Between the Storms

[JuanG]

General Patton, I think the Petrel thing is just in our game as I updated it manually, and may have put it in the wrong field. Will check once I get home and fix it if needed.

[btd64]

JuanG, No problem. I sent my turn back by the way....GP

[John 3rd]

I'm going to keep a log of needed changes over the next 3-4 days and will then do an update. Keep things rolling so I know what needs looked at and/or fixed.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

John, OK, here it goes;
AV Tangiers has airgroups (VF and VB 103) present at PH with the ship, not on board. Looks fine.
AV Pocomoke appears at Balboa in 60 to 70 days. According to the airgroup reinforcement screen, VF and VB 104 arrive with her. This doesn't look right as she is an AV and not converted yet.
AVP Petrel now has 60 (I think) TROOP capacity, not cargo. Needs to be adjusted.
TK Basilea does not appear to want to load fuel. See pic below....GP




Also the Aussie and NZ Buffalo art. I thought I saw it in my files. I will take a look and if it is there I will send it to you.[:)]

John,
Thought I would move this down as I have updated my list.
One other thing:
The base near Port Moresby that had the double base listing. I think that is a Pehexe file thing.
Earlier post in this thread has the base name. I think one page back....GP

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: rjopel

Duplicated base in Scen 50 current file.

Oro Bay at 100, 130 in Papua New Guinea is listed as both ID 987 and 994. The map shows two bases located in the hex.

Here it is John. 2 pages back....GP

[HansBolter]

John 3rd.

Been meaning to report back. My game is in mid August '42.

I'm running BTS 1.8, but am about to update to 2.0.

Noticed on the list of changes you corrected an incident of double naming.

I thought I would point out that the US has three destroyers named Paulding.

Been working on getting them all in the same TF to take a screenshot for ya, but haven't managed it yet.

[JuanG]

Sadly it seems the renaming does not take effect for games already running, so for instance I'm stuck with two Ryukaku's in my game against General Patton, despite updating when the change happened.

[Buck Beach]

Just send them to a withdrawal port and disband them for this game.

Buck

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Just send them to a withdrawal port and disband them for this game.

Buck

I don't think Japan can withdraw ships, and at any rate, as much as it would probably please my esteemed opponent, I am not sending any carriers to the shipbreakers just yet...

EDIT: On a more serious note, John, when you are planning to do the next update I have a few tweaks to the purchasable allied airgroups based on feedback from the other thread. I don't think these will take effect in a game already running, but should address some of the concerns. I can drop you an email with proposed changes detailed in a few days.

[John 3rd]

I can do an update whenever. Need to put together a list.

QUERY: Don't players have the ability to re-name ships? I was reading the above Posts and remembered several American players do that. Can Japanese do that?

Anyone who has noticed an issue please post/re-post after this and we'll get ready for an update.

Juan: Do you need all the scenario files to do your changes? I cans end the Master's over without issue whenever you want.

[John 3rd]

Wanted to take a moment to thank all the people who have helped develop, contribute, and play our Mods. The creation of TM, RA, and BTS was not possible without a ton of support and help.

Merry Christmas ALL!

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I can do an update whenever. Need to put together a list.

QUERY: Don't players have the ability to re-name ships? I was reading the above Posts and remembered several American players do that. Can Japanese do that?

Anyone who has noticed an issue please post/re-post after this and we'll get ready for an update.

Juan: Do you need all the scenario files to do your changes? I cans end the Master's over without issue whenever you want.

The renaming is only for ships still in the construction que, and only for those that contain the symbols II, III or IV in their names. As far as I know they can be Japanese or Allied, it shouldn't make a difference.

Sendings me the files is probably the easiest way, though Ill need a few days to plan out exactly what to change. Mostly its just a matter of bumping back a few of the 'early' arrivals based on some of the feedback, as well as flipping a few of the '42 Additional squadrons to Diverted squadrons with a corresponding cost increase.

[John 3rd]

Juan:

I've sent all three of the Mods. These are the most current files. Take your time and enjoy yourself!

John

[John 3rd]

Do we have any other issues beyond the STUPID naming issues???

[btd64]

Petrel IV at Tahiti. Still 60 troop cap. I believe JuanG has this though....GP

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Petrel IV at Tahiti. Still 60 troop cap. I believe JuanG has this though....GP

Yeah, that one is specific to our game. If its ok with you, I will update that next turn as I think its the only real issue present, the aircraft purchase upgrades as said are not applicable as they will take effect only for new games.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Wanted to take a moment to thank all the people who have helped develop, contribute, and play our Mods. The creation of TM, RA, and BTS was not possible without a ton of support and help.

Merry Christmas ALL!

John, Thank you for your work and direction. Have a Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year.[:)]....GP

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Petrel IV at Tahiti. Still 60 troop cap. I believe JuanG has this though....GP

Yeah, that one is specific to our game. If its ok with you, I will update that next turn as I think its the only real issue present, the aircraft purchase upgrades as said are not applicable as they will take effect only for new games.

Thats fine. Ho ho ho....GP

[HansBolter]

Hey John 3rd,

We have been discussing the Surcouf in your esteemed opponents thread.

I was pointing out to him what a versatile combatant it is with twin 8" guns, a 274 cargo capacity and room for a single float plane.

I did some reading up on it and it seems that the French planned to build three of them and scrapped the plans for the latter two when one of the Naval Treaties forbid more than a single super sub.

So, I was thinking that since this mod is based on assumptions that the outcomes of the treaties differed from the historical perhaps you would consider throwing the AFBs another bone by giving us the other two.

Three Allied subs carrying float planes would give the Japanese player a taste of what its like to have every shipping lane under aerial surveilance.

[John 3rd]

Never adverse to ideas. Let me read up on the SS Section of the Treaties. Will make commentary from that.