Is the Changjiang Strike scenario bugged?

[Luckschaden]

First of all, in the Side Briefing it says:
"The B-2s will be taking off from Andersen AFB at 1020PM GMT and arrive over Hainan Island at approximately 0250AM GMT. They will be under your operational command for the duration of this mission."
and there is indeed a mission for two b2 that is set to start at 22:15....
... however, the scenario is set to automatically end by 18:00 Zulu time. So the mission never even triggers.

Furthermore, the scenario seems outdated, in that it tells you that it gives you points for knocking out runways, but the trigger does indeed require the destruction of the runway, which is not possible in the current version of the game.

This makes the scoring a bit brutal, because losing a single aircraft costs tons of points, while destroying enemy ones doesn't count at all - and since getting the points for the B2 strike or the runway knock outs is not possible, the scenario is a bit broken.

[thewood1]

1) How old is that version of the scenario?
2) Did you try reaching out to the scenario author?
3) Might want to post in the Scenario threads
4) There might even be a thread for that particular scenario if you do a search. You can then put the feedback in the thread.

These are community scenarios. Some get updated, some don't. Its best to the let the author know directly that there might be issues with the scenario.

[Randomizer]

To be fair there is no author contact info or attribution in the scenario description or briefing. That said there is also zero reason not to create missions from scratch and the Launch Box mission as written causes the USS Georgia to go to periscope depth and cruise speed (although you can fix this easily enough in the mission builder). Scoring should be brutal and from here, the scenario seems fine with a bit of mission tweaking or entirely new missions.

-C

[thewood1]

Wasn't too hard to find...POAW. You can PM him. If he's not around feel free to fix it.

[Luckschaden]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

To be fair there is no author contact info or attribution in the scenario description or briefing. That said there is also zero reason not to create missions from scratch and the Launch Box mission as written causes the USS Georgia to go to periscope depth and cruise speed (although you can fix this easily enough in the mission builder). Scoring should be brutal and from here, the scenario seems fine with a bit of mission tweaking or entirely new missions.

-C

I don't mind brutal scoring. But from looking at the triggers and such, it seems that there are a good amount of points that are simply unobtainable.

The launch box is a bit unrealistic, but there seems to be zero ASW threat, so it doesn't matter much for the mission.

[Luckschaden]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

1) How old is that version of the scenario?
2) Did you try reaching out to the scenario author?
3) Might want to post in the Scenario threads
4) There might even be a thread for that particular scenario if you do a search. You can then put the feedback in the thread.

These are community scenarios. Some get updated, some don't. Its best to the let the author know directly that there might be issues with the scenario.

1) It's from the latest community pack, if I am not mistaken.
2) No
3) The description of that subforum says: "Post new mods and scenarios here", so i thought that wouldn't be the right place to post.


I do get that these are community made, but I wrongly assumed that the community pack would only feature scenarios that are still compatible with the current CMANO version. Which I wouldn't count this one as being, because (unless I am misreading it) one trigger literally checks whether runways are completely destroyed before giving you points which is not possible in CMANO anymore.


I mean I do love to community content, and I am grateful, but from a user perspective, it is a bit annoying to go through the endless and cluttered scenario selection, find one that you are interested in, spend time to devise a plan, spend time to execute said plan, only to discover that the scenario is utterly broken.
Sure, I guess I could look at everything in the editor first, but that spoils everything.

[thewood1]

If its that much of a bother, don't download the package. The authors all post their scenarios separately outside the pack. So save yourself the aggravation and not "spoiling" your experience, just download recent scenarios as they are posted in scenario thread.

By the the NEW designation does mean that. But every scenario starts out new. Providing feedback there is a good way to catch an author if they are still around. The key is if they are still around.

[Luckschaden]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

If its that much of a bother, don't download the package. The authors all post their scenarios separately outside the pack. So save yourself the aggravation and not "spoiling" your experience, just download recent scenarios as they are posted in scenario thread.

Did I offend you somehow?

I mean, I guess I should rather stop asking for advice on the forums, if that's the sort of response I get.
If you don't consider it "spoiling" if you have to look at the scenarios triggers and events to figure out whether its compatible with the current version, then good for you.

[thewood1]

Not offended at all. My advice stands. If it bothers you to sort through all the scenarios at risk of not functioning, either reach out to the author or don't download the pack. You can download only recent scenarios. If that is too much of a bother, I am not sure what your point is.

[BrianinMinnie]

Please Luck, don’t think that Wood represents the typical response you'll get in these forums, he's just a tad abrupt and thorny, and if one can fend off the frontal assault he tends to give good advice\analysis.

[stilesw]

Luckschaden,

Good points from BrianinMinnie. Most CMANO forum members are very ready to help with things when they can.

Good points to remember:

1. Try to find answers through available provided resources.
2. CMANO documentation (can be thin).
3. Forum searches (not the best search engine but can help).
4. online Lua reference (http://commandlua.github.io/).

When asking questions on the forum provide, if possible the items below. Note, all this information can be included in a .zip file for uploading.

1. Scenarios and/or save games.
2. Specific code examples.
3. Error messages (screen shots are great).
4. Info on your specific CMANO release and DB (i.e. B972.12, DB3k_468).

All this will show you are trying to find answers yourself and pretty much ensure that you will get a response to your question.

Hope this helps,

-Wayne Stiles

[Luckschaden]

ORIGINAL: stilesw

Luckschaden,

Good points from BrianinMinnie. Most CMANO forum members are very ready to help with things when they can.

Good points to remember:

1. Try to find answers through available provided resources.
2. CMANO documentation (can be thin).
3. Forum searches (not the best search engine but can help).
4. online Lua reference (http://commandlua.github.io/).

When asking questions on the forum provide, if possible the items below. Note, all this information can be included in a .zip file for uploading.

1. Scenarios and/or save games.
2. Specific code examples.
3. Error messages (screen shots are great).
4. Info on your specific CMANO release and DB (i.e. B972.12, DB3k_468).

All this will show you are trying to find answers yourself and pretty much ensure that you will get a response to your question.

Hope this helps,

-Wayne Stiles

Hi Wayne,

I appreciate the thought, but in posting such a list you seem to be implying that I did not do at least one of those things, so could you give me a more specific hint?

I did read a good amount of CMANO resources, and thus I (think I) know that runways cannot be fully destroyed by non-nuclear means anymore. Not sure how a lua reference could help me further in this case. The forum search engine has proven a bit meh to me before, and given that scenario appears to be old (because it assumes that runways could be fully destroyed when it was released), I thought it'd be more useful to make a new thread to ask whether I am missing something or it is indeed broken.

I don't think a save game would be useful at all here, and how does posting the scenario help if it is from the most recent community pack? Reuploading it here would be confusing and/or pointless.

There aren't any error messages in this case.

I am using the most recent steam build (non-beta, if applicable), and did not manually change the DB version.

Does any of this help? Would any of this have been relevant in my OP?

I am happy to follow this, but only if it's (potentially) relevant to what I am asking.

[Luckschaden]

ORIGINAL: BrianinMinnie

Please Luck, don’t think that Wood represents the typical response you'll get in these forums, he's just a tad abrupt and thorny, and if one can fend off the frontal assault he tends to give good advice\analysis.

I guess so. Still, why not be slightly friendly? And I am not sure what useful advice I have been given.

[Luckschaden]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Not offended at all. My advice stands. If it bothers you to sort through all the scenarios at risk of not functioning, either reach out to the author or don't download the pack. You can download only recent scenarios. If that is too much of a bother, I am not sure what your point is.

"If it bothers you to sort through all the scenarios at risk of not functioning, either reach out to the author or don't download the pack." Can you elaborate on this? How would I sort through them, what do you mean?

From what I gather, the only way to avoid disappointment like this would be to check all the triggers events etc. beforehand, but then I also know how everything is scripted, which does spoil it a lot - do you disagree here? If so, why?

" You can download only recent scenarios." I assumed that the most recent version of the Community Pack would (generally) have scenarios that are both a) functional (i.e. don't have a key a launched mission that is set to launch after the scenario has ended) and b) compatible with the current CMANO build.
Even after two of your posts, I have no idea if this is true and the scenario in question is just the odd one out, or not.

[thewood1]

I really hope this is a misunderstanding on your part about the Community pack you didn't realize it's not an official product. It is not built, modified, or supported by the devs. It is built and supported by players like you and I. It is no one's responsibility to QA every scenario with every change in the program. Original authors develop scenarios, but move on to other things. If it troubles you that much, you can help support the cause by actually modifying and fixing the scenario and submitting with the correct credit to the original author.

If you did know it's a community project coming up om five years in the making, then you come across as pretty ungrateful and unappreciative.

[stilesw]

Luckschaden,

You are right, many of the details I covered did not apply in your current post/situation. I would guess that as you become more involved with CMANO things - questions and scenario development, you may have times where additionally added details will help resolve things. And, admittedly, much of this was for the benefit of other new folks with less of a background.

So, I did not mean to imply that you had not done something that you should have - you had a legitimate question and perhaps my reply was a bit all encompassing!

-Wayne Stiles

[poaw]

I saw this thread a couple days ago and have updated the scenario.

The new version is fixed so that player can get points for attacking runways again, the timing issues has been addressed, the SSGN no longer putts around at periscope depth, Vietnam's exclusion zone has been re-done, the briefing has had a few minor changes to make things clearer.

What hasn't been done:
The database hasn't been updated (in the interest of not breaking anything else).
Changes which would require anything except the base game have not been implemented (like aircraft damage). This scenario was available to players who only owned the base game and I'd like it to remain available to them.