|
Post by meroka37 on Jan 4, 2014 13:59:06 GMT -6
I notice time goes backwards in the scenarios before 1900... is there any reason for that?
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Jan 4, 2014 17:32:16 GMT -6
This was raised a few days ago and is an unforseen feature of the system measuring time from 31 December 1899 and is not a trivial fix.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 5, 2014 1:54:23 GMT -6
The ports of Dalny and PA don't seem to change hands correctly. I took Dalny several turns ago and it's still listed as an enemy base, with ships even stationed there. Indeed, I've observed Russian ships fleeing under fire into the port and escaping. I took PA last turn, and the Russians scuttled their ships under repair. But, this turn a single Russian DD sortied from there, and the end of scenario shows the Russian shore batteries and other facilities still there. Also, when I reloaded the campaign the turn after taking PA, I got "cannot find [ship] in repair list" popups for all of the scuttled ships. Thanks!
1. Dalny. Yes there is a bug there that I just discovered.
2. The lone destroyer is probably a patrol, but they should obviously be stopped once PA falls.
Will look into the issue with shore batteries. They should have been eliminated just like the ships, but there may be a glitch there.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 5, 2014 6:57:48 GMT -6
One more question - I can't find Chiyoda and "Japanese Auroras" Niitaka-class cruisers in campaign. Should they appear there? They seem to have been missed. Thanks for pointing this out, we will add them.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 5, 2014 15:01:28 GMT -6
I know this, the problem was in other. Here are the saves of situation which looks similar to what I wrote in previous post: DD Serditi detached from division approaches Vladivostok... But after mission she is in Port-Artur with rest of her 1/2 destroyer flotilla. Thanks for the report Gornik! That was a good save, and I have found the problem. Will be fixed in the next update. Sorry for the inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2014 16:40:19 GMT -6
Could someone explain this ship design file. Is this supposed to be the British Cruiser Sassda possibly. Enlighten me, please.
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 8, 2014 17:06:57 GMT -6
It's just a game developmental design and may be safely ignored or deleted as desired.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2014 17:32:07 GMT -6
It's just a game developmental design and may be safely ignored or deleted as desired. Thanks. Ah! Good! I thought after looking at all the SDFs, I was seeing double. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Jan 9, 2014 8:30:19 GMT -6
Old version of Naniwa cruiser (Naniva89) was used in several single scenarios . This cruiser was rearmed before the war. It is necessary to use another existing model with updated weapon.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 9, 2014 9:21:54 GMT -6
Old version of Naniwa cruiser (Naniva89) was used in several single scenarios . This cruiser was rearmed before the war. It is necessary to use another existing model with updated weapon. I also noticed that the ship design files show both versions without the protected cruiser box checked. How important is this? Should the box be checked? The Naniwa was a second class protected cruiser according to Brassey's of the period.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 9, 2014 11:11:20 GMT -6
Yes, the protected cruiser box should be checked for ships lacking belt armor.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 9, 2014 11:46:42 GMT -6
Old version of Naniwa cruiser (Naniva89) was used in several single scenarios . This cruiser was rearmed before the war. It is necessary to use another existing model with updated weapon. This is applicable to the Ulsan scenario. I have sent the fix to FW for inclusion in the next update. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Jan 9, 2014 11:59:55 GMT -6
This is applicable to the Ulsan scenario. For Ulsan, Sea of Japan and Chemulpo
|
|
|
Post by alex on Jan 9, 2014 12:06:52 GMT -6
I also noticed that the ship design files show both versions without the protected cruiser box checked. How important is this? Should the box be checked? The Naniwa was a second class protected cruiser according to Brassey's of the period. Yes, about half of the protected cruisers in the game don't have this checkbox and don't have belt protection (armored deck slopes). Any hit in the engine room area leads to the destruction of engines. I corrected these moments in my modification of the ships models.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 9, 2014 12:28:48 GMT -6
Yes, the protected cruiser box should be checked for ships lacking belt armor. Ok, thanks for the quick response. I will fix and document.
|
|