RE: Black Tiger

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: Black Tiger

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] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Black Tiger

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Black Tiger - 9/16/2015 5:20:54 PM

kgambit

Posts: 72
Joined: 1/9/2015
Status: offline

Just finished parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 (part 4 is still in progress). Great set of scenarios. Finished part 5 in less than 2.5 days with a Triumph - over 1400 points with minimal US casualties and zero Iranian units left on the map. Got both Iranian subs too. I debated long and hard about whether to follow the last order in the manner dictated or take out those targets using other means. In the end, I let the missiles fly.

Ran into two issues in BT5:

1) Repeating event trigger for the Black Tiger Intercept mission - kept repeating this every minute: Event: "Black Tiger Intercept goes active" has been fired.

The repeating message didn't begin until the four southern most airfields were destroyed. Saving and reloading didn't clear the problem. Before that the message would only fire once when I first reloaded from a save game, Turning off the event messages at least cleared the message log. This is the same problem Gunner saw but with a different event.

2) "Aircraft parking facilities at NAS Bandar Abbas / Havardarya Airport are overfilled. Please contact the scenario designer .... "

The message occurred for all 4 of the southern airfields. They stopped triggering when the Airfields were destroyed .... lol. Fwiw, I see this message occurring regularly in numerous scenarios if I start destroying aircraft parking facilities. It never causes the scenario to crash or become unplayable however.

< Message edited by kgambit -- 9/16/2015 6:29:18 PM >

(in reply to mikeCK)