Matrix Games Forums

I have got the same bug in scen 103.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Actually, there are "sources to back that up." The first of these is
just look at the plane! I felt dumb when I read it - because I believed I
should have seen the rather unique shape of the plane as a clue. There is
also the matter both are dive bombers.

But I learned it from William Green's Warplane's of the Third Reich, one of the
rather definitive English language treatments of German military aircraft of the
period. In the Ju-88 article, of course.

There is also more information in a newer book - Japanese Secret Projects - by
Edwin M Dyer. Using information not previously published or available in English,
he usefully describes all cases of Japanese-German cooperation - and also some
things that are purely fictional (including even comic books and similar "publications"
when these had art he could print). It appears there was even more extensive
industrial cooperation than I was aware of. Many factors prevented German designs
from reaching production in Japan - but it was a rich source for design concepts
and particular equipment because (a) the Germans were relatively more advanced
and (b) the Germans were often more willing to share with the Japanese than other
countries were. Sure enough, this and several other Ju-88 concepts are described.

I worked for a number of years (at Boeing, but not for Boeing, as a "resident engineer"
for a major contractor) in the design "software integration laboratories." These permit
"flying a plane or missile before it is built" as well as experimenting with one after it
exists in ways no one can see or track. They are why we do not design planes that do not
fly any more - once a common phenomena. I can still design a plane and "fly it" on a
computer. Anyway, the Lorna was an adaptation, scaled down, for a specialist mission:
as such it was also virtually unique. Few if any other ASW aircraft were dive bombers -
intended to decrease the error inherent in dropping weapons on a datum point (the Navy
term for the location of a submarine target). [Possibly a late war Ki-45 ASW variation
was inspired by the Earlier Lorna. I didn't know about this until last month either.]
Because MAD is a very short range sensor (and "the only effective non-acoustic sensor") -
and because if part of the sub is surfaced the aircraft radar would give a good datum point -
a dive bomber might have been a good concept. Japan also had a problem with high power engines,
and needed them for fighters and bombers: they hoped to make do with low power engines,
necessitating a smaller aircraft - and resulting in low performance so that, when the Lorna
finally did have to operate near enemy fighters, it was not well able to cope with them.
Japanese Navy ideas about air-ASW did not change much over time - a version of the Peggy
intended for production around 1946 also featured lower powered engines than the parent
aircraft it was designed from, and as a result, relatively low performance. But it would
permit distant operations - provided these were not in areas of enemy fighter patrols.
The JNAF Peggy was designated Q2W1.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The Ki-50 as such is the JAAF version of the Ju-88. It is only found in JES Scenarios
99 & 105. Note that two OTHER versions are found in ALL scenarios but with a Naval
designation Q1W1. Not often understood as such, this too is a peculiar Ju-88 variation
with very low power engines and specialized ASW sensors (radar and MAD).

Hi Cid, haven't had the time to look at your scenarios yet but I do peek into this thread from time to time when work permits. Looks like you and your team have spent many many man-hours on this mod.

Just wondering about the claim that Q1W1 was a Ju-88 variation - do you have sources to back that up? I have never come across a similar claim, and although the Lorna looks similar, it has much a smaller and lighter airframe than a Ju-88 - wing span Lorna 16m / Ju-88 18-20m (depending on variant), wing area 38 / 52-54 square meters, weight less than 5 tons / over 12 tons etc.

Funny how perceptions can differ. I did "just look at the plane" and said to me "That is not a Ju-88 or a variant - the cockpit may resemble a Ju-88, but not the rest - it is much smaller". Just going by "looks, would you say that the P-38 is a variant of the Fokker G.I. or the Tony a variant of the Me-109? They do look alike and they share the same general layout - but they are not the same airframes. Same goes for Lorna and Ju-88.

Unfortunately I don't know the books you have cited, but the books I have and various web sources I have consulted say that although the Lorna may look like a Ju-88, it is not a Ju-88. I have have also read a bit about the German-Japanese relations and the technology transfer (Bernd Martin is the German authority on the subject). The best that can be said about the resemblance is that that the Lorna was inspired by the Ju-88 - but it is not a Japanese Ju-88 copy.

In your third point you say that the Lorna was a "scaled-down adaption" - now that is not a Ju-88 variation anymore, no? I think our different perception is just about definitions - for me, a variant or variation is the same basic airframe adapted for different roles, like in the case of the Ju-88 the A-series as bomber, the C-series as Destroyer / night fighter, the D as Recon bird, G as pure Night Fighter etc. With that definition, the Lorna is definetly NOT a Ju-88 variant. But be it as it may, as long as you have the stats right in your mod, it will be fine.

It is a scaled down variation because it was done using a licensed copy of the original
design. It is relatively common to redesign for greater or lesser power, and for greater
or lesser wingspan as well. Consider the Japanese case of the PxYz series - these come
in several sizes - and one of them had a different kind of power altogether: jet engines.
It is also unusual in that the integration of the jet engines might well have worked -
which generally was not the case with adapted designs.

I have a similar view of the later generation of F/A-18s - I call em F/A-28s - so different
are they from the earlier series. I suspect this was a political ploy. Yet it is perfectly
true that the later, resized aircraft was a design development of its ancestor.

Note I did not say it is the same aircraft. In fact, it is a fundamentally different aircraft,
because it had a fundamentally different mission from the ancestor. But the Ju-88 design was
sound, lending itself to an unusually wide number of applications - as you know. It was probably
the best German bomber design (although it also served in recon and in night fighter roles with
distinction). The only reason more variations were not adopted by Japan was its range was not
sufficient for most PRO operations. It also suffered from the greatest of all reasons foreign
aircraft are not adopted by any country: it represented truly alien operational concepts. Another
difficulty was that any given model would be much later reaching operational status in the Far
East than it did in Europe: the player strategic trade off decision is the same as the real world
one: is this version worth producing after the date it becomes possible to do so? In many cases,
perhaps, the same plane that might be worth having in 1942 isn't so attractive in 1943 or 1944.

I regard this discussion as mainly a matter of semantics: but my usage was precise.
It was in fact an authorized derivative design, not a configuration done because independent
designers came to similar conclusions. It was authorized and licensed. That does not change
for a moment that it was quite different from the parent in every respect you assert: we do
not disagree. It also was not particularly successful, or possibly more correct, it was not
successful for very long. It represented an early attempt to integrate sensors and ASW weapons
in a country with limited options with respect to both. But submarines in the period had to spend
a great deal of time surfaced - particularly submarines hostile to Japan which lacked snort equipment -
and also because of peculiar US doctrine well suited to the period which called for surface,
radar patrols with significant surface armament. These submarines were quite vulnerable to radar
detection, particularly at night. Many of the other contemporary aircraft were much less well
equipped, and unable to stay on station long enough. [One way to get a submarine of that era was
just to wait for it to surface; its underwater range was dismal; its underwater duration was also
quite low. A major reason submarines escaped is their hunters gave up too rapidly.] It is an
interesting design. I long believed it was a purely Japanese creation. But along with several
dozen other cases, since new materials have come out in the last couple of years, I have learned
of design influences from Germany. That does not really diminish the achievement of its design team:
if one factors in the cost of the machine, it was a relatively good product given what they knew at
the time the design was done.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Actually, there are "sources to back that up." The first of these is
just look at the plane! I felt dumb when I read it - because I believed I
should have seen the rather unique shape of the plane as a clue. There is
also the matter both are dive bombers.

But I learned it from William Green's Warplane's of the Third Reich, one of the
rather definitive English language treatments of German military aircraft of the
period. In the Ju-88 article, of course.

There is also more information in a newer book - Japanese Secret Projects - by
Edwin M Dyer. Using information not previously published or available in English,
he usefully describes all cases of Japanese-German cooperation - and also some
things that are purely fictional (including even comic books and similar "publications"
when these had art he could print). It appears there was even more extensive
industrial cooperation than I was aware of. Many factors prevented German designs
from reaching production in Japan - but it was a rich source for design concepts
and particular equipment because (a) the Germans were relatively more advanced
and (b) the Germans were often more willing to share with the Japanese than other
countries were. Sure enough, this and several other Ju-88 concepts are described.

I worked for a number of years (at Boeing, but not for Boeing, as a "resident engineer"
for a major contractor) in the design "software integration laboratories." These permit
"flying a plane or missile before it is built" as well as experimenting with one after it
exists in ways no one can see or track. They are why we do not design planes that do not
fly any more - once a common phenomena. I can still design a plane and "fly it" on a
computer. Anyway, the Lorna was an adaptation, scaled down, for a specialist mission:
as such it was also virtually unique. Few if any other ASW aircraft were dive bombers -
intended to decrease the error inherent in dropping weapons on a datum point (the Navy
term for the location of a submarine target). [Possibly a late war Ki-45 ASW variation
was inspired by the Earlier Lorna. I didn't know about this until last month either.]
Because MAD is a very short range sensor (and "the only effective non-acoustic sensor") -
and because if part of the sub is surfaced the aircraft radar would give a good datum point -
a dive bomber might have been a good concept. Japan also had a problem with high power engines,
and needed them for fighters and bombers: they hoped to make do with low power engines,
necessitating a smaller aircraft - and resulting in low performance so that, when the Lorna
finally did have to operate near enemy fighters, it was not well able to cope with them.
Japanese Navy ideas about air-ASW did not change much over time - a version of the Peggy
intended for production around 1946 also featured lower powered engines than the parent
aircraft it was designed from, and as a result, relatively low performance. But it would
permit distant operations - provided these were not in areas of enemy fighter patrols.
The JNAF Peggy was designated Q2W1.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



Hi Cid, haven't had the time to look at your scenarios yet but I do peek into this thread from time to time when work permits. Looks like you and your team have spent many many man-hours on this mod.

Just wondering about the claim that Q1W1 was a Ju-88 variation - do you have sources to back that up? I have never come across a similar claim, and although the Lorna looks similar, it has much a smaller and lighter airframe than a Ju-88 - wing span Lorna 16m / Ju-88 18-20m (depending on variant), wing area 38 / 52-54 square meters, weight less than 5 tons / over 12 tons etc.

Funny how perceptions can differ. I did "just look at the plane" and said to me "That is not a Ju-88 or a variant - the cockpit may resemble a Ju-88, but not the rest - it is much smaller". Just going by "looks, would you say that the P-38 is a variant of the Fokker G.I. or the Tony a variant of the Me-109? They do look alike and they share the same general layout - but they are not the same airframes. Same goes for Lorna and Ju-88.

Unfortunately I don't know the books you have cited, but the books I have and various web sources I have consulted say that although the Lorna may look like a Ju-88, it is not a Ju-88. I have have also read a bit about the German-Japanese relations and the technology transfer (Bernd Martin is the German authority on the subject). The best that can be said about the resemblance is that that the Lorna was inspired by the Ju-88 - but it is not a Japanese Ju-88 copy.

In your third point you say that the Lorna was a "scaled-down adaption" - now that is not a Ju-88 variation anymore, no? I think our different perception is just about definitions - for me, a variant or variation is the same basic airframe adapted for different roles, like in the case of the Ju-88 the A-series as bomber, the C-series as Destroyer / night fighter, the D as Recon bird, G as pure Night Fighter etc. With that definition, the Lorna is definetly NOT a Ju-88 variant. But be it as it may, as long as you have the stats right in your mod, it will be fine.

Two updates back I was able to produce this issue for Scenarios 101, 102, 103 and 104.
The source was quite simple: the task force the ships were assigned to was missing
as a record. From the moment I restored it all four have started correctly in this
respect. IF you do not see what I see at source, THEN you have a problem in the file
which defines Task Forces. That may be the location file. But regardless, IF you
get ALL the files of the current update, the problem will NOT be present.

The installer should create several sub folders. Try copying the files from the SCEN
folder created by the installer to the SCEN folder you use to play. While a programmer
who helped with the installer design tried to get me to set it up so the files are dropped
in the standard locations - in fact players are not required to use any particular file
structure. Details do not matter IF

1) You start with a working AE install

2) You get the SCEN files from RHS into the SCEN folder of your working install

3) You get the ART files from RHS into the ART folder of your working install

4) You get the RHS pwhexe.dat file into the top level of your working install

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I have got the same bug in scen 103.

Cid,
When I apply the installer, it simply do not generate sub folders, it updates all subfolders so I dont find any other files regarding the scenarios;
Could you please send me your scen files so I can update just them here?
All other files, regarding ART and the planes availability looks right at my side, JUST KB issue remains;

Manual file would be nice.

7.291 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi



This update is almost purely about Axis aircraft, mainly air art and aircraft files.
The location file was updated with respect to economic data in several minor places. This was mainly getting initial stocks correct.

While the plan was to update Allied air art, and while the Allied tops and alpha were cleaned up, there is a technical problem with them (they crash the game on load). We will probably issue them with the next revision. So what was done here was Axis aircraft. There was more than expected because I found art for the Ki-92 and the Ki-97 JAAF transports, and the K5Y2 trainer. As well, I was able to get "real" tops and alphas for the FW-190 (instead of a nearest art substitute we were using), and I was able to clean up another case with a rather terrible alpha. Unfortunately, the K5Y2 art - which is high quality - lacks an alpha - so I improvised one. Hopefully Mifune will be able to make an alpha for the next issue. Except for cleanup, the Japanese appear to be done. I found nice new art for the G6M-L2 transport and a G4M KAI recon type (somewhat similar to the G3M KAI recon plane which mapped SE Asia before the war). Note the plane art documentation is also updated.

I will now revisit the Allies for a day, having found some art to add. Hopefully we will have a final update in about two days for both Allied and Axis planes. I will do a bit more economic checking.

After we reach 7.30 I will be focused on pwhexe, pwlink, pwzone and map art related development.

send me your email address

ORIGINAL: Vipersp

Cid,
When I apply the installer, it simply do not generate sub folders, it updates all subfolders so I dont find any other files regarding the scenarios;
Could you please send me your scen files so I can update just them here?
All other files, regarding ART and the planes availability looks right at my side, JUST KB issue remains;

7.291 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi

This update brings us to the point we planned to be today. ONLY the Allied
top and alpha files are revised. These add no new art as such. Rather, they present the existing art in a "cleaner" form. Much, probably most, RHS art is inherited. As well, most art lacks alpha's altogether, and much of it also lacks tops. For these reasons, we either inherit art of different levels of quality, or we improvise art, in particular re tops and alphas. These must be perfectly matched to work properly. Mifune applied his tools and skills to offer a better form of the product I released with 2.8.

The RHS aircraft art set is virtually complete. I am making one final pass to insure we have incorporated all we can. This art compliments and displays the RHS aircraft data set. It is likely the largest set in the AE world - Mifune estimates around 33% more types than the next biggest collection. Note, however, that this art does not represent a new, original product: rather it is built on top of stock art, and shares the art from a common art project used by all major AE mods, in addition to using art from other sources, both internet and reference books (which are scanned in). Regardless of source, often we have reworked the art to some degree: we because I have now begun to modify art myself. We add (and/or remove) insignia, torpedoes, turrets, etc as required to match the data or history.

Finally note that all RHS art may be freely shared, in whole or in part, without attribution. We could not have produced this large set if we had to create it all
from scratch - at least not without taking several years to generate it. To whatever extent the collection is useful, use it, or use part of it, as you see fit. Along the way we have collected much source art. If you want something you don't see (including
different art on the same plane), ask and, if we have it, we will send it to you.

I do not know what this means, but if it is a request for files,
please advise. We went over to the installer because it works better for
most - but not everyone can accept so large a file. I had to set up cloud
delivery for Mifune. If you have a problem with file access, please advise.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Manual file would be nice.

Cid,

I extracted the contents of the installer from your new update to my RHS folder and not directly into the War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition folder itself as I did every single time before;
After that I copied and paste all files and now all scenarios are ok!![&o]
so it seems at least at my case the installer is not replacing all the files at scen folder;
Just curious why the installer scen folder also contain files that should be inside the art folder??
as the image I attached here;

Yaab, extract the installer content outside the game folder and copy all content manually;

ORIGINAL: Vipersp

Cid,

I extracted the contents of the installer from your new update to my RHS folder and not directly into the War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition folder itself as I did every single time before;
After that I copied and paste all files and now all scenarios are ok!![&o]
so it seems at least at my case the installer is not replacing all the files at scen folder;
Just curious why the installer scen folder also contain files that should be inside the art folder??
as the image I attached here;

Yaab, extract the installer content outside the game folder and copy all content manually;

It is an error - which I will correct for issue next time.

Copied the installer contents manually. Scen 105 is now OK, scen 103 still misses the three CVs.

EDIT:Uhm, I recopied manually all scen files pertaining to scen 103. Out of around 10 files, three files replaced old versions. Don't ask me how this has happened since I am using the latest installer files and ALL files should be identical. I have now all six CVs in scen 103.

7.291 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi

The effort to "complete" air art and related items (e.g. aircraft data, air group data)
took an unexpected turn when it came to dealing with the (always difficult) matter of France. I found that years of added French units (land units, ships, air units) had never been fully integrated, even into RHS (which may have more of them than any other form of AE). For one thing, I found most units lacked officers, and being a different "nation" could not usually get officers in game terms. I also found a need
to fully integrate dates with assumptions made in strictly historical vs Japan enhanced scenarios. In no other area is Allied policy so obfuscated as with respect to facilitating the return of France to its empire in the Far East: France formed a corps to this purpose in 1944! But was not allowed to send it. One of the divisions formed in fact was disbanded in June, 1945: I put this in to strictly historical scenarios (101-104 and 106) since it is strictly historical. I assume that in a JES scenario the more dangerous Japan causes the Allies to be more willing to accept assets available.
I learned this was mainly a function of the attitude of FDR, who regarded the use of bases in Indochina to invade Malaya and Thailand as "the fault of France" - and who pressured the British (who controlled Suez and bases like Ceylon the French must use to return).

I also learned that the Armee de l'aire in Indochina actually fought effectively with its surviving planes - in 1945! On the occasion of the Japanese coup taking over the country, when the French Foreign Legion (and others) marched to China, a group of aircraft took the initiative and wreaked serious damage on Japanese air units in a pre-emptive way, so they could not be very effective in opposing the march! At last I found a way to deal with the Vichy Air Force survivors in Indochina - about which very little is known.

Somewhat related to this, map developments make it appear the old RHS concept of putting Madagascar in the game now appears feasible. I decided we will, if we make the mini-map work (the art exists here attached, modified to AE scale from WITP era RHS), we will make it a feature of "Full RHS" scenarios (odd numbered ones) - but leave it out of "Simplified RHS" scenarios (even numbered ones). That decision tells me which scenarios need the planes found only in Madagascar.

"France" here also includes Greece and Portugal - both of which are classified as French in RHS - in particular with regard to adding officers and assigning most of them to units lacking commanders. This update involves aircraft, group, leader, location and ship files.

Apart from integrating the French, this update involves a good deal of work on air art. Much of it is cleaner. Some of it has had better art substituted. Some of the plane types have been better integrated into air units. And there is a change in economic fundamentals, affecting probably the cam file: a Manpower Center now produces 2 manpower per month. Data analysis indicates that 1 as not sufficient for Japan to produce at historical rates: we had 'solved' the problem of excessive manpower pools too well and need to 'calibrate' the effects to determine the correct rate. I forgot to do that, but did so after being challenged. If the stock value (5) was vastly too high, one is too small. We will try two and review the effects, in case it should be three instead.

The end of the tunnel is in sight, but I still need to review possibly adding two more aircraft types, and possibly giving a couple of more aircraft dedicated art. This will result in 7.30 - at which time I will switch to focus on map development.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Manual file would be nice.

There is the precursor of an RHS Manual file in the form of the RHS folder created by
the installer. This contains mainly essays and databases which will eventually be items
in the Manual. A few general articles should also be written, but these (e.g. RHS Philosophy)
would be similar to the WITP era RHS Manual - not much has changed in general terms. Compiling
a manual takes a lot of time, and if not done at the end, it is in fact incomplete, and needs
to be redone. Eventually we will compile one however.

Glad it is working now. Generally the installer replaces all the files with new ones, but there are occasional
reports that it does not. Presumably the reasons relate to something going on in the target computer. This
issue does not exist at source.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Copied the installer contents manually. Scen 105 is now OK, scen 103 still misses the three CVs.

EDIT:Uhm, I recopied manually all scen files pertaining to scen 103. Out of around 10 files, three files replaced old versions. Don't ask me how this has happened since I am using the latest installer files and ALL files should be identical. I have now all six CVs in scen 103.

I'm playing allied side in a campaign against a human. Scenario 105.
I have seen some strange issues about the planes details.
Look this screenshots:

I can't see the weapons in some plane details screen. But the weapons are defined in the editor.
Is this because I don´t produce the devices?
Maybe my oponen and I have diferent mod versions?

Any idea suggestion?

Probably the weapons are there but simply I can´t see them?

Regards.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi

This update includes new allied art, and a number of eratta involving
air art pointers, aircraft data, air group data in particular, and locations/
ground units in the location file. As well, a number of air units were
added to exploit the new air art. RHS documentation was also updated,
not just rechanges, but re erratta making it out of sync with current
air art.

There will be one more update - Mifune is going to clean the rest of the
Allies (now I finished with them) - and I will do the final additions to the
Axis (mainly to set up Madagascar for Full RHS Scenarios - assuming
we get the map to work).

The only Allied aircraft candidates not included are a separate art bitmap
for the Stintson Tri-motors and the Soviet Pe-8 (which is not in the game
because it never entered PTO - but might have in non-strictly historical
scenarios). The jury is still out on these - and they may or may not fold in.

One interesting new art type is for the B-29D (aka B-50D)

Probably this is not a brand new game start. IF you load the game from turn one,
you should NOT see these sorts of displays. IF you are playing a game AND IF I have
changed aircraft data, several effects occur.

First of all, ALL AIR UNITS CONTINUE to display their PREVIOUS aircraft data.
This actually can be changed, by what I call a "double upgrade" - something that
is cost prohibitive in stock and was in RHS until we revised political points. But
now you can do so IF the air unit is allowed to upgrade at all AND IF the air unit
AND its HQ BOTH have enough supplies. Sometimes a change in command is required as well.
Upgrade to ANY OTHER type, then upgrade back, and the new data will be in the air unit.

Second, reinforcement air units will appear AS PREVIOUSLY DEFINED, not as newly defined.
The same solution as above can fix them.

Third, NEWLY created AIR UNITS will NEVER appear at all - they ONLY appear in a new game.
I can never, ever add an new air unit to an old game.

Fourth, in general I can not add a new aircraft type to an old game. They appear only
in a new game. HOWEVER, IF I replace an old aircraft type with a new one, THEN the new
type DOES appear in an old game. This is something I try to avoid as it has unpleasant
effects on air units if you change the type of plane they have entirely. But rarely I
use it - particularly where it won't have such effects. Old games WILL SHOW the new types,
but there is no production and no pool in the normal case.

All of that aside, NONE of it explains what you are seeing. I don't think we know precisely
how code works except to discover it by testing. It is common for a programmer to get effects
not intended in all fields of programming - the computer does what you said - not what you meant
to say - and what you write today interacts with every other bit of code in sometimes unpredictable
ways. The only "solution" I have is to start a new game: this issue is NOT present in a fresh start.

FYI we have substantially completed aircraft updates. There is one more minor round happening:
Mifune is cleaning up the Allied filmstrips (which ONLY affects how things look) and I am doing a final
pass through Axis aircraft. There will be few data changes from now on, and virtually none (other
than fixing errors) after the next one (in a day or two). Games starting from now on will have very
few issues of the sort you are reporting because there will be very few changes. Development is shifting
to map development, to facilitate new map art, and probably to develop new ways to work with map art.
We may be able to make a switcher program for art and pwhexe/pwlink/pwzone files. We may be able to really
"extend the map" - never mind I didn't think so a few weeks ago. If we can, we will put a couple of locations
onto the main map, create a mini-map in the SW Corner (moving the logo to the NE corner, getting rid of the
terrain key - which we will not need at all apparently using the new maps). That process may last a year
or even more - involving many stages and improvements over time.

The other near term changes will involve making Scenario 99, and then Scenario 106, playable (they are released
for test bed and comment purposes only). Scenario 106 is unique - a mini scenario IN TIME (but full map),
a 1945 ONLY scenario, and (like stock's Downfall scenario) the only one to permit suicide air units (which
you do NOT have to use). Also, it will be the first scenario in which use of atom bombs is likely: they exist
in RHS form in all RHS scenarios, but few games will reach 1945 except one that starts in 1945. RHS atom bombs
DO NOT affect victory level. They are MUCH more numerous (3 a month from August 1945 for USAAF, plus one in July).
And there is a very small chance Japan might get one every few months from Fall, 1945 (not likely in 106 as the
Allies start close to Japan and industry in Japan is already substantially damaged). Slightly farther out,
if we can make Madagascar, odd numbered scenarios will pick up a revised map system, adding units associated with
Madagascar for the Axis and Operation Ironclad for the Allies.

ORIGINAL: npsergio

I can't see the weapons in some plane details screen. But the weapons are defined in the editor.
Is this because I don´t produce the devices?
Maybe my oponen and I have diferent mod versions?

Any idea suggestion?

Probably the weapons are there but simply I can´t see them?

Regards.