the other hand, by naming them appropriately (hence why the names of the bases, even in the first post, are enclosed in brackets/parentheses ), they will always show up as the first entries in the 'Bases' list, which I think does two things. Firstly, it neatly sidesteps this 'problem' while still making them easy to find, and secondly, it also means that any action done to units based there is notably more 'deliberate' than otherwise, as it requires that extra step to access.

I did look at other places to base them, both on the existing pwhex file, and attempted to edit the hexes they now reside in, but ultimately decided against both, as I simply could not find a suitable location without creating an entirely new and in my honest opinion, much worse problem - allowing the groups to transfer 'out' onto the in-play map.

If the hexes you suggest moving them to are the ones above row 4 north of the 'Arctic Ocean' (ie inside the gray) then these are functionally no different to their current location from what I can tell.

If on the otherhand you mean the actual white tiles below row 4 in the same area, then it creates the problem I mentioned about allowing these groups, with airframes of sufficient range, to actually become functional, which I believe is much less desirable then the need for an extra step needed to access them, as it actually does the opposite.

You are of course free to pursue whatever solution you find best, but I believe the 'naming trick' is an elegant way to avoid the issue, and prevent other potential ones. I agree wholeheartedly that yet another set of pwhex files will just muddy the waters, but neither of these requires that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I like the solution [;)] I'll take it, it appearently corrects some of my problems (and I ain't sayin which ones!)


If you have issues with the setup as it was posted, then I'd love to hear them. The spirit of this thread and concept has been about debating and being open about the issues and potential this stuff brings to the table, so I would very much appreciate your thoughts if you believe there is something legitimately wrong.

Regards,
Juan



Symon -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 4:35:21 PM)

Let me guess, the dreaded toenail fungus? [8D] It's tested and it works. Juan, I try to keep things as unified as possible. We already have a bunch of different pwhexe files .. stock, extended, with SLs, without, new China roads. Adding another, for just this feature, might get confusing, so I tried to shoehorn it into a general map system. The new locations are in a place that one can find easily, has 'valid' hex coordinates, and is out of the way enough that it won't matter that those bases exist in a "holding pattern" environment if one plays a scenario without their functionality. But, then they are there if one wishes to use your system.

I do believe that people tend to download and use one particular set of environmentals .. stock or extended (SLs are an overlay). Once those environmentals are put into their game system, they would be more prone to play different scenarios that don't require them to change their environmentals. It's a philosophical thing that tries to make mods more inclusive and universally acceptable. Think of it as my attempt to gild your lovely lily.

Here's a pic. Everything works perfectly with a std ext map with sl and new China roads installation. Works perfectly with stock, stock, no-sl, stock, too. Brits are at 158:5, minors are at 166:5 all separated by 2 in x. Can return your Scen128 with modifications if you wish. Ciao. JWE
[image]local://upfiles/43462/D4B35CFE58AB4AD885924DE715DAF529.jpg[/image]



oldman45 -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 4:36:29 PM)

JuanG, the issues Lecivius is refering to is Johns' post, this part more importantly.

But wait !! Not only do you get a bug report with your order but, if you act now, you get a free, Yes! Free!, solution to this dilema .. the solution is suitable for treatment of teonail fungus, incontinence, the scroufula, and minor instances of erectile dysfunction.

It was a tongue in cheek comment [:)]



JuanG -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 4:43:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Let me guess, the dreaded toenail fungus? [8D] It's tested and it works. Juan, I try to keep things as unified as possible. We already have a bunch of different pwhexe files .. stock, extended, with SLs, without, new China roads. Adding another, for just this feature, might get confusing, so I tried to shoehorn it into a general map system. The new locations are in a place that one can find easily, has 'valid' hex coordinates, and is out of the way enough that it won't matter that those bases exist in a "holding pattern" environment if one plays a scenario without their functionality. But, then they are there if one wishes to use your system.

I do believe that people tend to download and use one particular set of environmentals .. stock or extended (SLs are an overlay). Once those environmentals are put into their game system, they would be more prone to play different scenarios that don't require them to change their environmentals. It's a philosophical thing that tries to make mods more inclusive and universally acceptable. Think of it as my attempt to gild your lovely lily.

Here's a pic. Everything works perfectly with a std ext map with sl and new China roads installation. Works perfectly with stock, stock, no-sl, stock, too.

[image]local://upfiles/43462/D4B35CFE58AB4AD885924DE715DAF529.jpg[/image]


As said, this positioning does allow aircraft to transfer out of them and between them, which to me is not desirable (or rather is less desirable than the access problem, which as I've pointed out is not really a problem).

Their positioning off-map works equally well be it on the base map, or the extended map with or without stacking limits. They do not require extra artwork either, though mods that include other changes beyond extended map could potentially include some. I built the original example for the base map and when I reworked it for Scen 28 and 29 DBB-C it worked seamlessly.

I also just find their placement near the continental US to be handy administratively - its an area you will look at a lot as an allied player, while the arctic is not.

Ultimately it comes down to what you see as the bigger potential issue - the 'difficulty' of accessing them via an additional screen or the potential for airgroups that are meant to be totally non-operational to be moved on-map. I know which is my answer, but as I said you are free to pursue your own. They are not mutually exclusive after all, as the same pwhex and map assets will support both.

Regards,
Juan


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

JuanG, the issues Lecivius is refering to is Johns' post, this part more importantly.

But wait !! Not only do you get a bug report with your order but, if you act now, you get a free, Yes! Free!, solution to this dilema .. the solution is suitable for treatment of teonail fungus, incontinence, the scroufula, and minor instances of erectile dysfunction.

It was a tongue in cheek comment [:)]



Ah, that went totally over my head, my apologies for that. I was curious (and a little worried) that he had found something fundementally wrong with the whole concept.



Symon -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 4:58:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
If you have issues with the setup as it was posted, then I'd love to hear them. The spirit of this thread and concept has been about debating and being open about the issues and potential this stuff brings to the table, so I would very much appreciate your thoughts if you believe there is something legitimately wrong.

Regards,
Juan

Juan, I am derperately sorry if my post gave you offense. I was poking fun at American television commercials. Should have realized it might not have resonated outside the US. I meant no disrespect. Please believe that some of the light hearted stuff is directed more at ourselves, and not at anyone else.

I've tried to put my comments in context. Please ignore the silly interlineations. You are too much of a contributor and too much of a friend to let this pass without my abject apology for causing you concern.

[ed] I agree with your concept. I am only trying to get it accepted in a universal system.
[ed,ed] I will stop doing anything that might interfere with your system, and not implement it unless it is in your form and format. Again, please accept my appologies.

Your friend, JWE



Lecivius -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 7:04:27 PM)

Sorry [:(]



JuanG -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (3/31/2014 8:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
If you have issues with the setup as it was posted, then I'd love to hear them. The spirit of this thread and concept has been about debating and being open about the issues and potential this stuff brings to the table, so I would very much appreciate your thoughts if you believe there is something legitimately wrong.

Regards,
Juan

Juan, I am derperately sorry if my post gave you offense. I was poking fun at American television commercials. Should have realized it might not have resonated outside the US. I meant no disrespect. Please believe that some of the light hearted stuff is directed more at ourselves, and not at anyone else.

I've tried to put my comments in context. Please ignore the silly interlineations. You are too much of a contributor and too much of a friend to let this pass without my abject apology for causing you concern.

[ed] I agree with your concept. I am only trying to get it accepted in a universal system.
[ed,ed] I will stop doing anything that might interfere with your system, and not implement it unless it is in your form and format. Again, please accept my appologies.

Your friend, JWE


John, absolutely no apologies are necessary. I'm not exactly the type to catch on to more subtle humour and hints in the first place, and by no means was I offended by anything you've said or suggested. I reckon its likely I would have missed the context even if I lived in the US, given my track record. [:D]

I have no qualms with your approach, as said they are just two different (but not mutually exclsive) ways to implement what is ultimately a new and experimental concept - I may favour, and be more likely to use my own one for the aforementioned reasons (mainly that it ensures that these are very clearly 'compartmentalized' into a part of the map that cannot interact with anything), but that does not mean I do not see the merits in doing it another way, or that others might prefer that approach.

Ultimately it just comes down to different viewpoints or priorities in how it should be approached, and honestly until this is actually tested and used as part of a game, to be objective I have no idea which is the better or more preferred way from a players point of view. If anything the fact that you disagree and think there is a better way to do things has given me a reason to take a deeper look at this and other potential approaches and their trade offs, and that is something I can only thank you for.

To be frank I'm honoured you took the time and effort to look at something this 'off the wall' and would consider using it as some small part of DaBabes. As I have said from the start, this thread started as what amounts to as a brainstorming session for me, and I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing anything they want with the ideas presented herein.

I also have to extend my apologies for any confusion my responses have caused, as re-reading them in hindsight I can potentially see the potential for that (especially given the fairly rapid rate at which many of the comments were made and responded to). It was certainly not my intention, and as said I appreciate you contributing your time and experience to this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Sorry [:(]


Likewise, not necessary! As said the context went right over my head (thanks to oldman45 for setting me straight on that!), so if anything I should apologize for my defensive reaction - like I said earlier I was honestly concerned that there might have been something big I was totally overlooking that would have made this unworkable, and was maybe a little too zealous in my inquiries as to what.



John 3rd -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/1/2014 3:52:37 AM)

Once you guys have come to an agreement and we have this ready, I will use it for the Mod work I've discussed. Don't want to seriously invest time and effort prior to this being settled. TOTAL faith in you two to get it settled, figured, and ready to go!



PaxMondo -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/1/2014 5:03:29 AM)

I'm leaning towards Juan's approach for the reason he stated: the units and devices cannot be accidently moved. You have to have real intention to do it ... appropriately so. My issue is: Will I remember HOW to do it?

[X(][X(][X(]



John 3rd -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/1/2014 6:03:10 AM)

...what he said!

Totally agree, however, I see real potential here to be able to solve a long-term issue Allied players face while still making it costly. Add what we're talking about in the other thread and there might be one heck of a fun role for the Allied players to enjoy.



moore4807 -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/7/2014 5:59:16 PM)

+1

And as one of the responsible parties for "blowing this up" on the other thread - my sincerest THANK YOU for all of you working and making this become a reality...

Rookie slips back into anonymous mode...




John 3rd -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/7/2014 7:22:47 PM)

Juan--JWE:

Can I go with what has been done or should I wait for you guys? Juan sent me 20c with the changes but I want to know if I should wait longer for anything else?



btd64 -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/7/2014 9:19:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I'm leaning towards Juan's approach for the reason he stated: the units and devices cannot be accidently moved. You have to have real intention to do it ... appropriately so. My issue is: Will I remember HOW to do it?

[X(][X(][X(]


Here Here. Can't wait to try it. GOOD WORK GUYS.[&o][&o][&o]



Sardaukar -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/8/2014 9:29:11 AM)

Brilliant!!!

[&o]



Symon -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/8/2014 12:59:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Juan--JWE:

Can I go with what has been done or should I wait for you guys? Juan sent me 20c with the changes but I want to know if I should wait longer for anything else?

For my part, John, go ahead. The additions to Babes will be exactly as JuanG proposes. So whatever Juan says. Ciao J.



John 3rd -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/11/2014 10:13:07 PM)

OK. I shall move forward with this project.



urtel -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/28/2014 7:17:25 PM)

I m not really into modding or anything but have little idea if u have problem with planes flying off from this "arctic bases" set base airfield size to 0(0) and they will not fly anywhere...and if u not put any engineers there then base will always be 0(0)...no flying from it, just disband and that is functionality you look for, me think ...



JuanG -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/28/2014 7:35:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: urtel

I m not really into modding or anything but have little idea if u have problem with planes flying off from this "arctic bases" set base airfield size to 0(0) and they will not fly anywhere...and if u not put any engineers there then base will always be 0(0)...no flying from it, just disband and that is functionality you look for, me think ...


Unfortunately, aircraft can still fly out of a 0(0) base, just not into one. So long ranged groups like B-17s are still able to transfer onto the map if placed there.

In addition, there must at the very least be an Aviation Support 'engineer' unit at the base, otherwise the aircraft will degrade into the damaged/maintenance state. This is bad because when you order them to disband to 'release' them, only the undamaged airframes are added to the pool.



PaxMondo -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/29/2014 12:31:35 AM)

Juan,

So, I just need to download the graphic files for this right? Then, really it is just updating the data files to add the bases and then the units into those bases.



JuanG -> RE: Concept - Allied Aircraft 'Purchases' (4/29/2014 1:23:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Juan,

So, I just need to download the graphic files for this right? Then, really it is just updating the data files to add the bases and then the units into those bases.


There are no graphic files by me released at the moment. If you'd like I can upload the ones I've used in the examples above, but its rather straightforward to make your own. As Symon pointed out however, its probably better to just use the normal map as it just adds more files to juggle, and doesn't really add all that much.

Apart from that, there are the two variants I've uploaded based on DBB templates, but making your own is rather easy (see instruction on post #33), or, if you let me know what scenario template you'd like one done for I can make one and upload it with those 'basic' changes added.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5625