Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette

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 >> Tech Support >> Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette - 2/20/2018 10:10:18 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

Is there a reason why that sometimes when you start a new game, that the assigned Air Group Commander is some random Jamoke and not the one specified in the scenario editor?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

Post #: 1

RE: Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette - 2/20/2018 10:14:05 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Yes, but I don't know what it is.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 2

RE: Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette - 2/21/2018 12:13:14 PM

Rafid

Posts: 130
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

I don't know if this is causing your specific problem, but I found out a while ago that some leaders are assigned to more than one post. In this case the first unit/air group/ship (by ID number) gets the leader and all subsequent units/air groups/ships get a random leader instead. This even happens when withdrawl and reinforcement dates make it possible for the same leader to lead both units (e.g. the first withdraws before the second appears). For this reason there are technically two MacArthurs (same stats and name, but different IDs) in most scenarios, the first leads USAFFE and the second leads Southwest Pacific HQ when it appears.

This points to a simple fact: The "scenario start algorithm" is allowed to overrule the scenario editor in some areas it feels are inconsistent.

I didn't cheeck the following, but could play into your problem:
- What happens if a pilot is also a leader and the pilot and leader are assigned to two different air groups?
- What happens if the same leader is assigned two different types of command (e.g. an airgroup and a ship)?

< Message edited by Rafid -- 2/21/2018 12:14:14 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 3

RE: Carrier Based A/G Commander Roulette - 2/23/2018 10:14:53 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

I had that same thought, but no, it's happening regardless of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafid

I don't know if this is causing your specific problem, but I found out a while ago that some leaders are assigned to more than one post. In this case the first unit/air group/ship (by ID number) gets the leader and all subsequent units/air groups/ships get a random leader instead. This even happens when withdrawl and reinforcement dates make it possible for the same leader to lead both units (e.g. the first withdraws before the second appears). For this reason there are technically two MacArthurs (same stats and name, but different IDs) in most scenarios, the first leads USAFFE and the second leads Southwest Pacific HQ when it appears.

This points to a simple fact: The "scenario start algorithm" is allowed to overrule the scenario editor in some areas it feels are inconsistent.

I didn't cheeck the following, but could play into your problem:
- What happens if a pilot is also a leader and the pilot and leader are assigned to two different air groups?
- What happens if the same leader is assigned two different types of command (e.g. an airgroup and a ship)?

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Rafid)

Post #: 4