JSF

I vote for Mark Gellis.

Mark, interesting storyline. Ideas enough for a whole battleset. Regarding Russia and Europe: I don´t think that they would join any hot war.

Ok, got it when I use any country. So the Country and or Time flag is wrong/missing I guess?

Strange. Did not find it with Country/Time enabled.

Gunny, the carrier Liaoning is in, but the fighter J-15 is missing. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15 ANW 3.11 HUD 4 v 1.11

Ok,roger.

Very good. Have switched to V 3.11, though, since you made tons of changes in additions. Good job, old Frenchman

Ok, I see. Will you mark any fictional units in the DB?

Hi Gunny, so the PAN Arromanaches is a fictional carrier? Ok. Yes, post the Orbat, like to get an overview.

I nominate Mark Gellis. Mark has written close to 20 excellent scenarios for H3 UE in the last year and heavily supported HUD 4 development, too. Ralf

Gunny, dont´know if this intended or an database issue. Why has the Charles de Gaulle Class carrier the name/designation "PAN Arromanches" ?

Mark, here we are: Pledge 1. Several weeks left to get out 11 more

File Name: Pacific War 1 File Submitter: JSF File Submitted: 27 Nov 2012 File Category: Scenarios Pacific War 1: Ignition Japan vs China Date: August 14th, 2013 Long lasting tensions tend to explode some day. The struggle regarding the Senkaku (as the Japanese name them) or Diaoyutai (the Chinese name) Islands is one of those latent conflicts. It' s not about those little rocks, it's about the ressources around them. Ignition is the first scenario of a new Battleset which displays an accelating conflict, starting around those small islands. This a sharp tactical duel, be careful using time compression! Click here to download this file

You guys do a graet job. I´, going to finish and upload a scenario today, the starting point of a new Battleset. Using the latest HUD4 since I just read the thread about the former ASROC issue.

Great job, Gunny!

So the answer is to focus on the HUD4, Mark. As you already do.

Copy that. For my part of the pledge, I will use this 3.11 with its included database = b10.

On the other side, this is, now that the LA has failed in its first attempt, a hell of a tactical fight. Keep on telling us.

But, by all means, why should a valuable boomer run in front of a FF? The Soviets would never put a boomer to such a risk IMO.

I think, regarding the file´s date, that his V 1.1 beta10 DB is included in that public release. And his next release will be beta11 or yes, v1.11 or v1.2. I really agree not to call it beta. Real version names are better. What is the difference between a beta database and a release version? I understand this regarding the game engine, but not regarding a database. Either the db is ok and should have a version number. Or it is not ready to release - and then it should not be released. These betas are confusing - can one trust them and write scenarios? Or not?

Gunny, an update which is NOT identical with that version included in the 3.11 public beta? Is that which you are going to post another beta?

Good news, Gunny. I hope I´ll deliver first and fulfill my own pledge. Was totally drowned in RL but haven´t forgotten about this task.

Mark, I´m still around and just downloaded your latest scenarios. Yes, I´m going to test them and to write AARs. I even write the scenarios I promised - just need time due to RL issues.

Nice one, Brad. Though for a West European ist is not so easy to come to an own opinion about your Presidential candidates and their parties, it is fascinating to follow the whole issue.