I agree with Kushan. You should be using either QGIS or SAS.Planet for custom overlays. I regularly use QGIS. There might be a bit of a learning curve. If all you want to do is create custom overlays you should be able to start making them fairly quickly. There might some instructions already posted ...

After another interesting trial and error session with the AI, this code seems to be successful.

May you try it?


As you have seen, the code runs successfully, but attaches a Grave Stone to TEL 6 allowing just TEL 6 to launch. It does not connect the Grave Stone that is attached to the Command ...

I've passed the scenario. In the end I had to do a bit of micro to make sure assigned aircraft hit targets, as quite a few would do one pass without dropping. But unassigning them and manually targeting both occupied revetments and hangars seems to have paid off.

Thanks for all the help everyone ...

Thanks for the quick response.

There has been some conversation about this recently on Discord and Dimitris suggested a post to the Tech Forum in the event that the devs might want to take a look. So here goes.

I have experimented with trying to create a functioning SAM site that is made up of individual units and grouped ...

One thing I'm not too sure about, I do my recce work on a couple of airfields to the west. After this I update the target list for my strikes to hit the occupied revetments. But, these flights are already planned and sometimes in the air. To add these new targets do I need to regenerate the flight ...

There is also an Air Campaign book published by Osprey. Can be previewed in Google books.

I wonder if the astonishing results the Israeli side managed to get in the war, can be accomplished in the scenario, anyone?


I have that book. It does have some good information for the Israeli strike ...

I haven't played this one for a while, but it is one of my favorite scenarios. IIRC I have never gotten more than 500 points. Very challenging scenario and a good one to learn how to manage multiple strikes. Time to revisit and play it with the latest build.

Jeffrey Pelt: Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull?
Ambassador ...

Nikel wrote: Wed May 13, 2026 2:36 pm There is a P Gatcomb tutorial explaining those numbers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc4pohpgRmU

Just watched that video. Thanks for posting it.

I've seen in scripts ships referred by the codes shown in the example below:

Chinese Type 054A Frigate (2495_4928|17470 and 2495_3731|5431)

Thanks.


Off the top of my head I can't tell what those numbers might be referring too from that snippet. It you post the script the snippet came from it ...

thewood1 wrote: Mon May 04, 2026 11:57 am I think its not just the browser. Its the security settings on the browser. There is a difference between Chrome defaults and Edge.

That makes sense. I don't typically use Edge but, for downloading 1852 it worked fine.

As a practical, technical and mission-relevant matter, what do people think of this? Unclear if these will ever get built, but the stated goal is two of them by 2028. Are we entering a new golden age for the battleship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-class_battleship


I don’t believe ship ...

So this is resolved ?


No. I don't believe it's resolved. It is my understanding that the GBI based in Alaska should be able to engage the incoming ICBM. The manual launch panel just indicates unable to intercept without a reason. The California based GBI can intercept the ICBM but, seems to ...

Tested in B1852 with db v516, the GBI interceptors will turn now to impact the incoming missile. So it is fixed.

Tested also in the new build, without updating the db of the scenario, and the turn may happen or not.


I don't think this is fixed. The site in Alaska should be engaging that ICBM ...

Tested in B1852 with db v516, the GBI interceptors will turn now to impact the incoming missile. So it is fixed.

Tested also in the new build, without updating the db of the scenario, and the turn may happen or not.


I don't think this is fixed. The site in Alaska should be engaging that ICBM ...

So this is resolved ?


No. I don't believe it's resolved. It is my understanding that the GBI based in Alaska should be able to engage the incoming ICBM. The manual launch panel just indicates unable to intercept without a reason. The California based GBI can intercept the ICBM but, seems to me ...

The GBI in Alaska still don't launch. Issue with the GBI and LRDR stills exists.


I noticed that it will fire if you remove the second GBI unit.

It is more effective though in the last build and with the updated db. There is a final sprint to impact the missile :)


That's interesting ...

Nikel wrote: Mon Apr 27, 2026 4:03 pm
Hi Mark.

Note that I am talking about B1852, the last beta.

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=416771

My bad. I see that now. Thanks!

The NK missile impacts on the Cobra Dane radar in the Aleutian islands, instead of the Pentagon that is the target in the mission, a new bug?


That's weird. I downloaded the version posted here to the forum and played it in v1.09 Build 1825.15 and the NK missile goes for the Pentagon not the ...