New Beta Release: Seven Days in October, 1962 [UPDATED 12 JUL 17]

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Amazing work! Can see the time, effort and care put into this. Using many of the features etc. we've added and you've used them in your own way brilliantly. BZ Apache!

Mike

Thanks Mike, that means a lot!

[npsergio]

It seems really interesting!

[Rory Noonan]

Thanks npsergio, I've been really busy the last week but will have some time to work on this over the weekend to fix some bugs and start getting it up to 'release' rather than beta standard. I should have an updated version out in the next few days for testing.

By the way, Zaslon, you created a monster with that reminder about the Beale incident [;)]

[1nutworld]

Just curious which CWDB is being used for this scenario. When I attempt to open the file I get an error message "you have (explicitly or implicitly) attempted to use a DB that is not on the folder".

I am using Command v1.11 Service Release - Build 906.26

[mikmykWS]

Grab the current beta

tm.asp?m=4268010&mpage=3&key=

[1nutworld]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Grab the current beta

tm.asp?m=4268010&mpage=3&key=

Thanks Mike!

[gvshort]

Hi...thanks for the mod! I'm trying to load it in the newest 1.11 release and it's giving me a database error. DB doesn't exist on the DB folder. I tried another mod and it worked fine. One note: this one doesn't seem to have a .ini file. Not sure if that has anything to do with but thought I'd mention it. Looking forward to playing it!

[CCIP-subsim]

ORIGINAL: gvsho

Hi...thanks for the mod! I'm trying to load it in the newest 1.11 release and it's giving me a database error. DB doesn't exist on the DB folder. I tried another mod and it worked fine. One note: this one doesn't seem to have a .ini file. Not sure if that has anything to do with but thought I'd mention it. Looking forward to playing it!

As Mikmyk's post right above mentions, you should get the 1.12 beta instead - that contains the new database [:)]

[Gunner98]

This is a fantastic scenario. 10 hours in, Cuba just went hostile on me so picking away at the edges. Must have strayed a little too close to Havana because I got jumped by a bunch of MiG-21s and lost 3 102's in about 30 seconds! Before that I had a 7 min dogfight with 2 Phantoms vs 2 MiG-19s and a MiG-17 with no loses! I am not used to this era of tech so that its a very new situation for me. Mig-21's being dominant --who knew!

I'm going to have to try this again when you do an update - I think I've messed this one up too much to recover.

Great Job Apache.

B

[JPFisher55]

Gunner, how did you get your F-4's to fire their missiles? The only way I could do it was manual.

[Gunner98]

Not easily - but I think it makes sense. They started in close range as the Cubans went hostile and we were close already, I am not sure of the minimum range for the Aim-7, and the Aim-9 is rear aspect only - but they spent all their time turning and burning. They got off a sidewinder shot automatically but the MiG-19 dodged that. Watching them try and turn inside each other was cool but frustrating. I think to make an Aim-7 shot they would have had to have a clear radar shot and not be in the middle of a fur-ball, and the Migs kept cranking away from them, so they weren't able to get a rear aspect Aim-9 shot. Those missiles are just not that good and the Migs are agile. An F-102 got a head on shot with an Aim-4, first time I had ever seen that.

Something else fired Aim-7s automatically and some Aim-9s got shot as well but not from the Phantoms, except that one in the fur-ball. The F-4 was supposed to be the super fighter but with crap missiles and no guns it is at a real disadvantage.

B

[Gunner98]

duplicate post

[Rory Noonan]

I am looking at the bug you reported in the next hour or two JPFisher, should have an update on that for you soon.

It could be that we are used to much higher performance from missiles. This scenario has been a real eye opener for me about the state of things before the late 70's to 80's.

I am hoping to have a new version out in the next 48 hours

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: JPFisher55

I am having a problem with my air to air a/c and missiles with this otherwise excellent scenario. I am using 936.6. My a/c on air patrols will not engage the hostile Cuban a/c nor will they automatically fire
missiles at them. When I order a manual fire, the dialogue box says the a/c's weapons are set to hold status even though the a/c's status on air targets is tight or free. I have not encountered this issue with any other scenario using 936.6. I attach saved game file.

Hi JPFisher,

Firstly thanks for providing a save. I am not seeing this issue on my runthroughs, but I am seeing it in the save you provided. I found a way to fix the issue;

1. Open up the side doctrine window
2. Click 'reset all affected missions'
3. Go through the missions and make any changes as required

This seems to 'reset' the doctrine, and by doing that the behaviour I'm observing is consistent with the displayed WRA.

In regards to your particular savefile it's cool to see different approaches, and particularly some of the--almost goofy--weaponry in use back then that we don't hear about these days, in particular air-to-air rockets and radar guided Sidewinders.

I think this issue is worthy of a tech support post, however in the mean time you can use the work-around above. Thanks!

[Jorm]

Hi Apache, i had the same problem as JPFisher, i.e. aircraft would not fire. Your solution worked when i gave it ago.

[JPFisher55]

Apache85, I'll try your solution. I know that it is peculiar to your scenario (but not for everyone) because using 936.8, I have had
a/c automatically fire air to air missiles.

[Rory Noonan]

I'm going to implement it into the next build as a default so hopefully that will fix it permanently... until the next time [:)]

[JPFisher55]

Apach85, your fix worked. Now if the planes would just stay in their patrol zones when ordered not to prosecute out of patrol zone. Has anyone else noticed this bug in 936.8? Planes assigned to a patrol with prosecution outside of patrol zone unchecked will prosecute targets where they please even if out of the patrol zone.
I did report that bug. I hope the fix is easy.

Also, Apache85 your original setting of air contacts WRA to tight works once I hit the buttons for affected units and missions.

[Rory Noonan]

New file version added to top comment.

Known Issues:
At scenario start, civilian air traffic will all take off and land within the first 30 mins or so. This is due to bug that has been reported. A workaround is in place and after the planes land things will work as normal. Prepare for a Bogey dance in the first 30 mins. Sorry!

Degree symbols display as unknown characters in Special Messages

Fixes/Additions:
SD-41: Nuclear torpedo warheadID not available
SD-35: Too many MiG-21s on CAP
SD-37: Lua script execution error in Cuba_Waters
SD-39: Lua script execution error in Cuba_Airspace
SD-40: Lua script execution errors in Sub proximity scripts
SD-38: Tweak formatting in Cuban territorial waters messages
SD-36: Improve USSR air missions
SD-29: Final Check of Briefing
SD-4: Increased chance of nuclear exchange if USN near sub
SD-6: Add mission for boats
SD-8: add event for US ships entering Cuban waters
SD-10: Add event for detection of SSMs
SD-31: Too much tension increase for recon aircraft entering Cuban airspace
SD-16: Reset doctrine for side and unit
SD-12: OOB Issues
SD-20: Check OOB for TG 135
SD-30: Check Hullnumber.com for additional surface units
SD-28: Review escorts for Essex
SD-26: Add USS WILLIAM V. PRATT (DLG-13)
SD-18: Amend briefing to reflect Randolph returning from Med, diverted to GTMO
SD-14: Weapons not firing auotmatically
SD-25: Check DD-448 Vallette, remove if necessary
SD-24: Check DLG-7 Luce, remove if necessary
SD-23: Check DLG-10, remove if necessary
SD-19: Add CONUS Radar
SD-2: Add USS Beale
SD-3: Add USS Vesole
SD-21: Move Randolph and check escorts
SD-13: Check in and out date of Vesole
SD-1: MiG-15UTI to Bis
SD-5: Civilian airliners should stop flying at midnight
SD-11: Work-around for ferry bug
SD-9: No reliable way to turn on and off No-Nav Zones

[lamboman43]

Being more than three days in, I don't want to start over. But those changes are just too tempting!!!