Do any scenarios written by Mark Gellis need corrections, updates, etc.?

[Mgellis]

I am probably going to regret doing this..

As many of you know, I've written a few scenarios for Command over the years. I imagine some of them are a little out of date, or perhaps have issues or errors that were not obvious when I first submitted them to the Community Scenario Pack.

I would like to do something about this. I want the scenarios I write for Command to be as good as I can make them.

If you have played any of my scenarios and found something you think needs to be fixed, please use this thread to let me know. While I can't promise to tackle them immediately, and I reserve the right to say, "No, I meant to do that," I promise to get around to them as soon as I can. I will repair the scenario and post a new version to the Community Scenario Pack when I am able to do so. Or, if I think it would be better to do this instead, I will write a new version of the scenario and post that.

Please let me know which scenarios need to be corrected and/or revised.

Thanks in advance.

[schweggy]

I haven't looked, but if not already done perhaps update to the most current DB? I've updated some of the homebrewed scenarios I've created and I know that sometimes units I've selected in the original are not available in the updated DB. Or there are other incompatibilities that require some modifications. When the AI side gets irreparably broken with an update I almost want to give up and just start fresh.

[Kushan04]

I haven't looked, but if not already done perhaps update to the most current DB? I've updated some of the homebrewed scenarios I've created and I know that sometimes units I've selected in the original are not available in the updated DB. Or there are other incompatibilities that require some modifications. When the AI side gets irreparably broken with an update I almost want to give up and just start fresh.

There should never be a missing unit DBID. Our DB team never deletes DBIDs. In extreme cases they may reassigned to a similar unit and sometimes a loadout will be renamed/removed. Both of those sound different then what you are describing.

[gregb41352]

I'm not sure about the answer to the question but Mark's scenarios are always fantastic.
Thanks Mark.

[caelunshun]

There should never be a missing unit DBID. Our DB team never deletes DBIDs. In extreme cases they may reassigned to a similar unit and sometimes a loadout will be renamed/removed. Both of those sound different then what you are describing.

I've had scenarios fail to upgrade to the latest DB (e.g. from 504 to 508) because of "missing platforms" for China. I'm assuming this is due to the China national review. If this isn't intended then I can post a bug report about it.

[Kushan04]

I've had scenarios fail to upgrade to the latest DB (e.g. from 504 to 508) because of "missing platforms" for China. I'm assuming this is due to the China national review. If this isn't intended then I can post a bug report about it.

You should be reporting these because that shouldn't be happening.

Sorry to hijack your thread Mark.

[schweggy]

I haven't looked, but if not already done perhaps update to the most current DB? I've updated some of the homebrewed scenarios I've created and I know that sometimes units I've selected in the original are not available in the updated DB. Or there are other incompatibilities that require some modifications. When the AI side gets irreparably broken with an update I almost want to give up and just start fresh.

There should never be a missing unit DBID. Our DB team never deletes DBIDs. In extreme cases they may reassigned to a similar unit and sometimes a loadout will be renamed/removed. Both of those sound different then what you are describing.

You're correct. I meant the load out might not be available.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I am probably going to regret doing this..

As many of you know, I've written a few scenarios for Command over the years. I imagine some of them are a little out of date, or perhaps have issues or errors that were not obvious when I first submitted them to the Community Scenario Pack.

I would like to do something about this. I want the scenarios I write for Command to be as good as I can make them.

If you have played any of my scenarios and found something you think needs to be fixed, please use this thread to let me know. While I can't promise to tackle them immediately, and I reserve the right to say, "No, I meant to do that," I promise to get around to them as soon as I can. I will repair the scenario and post a new version to the Community Scenario Pack when I am able to do so. Or, if I think it would be better to do this instead, I will write a new version of the scenario and post that.

Please let me know which scenarios need to be corrected and/or revised.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Mark,

Apologies for the delay on this, but I do have one scenario of yours that should have a correction. This is for an issue that no doubt came about from the years of DB updates.

Caribbean Task Force Ruby 1963

The 8x F-8 Crusaders available at Key West are in need of replacing and the base's magazine needs ammo.
I took the liberty of making the changes to my copy of the scenario (attached, from the latest CSP). so you can use mine or base a correction you feel best on what I did:

The F-8s that were there were F-8Ms that don't work for this scenario for two reasons:
1) They're a hypothetical unit that actually has a start year of 1965, when the scenario is in 1963

2) They don't support the "AIM-9B Sidewinder-Light" loadout that they are equipped with. The only loadouts this F-8M has that carry AAMs also carry iron bombs, so this is a dedicated strike variant rather than the A2A role that's needed for the scenario

Therefore, I replaced the F-8Ms with Circa 1959-66 F-8Cs (USN) and gave them default loadouts of AIM-9Bs/AIM-9Cs


On top of this, Key West's magazine was empty, so I added a supply of AIM-9Bs and AIM-9Cs