No progression from Shifting Sands Scenario 1 and typos.

[Pergite!]

Hi,

Just bought and started Shifting Sands.

I have completed the first scenario (Major Victory) but the button to continue the campaign is inactive and greyed out. How do I continue, did I miss something?

I was also a bit disappointed with the briefing and the order in this first mission. Just in the three first paragraph of this module I found one spelling error as well as one formatting error.

It might not look but a big deal, but IRL these things have a rather large impact. Poorly worded and defined objectives and tasks can create serious issues in the execution. Smaller things like a typo also have a more psychological impact: "If they didn't even bother to poof read their order, what other half arsed measures have been taken in the planning process?".[;)] Since everything else you do is up to professional standard, those are just stupid things that unnecessarily stand out.

I would also like to suggest that you keep a consistency in the order and briefing formats in your modules. If you aim to emulate a particular opord format then do it 100%, since there is well thought out reason for everything that is being put in there, and how its dispositioned. If you need any tips I am happy to help, although I know you have the know-how in your team. Certain community scenario authors are also really on point when it comes to this subject.

I really like the additions of how comms are handled and am looking forward to the Bekka Valley scenario.

[Raptorx7_slith]

You know if you're posting in tech support about grammar or spelling don't you think you should point them out so they can be fixed?

[.Sirius]

Hi as mentioned please post your complaints in the Technical forum as mentioned thankyou

[mikmykWS]

Egypt vs. United Kingdom

Date/Time: 31st October, 1956 / 22:00:00 Zulu
Location: Egypt - Gulf of Suez
Duration: 6 Hours
Playable Sides: United Kingdom

On late October 1956, as the Suez crisis bloomed out to a full intervention, a number of RN ships found themselves in the Red Sea, cut off from the rest of the active British forces. As has always been the case, the Red Sea was chock-full of neutral and commercial shipping, so rules of engagement were tight. Even against positively identified Egyption vessels, the instructions were to warn and turn ships around, and engage only as self-defence.

On the evening of October 31, HMS Newfoundland, a British Fiji-class cruiser, encountered a darkened ship passing here in the opposite direction. The Newfoundland closed to 1,500 yards, and came parallel to this ship, signalling it to heave-to or be fired upon. The darkened ship, later identified as the Egyptian Navy frigate Domiat, signalled acknowledgement and appeared to slow down. Then suddenly it extinguished its running lights and trained her guns on the RN ship.

Newfoundland signalled to her consorts that she was engaged with a confirmed hostile, and Domiat likewise called for reinforcements. The fight was on

Intro looks like Egyption and signalled although not sure if signalled and acknowledgment are the english (UK) versions. So only minor one here.

Orders for Cmdr UK Naval Forces

OVERVIEW

Egyptian naval forces have deployed into the Red Sea, to intercept any vessels trying to enter the Suez Canal region.

HMS Newfoundland and other UK units are in the area and are to maintain an orvert posture in the area.

ORDERS



Units to patrol between Point Alpha and Bravo. Engage and destroy any Egyptian naval units.



EXECUTION




TG 324.01 and TG 324.02 are to Patrol the Red Sea and are to engage any Egyptian warships that are detected and demonstrate hostile intent. ROE dictate that you may fire only after being fired upon.



UK ORBAT


Task Group 324.01

HMS Newfoundland [Flagship]

HMS Diana



Task Group 324.02

HMS Crane

HMS Modeste

RFA Wave Sovereign



EGYPTIAN ORBAT



River Class Frigates [Ex RN]

Bangor Class MCM [Ex RN]

Possible MTBs [Ex RN]



COMMAND




Command: HMS Newfoundland [Flagship]



Signal: EMCON Plan Alpha, Unrestricted Emissions

1 here. overt.

No psychological impact at all. This is nicer than my first comment[:)]


Mike

[mikmykWS]

Ok just checked and the pass score is 170 and end scenario event is > 170. It looks like 245 points possible with the RN wiping all EG ships out.

Running now to see.

Would you happen to have a file?

Mike

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: mikmykWS

Ok just checked and the pass score is 170 and end scenario event is > 170. It looks like 245 points possible with the RN wiping all EG ships out.

Running now to see.

Would you happen to have a file?

Mike

I only noticed "orvert" which caught my eye. There was also some font mix in the text when I first looked at it, but its gone now, so its probably a bug at my end.


I only had 150 points so that is likely the problem. Still a "Major Victory" according to the scenario, so I interpreted that as some kind of success given that I had fulfilled the written objectives.

Imho there was a disconnect between the expected mission outcome and the instructions to get there i.e the orders. Maybe I am just expecting too much or am interpreting things from a different perspective of military operational command. I will just rerun the scenario and score 20 more points and that will solve the issue.

What I was talking about was not about "psychological damage", the reference was aimed at IRL experience, as I also stated.

I wont bother you any more, thanks for the help!

[mikmykWS]

Ok thanks.

I think everybody understood your point on the spelling but it is not a nice thing to lecture a designer over it especially if some of it is he's using that olde english[:)] He's not wrong. I think as a known designer in SPMBT you'd sympathize.[:)]

You're probably right on the point value thing although there may be something a little more.

I think there might be something with the progression routine running but don't have much time this weekend (sorry!). Devs may have to follow up on this or ask the beta team unless they can wait.

Mike

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: mikmykWS

Ok thanks.

I think everybody understood your point on the spelling but it is not a nice thing to lecture a designer over it especially if some of it is he's using that olde english[:)] He's not wrong. I think as a known designer in SPMBT you'd sympathize.[:)]

You're probably right on the point value thing although there may be something a little more.

I think there might be something with the progression routine running but don't have much time this weekend (sorry!). Devs may have to follow up on this or ask the beta team unless they can wait.

Mike

Thanks,

I am sorry about the typo thing, don't know why I digressed so much instead of being constructive. Could possibly had something to do with wine[8|]. I been a fan since those early screen-shots of Red Pill (8-9 years ago?) and am a big admirer of the effort you all but into this simulation.

...speaking of red pills: