Sea Kings are dead in latest

[zovs66]

I may go back to this point in time, and fix the broken units in scenhack since you jiggered my mind on how to hack it. And then just start over on turn 1.

[DRG]

It would restart the turn count. It's that, or deleting the whole campaign or living with weird SeaKing graphics. I have no idea how it will handle the next battle in the campaign either


I did find and fix the VC unit with HE and HEAT but I had loaded a different save that just happened to have VC

No idea why it showed an error on the M48 unless that was the damage you said should be showing...... any unit that showed results different than the OOB would be flagged. It's why when scenario designers get " creative " with units fixing them or not has to be taken on a case by case basis

[Suhiir]

The "problem" was according to the documentation naval guns MUST be listed sequentially in the Units file from smallest to largest.

The adoption of the Mk 45 mod 4 (5in/62) in 2000 needed to be added.

As a side note the CH-53 SHOULD NOT be used as an "assault" helo, that's what the CH-46 (now V-22) is for. They dramatically outnumber the 53 in the real USMC inventory. The CH-53 is primarily a cargo/artillery/vehicle hauler and to "valuable" to be used in air assaults.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The "problem" was according to the documentation naval guns MUST be listed sequentially in the Units file from smallest to largest.

The adoption of the Mk 45 mod 4 (5in/62) in 2000 needed to be added.

In which case, the existing block of naval guns should have been renationalised and the names changed perhaps to add a *. Then the brand new block of guns with the extra one inserted could have been laid down in an available block of free slots (9?) - of which there appear to be several such runs still available in the USMC OOB. Then the pick list start ID would need changing to point to the new number for the start of the new block and the number of guns item to have +1 added. And finally, the Formation Templates would need changed to point to one of the new block. Fiddly, but doable without nuking existing scenarios!.

Simply changing random existing units, which may well be used in scenarios and user's save games is not at all looked favourably upon because of the existing scenario/ongoing save game problem highlighted here by the end user's problem. Such games will have thier data overriden with the changed data as seen here!. In crowded OOBs where this has to be done for some reason then we have to manually find all scenarios (including those wrapped up in user campaigns!) and individually fix those. However, any end user with a save game based on the OOB, or an existing game or scenario in progress - will have that toasted since we cannot fix them for the individual end user. Unless of course, the renationalisation happened, as described previously - the renationalisation is precisely to allow for such existing end user saved games to continue!.

IF we had been informed of this in advance then we could have simply sorted it out using the aforementioned techniques. However, the OOB went out without any such necessary remedial work because we werent informed of this so-called "problem". That is double plus ungood!.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

IF we had been informed of this in advance then we could have simply sorted it out using the aforementioned techniques. However, the OOB went out without any such necessary remedial work because we werent informed of this so-called "problem". That is double plus ungood!.

My bad, freely admitted.
I just wanted to explain why it happened.