Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Be really cool if you could get Justin Prince (Tankerace) to add his ship art to your scenario as well.

Well, I already told Mike if he wanted to bundle my ship art in with his scenario, its fine by me. The more people that use it, the better. In fact, if anybody who wants to do scenarios wants to use my graphics, its cool with me.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Be really cool if you could get Justin Prince (Tankerace) to add his ship art to your scenario as well.

Well, I already told Mike if he wanted to bundle my ship art in with his scenario, its fine by me. The more people that use it, the better. In fact, if anybody who wants to do scenarios wants to use my graphics, its cool with me.

Right on. The best. Too bad it's not been added into the official art.

Well, I sent them to Pry some weeks ago, but haven't heard anything about it yet, so we shall see. Last I heard was they *might* be reviewed for consideration to be released with 1.3, or a later patch.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well, I sent them to Pry some weeks ago, but haven't heard anything about it yet, so we shall see. Last I heard was they *might* be reviewed for consideration to be released with 1.3, or a later patch.

EEEEEEExcellent.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Are you goingto get Andrey's (Subchaser) plane art in as well? Noticed the P 40B isnot the Flying Tiger one he uses.

I'm not positive but weren't the Flying Tigers actually P-40C models?

Edited. I think I was mistaken. I don't know why the P-40C creeped into my tired old mind.

I am not using ver 4.0 but the previous one. I show that the build rate and the pool for the P-38G all say 0. It is the same for scenario 15. Won't that mean the plane will never arrive.

Thanks.

Herrbear,

Are you using the previous one from Spooky's site or did you get a copy of his 3.1 beta?

If it is also in the stock scenario 15, then he probably did not catch it.

Some aircraft are solely produced on map and wont appear in the one column but the other. Pry said these aircraft are produced on map in another thread.

Thank you for your question. Pry aswered it for me that they produce from the location database.

I can't wait for when Mike adds the OOB additions I sent him. Will have USS Allen DD66 as a Sampson class DD; USCGC Taney with three upgrades; WAGS Bibb, Duane, and Spencer; possibly Pry's DD/APD upgrade approach for West Coast flushdeckers; RN and RAN Rivers; RN and RIN Black Swans; RIN Bangor/Bathurst MSWs; proper arrival dates for existing Basset MSWs and more which were missing, Flamingo and Shoreham class sloops; RNZN Flowers; Dutch Flores class PG, RN ASs Adamant, Maidstone, Lucia and Wolfe. RN AR Resource.

Hopefully he will add the Japanese big tankers of the Tonan Maru class (ex-whaling factory ships). I think there are five and are in as simple Large TKs at the moment. Believe he is adding a whack of other Japanese ships as well.

What is really cool is he is planning to make a sister scenario which includes all the USN ships omitted due to the spawning feature. I sent him a list of all the missing ships (4 Essex CVs (CV10 now Bon Homme Richard, CV12 Kearsarge,CV 16 Cabot, CV 18 Oriskany); a few Baltimores; a few Clevelands; many Fletcher, Sumner and Gearing DDs, and a few Balaos/Tench). All have original names or names of cancelled units. DDs and SSs and CVL Cabot have hypothetical names or those of cancelled units as well. Ie: CVL Cabot I proposed naming USS Brandywine after the Revolutionary War battle of Brandywine Creek...this was also the name of a CV in Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny".

One will simply have to leave any spawned ships in port and voila![8D] Can't wait!! Spawning feature dealt with.

Pretty sure Justin Prince, aka Tankerace, will work his majic for the needed art. Thisis gonna be great.[:D]

I'll have those new profiles ready (hopefully) by tonight.

Speaking of the Caine mutiny, we need a DMS Caine, LOL [:D]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I'll have those new profiles ready (hopefully) by tonight.

Speaking of the Caine mutiny, we need a DMS Caine, LOL [:D]

Right on! I love the book. Caine is an old four piper DMS in it as opposed to the Ellyson in the movie. Kinda hard to equate a new DD as an old bucket. Used the name Caine for a Fletcher which historically was named Benham I think. There is a USS Boon, after C.S. Forrester's short story collection. Missing SSs are named Nerka (Beach novel RSRD and cancelled sub name), Eel (cancelled), Mako (Harry Homewood Gato) and Sole (cancelled)

Don't forget the Copperfin. (LOL, not a rela name, but I loved Destination Tokyo).

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Don't forget the Copperfin. (LOL, not a rela name, but I loved Destination Tokyo).

That's the Cary Grant flick based on the mission Thresher went on for the Doolittle Raid, right? One of Thresher's officers, Anderson, became SSN Nautilus's first Captain.

That's the one. Anderson was on the Thresher? That's cool. So long as he wasn't on the SSN THresher.

I had a buddy who's dad spent some time on the Nautilus, and he told me that his dad and some people worried on her first voyage, because 5+7+1 = 13. A superstitious bunch, but I guess 13 was a lucky number after all.

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Okay,
Version 4.0 is sent to Spooky.
This has fixed to an extent the British carrier groups, adjusted armour values on most destroyers, adjusted fuel/range for most ships.
Adjusted a few more aircraft.
Added a few more Japanese ships.

New readme file included.

enjoy!
Mike

I have a question for you. Why did you decide to substitute the Swordfish for the Albacore? Was the Swordfish wrong in the original OOB?

Thank you.

Because the Albacore was on the British carriers at this time while the Swordfish was only being used for ASW.
Just seemed like a good idea at the time.
Nearly the same aircraft anyway.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Because the Albacore was on the British carriers at this time while the Swordfish was only being used for ASW.
Just seemed like a good idea at the time.
Nearly the same aircraft anyway.

Mike

I'll repeat what I already said several times: I think you need to better document the changes you make. In other words - write *everything* down. E-ve-ry-thing. Yeah I know it's tedious and you're probably thinking right now that I'm ungrateful bastard [:D] "I put so much work into my mod and this moron is asking ME to *document* it better?" [:D]

Well, this is an incredibly complex game, and playing your scenario, or any other long campaign scenario is a long term investment. I don't think anyone wants to spend months PBEM-ing your scenario only to find out you changed some crucial parameter somewhere, that (in the mind of that player) ruins the whole game.

Lack of proper documentation is the only reason I personally shy away from your mod. By playing the "original" #15 I know I play what developers intended me to play. That scenario may not be perfect, but it's OK according to GG and 2by3 (which is reassuring [:D]). Now your scenario includes lots of fudging and tweaking - some of it may be great, some of it perhaps not. I'd like to be able to see the list of changes/additions and decide for myself. Without it I can't take your mod seriously.

If you think documenting the mod is boring and tedious, I must say I don't find that attitude re-assuring (now risking to come out as ungrateful bore again but I'll take that risk thankyou [:D])

O.

Oleg,

Every change Lemurs has made, should not effect any game started long term. Upgrade paths have been changed, some units have been moved at the start.

I have been messing with Lemurs 3.1 Beta version and the 4.0 version longer than anyone but Lemurs, and have not encountered any problems at all. It is my opinion that the 4.0 version is the best yet. It is well worth the time to look it over.

Except for the aircraft upgrade paths, 90% of the changes only effect the game at the start or 1st month. Get it and play it.

Thanks for the reply.