Scenario Approval Discussion

Discuss and post your mods and scenarios here for others to download.

Moderator: Vic

User avatar
IRONCROM
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by IRONCROM »

 Hi Guys.
 
I'm totally satisfied with Knight's scenario. They don't get more stable than that.
 
 My vote is to approve...
 
Rick if your good with the scenario we don't need to continue. I know you got a lot of things going on.
I'm just playing for fun now.[:D]... Come to think of it I'm always just playing for fun.
 
 How about you Bull? Have you had a chance to look at it yet?
rickier65
Posts: 14253
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by rickier65 »



I agree I think it looks solid. Approve whenever youre confortable. I'm fine to continue the game unless you would rather not.

I'm hoping to finish up Murat30's Diplomacy Napolean sometime today. I'd like you guys to to take a look after I finish. (I'll change version number in sandbox). I'll let you know when I upload it.

Rick
alaric318
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:45 am

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by alaric318 »

ORIGINAL: Rick



Murat30,

I've just about got this taken care of. Got rid of the crash to desktop, but need to fix up the event card and the event. I'll have the event card add swedish navy to stockholm.

I'll also flag scenario as human only. And I'll edit the narrative to remove warning about the peace option.

I'll let you know before I upload the revised one. And I'll upload it to the sandbox for folks to test.

Rick

thanks for all support on the scenario, is for me a privilege to have people as you on board, think that can speak about all people around, hope that people like the scenario and play it and enjoy, last days i do not have get much time "free" and have been consuming time on other things, anyway i do not success or achieve to fix the error by myself, thanks both for update the info on the scenario and for fix it,

with best regards,

murat30.
There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

The War for Eldorado by Iron Knight is a nicely balanced scenario and one which I may like to spend more time on in the future.
 
I have no objections to you approving as per your comments above.
 
Thanks.
 
Bulldog
rickier65
Posts: 14253
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by rickier65 »

I've just uploaded the final version of the Salerno VI Corp (v12)to the Waiting for Approval Area on the community site. Made very minor changes, added and truck to American Divisional Artillery and made a few addtional notes in the briefing.

Bulldog and Ironcrom, I'll let you two check this one out and approve if you don't mind.

Rick
User avatar
IRONCROM
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by IRONCROM »

No problem Rick. I have been anxiously awaiting your new version.[:D]
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

I will check this out tonight...
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

I have been playing the Salerno scenario till I won as Germany against AI+1. I like the way the map has the valleys surrounded by hills to create the only corridors that the allies can come down. An unusual but effective thing I noticed was having lots of small German units. Usually I have units of around 40 rifles and accompanying support units but the small units usually of only 15 rifles and support was nice and it allowed a lot of flexibility in deploying the troops to stop the americans spreading out from the beach. Nice events to reinforce HQ and bring in more units. I did not notice any bugs in the game which went smoothly till the end. If I did have to gripe about something it was that it was a bit short, but perhaps the battle was short (don't know much about that particular battle), also the engineers numbered only 10 per unit and the turns were not long enough to get them to reach 150 points to build a fortification so I am not sure of their usefulness?[/align] [/align]I have no objections to approving this scenario, its a nice little game if you are short on time, quite enjoyed it.[/align] [/align] [/align] [/align]
rickier65
Posts: 14253
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by rickier65 »

ORIGINAL: BULLDOGINTHEUK

I have been playing the Salerno scenario till I won as Germany against AI+1. I like the way the map has the valleys surrounded by hills to create the only corridors that the allies can come down. An unusual but effective thing I noticed was having lots of small German units. Usually I have units of around 40 rifles and accompanying support units but the small units usually of only 15 rifles and support was nice and it allowed a lot of flexibility in deploying the troops to stop the americans spreading out from the beach. Nice events to reinforce HQ and bring in more units. I did not notice any bugs in the game which went smoothly till the end. If I did have one thing to gripe about was that it was a bit short, but perhaps the battle was short (don't know much about that particular battle). [/align] [/align]I have no objections to approving this scenario, its a nice little game if you are short on time.[/align] [/align] [/align] [/align]


Bulldog, thanks for comments. And yes, the actual battle was short. In fact I might have tacked on a couple of extra days in my "interpretation" just to lengthen it out. I was actually looking to build a short quick battle that could be used to lure in some folks who wanted more "historical" scenarios. (And I was also learning the editor - so it worked for me)

Thnks,
Rick
User avatar
IRONCROM
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by IRONCROM »

 Alright, I had a chance to check out Salerno again and as before it looks good to go.
 
My vote is for approval.
 
P.S. thanx for adding the extra trucks to the latter round allied artillery Rick.[;)]
User avatar
IRONCROM
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by IRONCROM »

@Bulldog
 
How's your star drek testing going?
 
I haven't really given it a good look yet. I was waiting to give you some time in case you need to make some changes first.
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

I am going to put the Trek Mod in Sandbox for now as we have a problem with Womulan PP an supply on turn 1. It is not a game killer but needs fixing.[/align]
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

Vic helped me with the problem I was having with the Trek Mod (as usual it was a simple error) and I have now posted version 1.3 on the AT community site. [/align] [/align]It is ready for your critical eyes now for approval if you all feel its okay.[/align] [/align]Let me know. [/align] [/align]Thanks[/align]
rickier65
Posts: 14253
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by rickier65 »

Bulldog,

I'll check this out later tonight.

Rick
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

Make sure you download the new 1.4 version as otherwise the research will not work.[/align] [/align]Thanks.[/align]
User avatar
Barthheart
Posts: 3080
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Nepean, Ontario

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by Barthheart »

Guys,

Can I suggest that you request/require people to put the version number of their mod in the filename AND in the scenario briefing. Makes it easier for all to know which version is being played.

My $0.02
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
rickier65
Posts: 14253
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by rickier65 »

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

Guys,

Can I suggest that you request/require people to put the version number of their mod in the filename AND in the scenario briefing. Makes it easier for all to know which version is being played.

My $0.02

Thats a excellent idea!

Rick
User avatar
BULLDOGINTHEUK
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by BULLDOGINTHEUK »

Alreadt tried this. I tried calling the filename StarDrek1.20 etc but it would not upload for some strange reason. Could be the full stop? or perhaps it only accepts words, not numbers?
User avatar
Barthheart
Posts: 3080
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Nepean, Ontario

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by Barthheart »

It's the full stop. Use underscore ie StarDrek_v1_2.pt2 or whole numbers only ie StarDrek_v12.pt2.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
User avatar
IRONCROM
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

RE: Scenario Approval Discussion - WaW3.2

Post by IRONCROM »

Learn something new everyday.[:D]
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”