Akula

That's what I thought. The real problem with being spotted by the fishing trawler was that they were forced to launch about 200 miles further out from Tokyo then planned, which left the B-25s with barely enough fuel to make it to the Chinese coast, much less the inland airbases. A lot of the raiders were forced to ditch into the sea, and some were captured by Japanese forces.

In theory, you could possibly launch a LB A/C from a carrier, just not land it (and the stress of the Catapult shot probably wouldn't do it much good either). In WWII, this was done by several nations, that is launch LB A/C from a carrier, then have the A/C fly to a friendly airstrip to land (IE Doolittle's Raid). The Japanese army actually operated a pair of small CVEs for this purpose, but they were never put into use in this capacity. Once of them did end up carrying auto-gyro's in an ASW capacity however (Japan was the first to use a rotor wing A/C in this capacity).

Got to watch one at an airshow once. When they aren't carrying weapons they can just take straight off vertically like a chopper. It is a very impressive aircraft.

Yes, I've noticed this and it is highly annoying. Also, you can't set specific bases as ViConds either.

Actually it's good eye Rene, he's the one that pointed it out to me.

Scorpio (Project 12300) #2985 No damage points in DB. Reported on Mantis: http://mantis.advancedgaming.biz/view.php?id=2439

DB error, seems the ship has 0 hitpoints in the DB, so its stuck between sinking and floating. Report to Mantis: http://mantis.advancedgaming.biz/view.php?id=2439

Let me go into more detail on the PE option. What I would like to see is the ability to use certain tables from the current DB (such as installations or weapons), but blank others like ships or aircraft. This would give DB designers the same basic format to work from, but not require changing every single entry. With the utility I would like to see, we could copy over the weapons/mounts sections from the official DB, and then only need to build up his other annexes. While this is currently possible by simply editing the existing entries, it is a 'messy' ordeal. Starting with a blank annex would be preferable simply for organization, plus the fact I may not need 2000 bases in the DB I am creating. I think this would be a usefull tool considering the current limitations on the DB in size (even if we have managed to break free of that), and the fact that with the BB, if I create a Falklands BS for instance, I don't need to have every unit from every country from 1950 onwards available, I really only need the OOB for Argentina and UK in 1981. Basically would could build a BS with an appropriate DB and not have it cluttered with 4-5 copies of the same ships for different eras.

I think I have seen this once before, and it turned out to be an AI ship that ran aground and sank itself, thing was it seemed to be sinking for an eternity. I will take a closer look at this when I go to lunch.

To put it in very simple terms, think of BAI and CAS the same way, which is basically a supression mission. You want to make the bad guys stop shooting at friendlies. SIOP...think of making a very large, glowing parking lot.

Agreed, if this is a patrol set for the base, from base A/C they should never run out of gas.

I think the ability to swap DB for the SE and PE would be a good option, so that a scenario designer could simply use the launcher utility to load the desired DB before designing a scenario. Also, giving the ability to build a new DB in the PE from the launcher would be a usefull option. Let me go into more detail on the PE option. What I would like to see is the ability to use certain tables from the current DB (such as installations or weapons), but blank others like ships or aircraft. This would give DB designers the same basic format to work from, but not require changing every single entry. With the utility I would like to see, we could copy over the weapons/mounts sections from the official DB, and then only need to build up his other annexes. While this is currently possible by simply editing the existing entries, it is a 'messy' ordeal. Starting with a blank annex would be preferable simply for organization, plus the fact I may not need 2000 bases in the DB I am creating. I think this would be a usefull tool considering the current limitations on the DB in size (even if we have managed to break free of that), and the fact that with the BB, if I create a Falklands BS for instance, I don't need to have every unit from every country from 1950 onwards available, I really only need the OOB for Argentina and UK in 1981. Basically would could build a BS with an appropriate DB and not have it cluttered with 4-5 copies of the same ships for different eras.

I'll give this a go by this weekend, come back with an AAR when finished.

I think it would be a low priority item. This is not a game breaker. Annoying for sure, but not something that is urgent.

Sounds good to me. Besides, we've got enough on the wishlists to keep you busy well into next year I'd think.

Sounds like the commands are reversed. Personally I don't want an a/c returning to base until I have another one to prosecute the target anyway. Once you locate a sub would be foolish to just leave the area and lose the contact, IMO. Does need to be fixed so that the game executes the order the player gave though.

This is an old issue that has been brought up in the past. Still I have refreshed the discussion on it, and perhaps a solution can be found. Mantis: http://mantis.advancedgaming.biz/view.php?id=1978

So basically, the 'bug' was an incorrect scenario build due to simply converting the extension?

Confirmed. Tough to reproduce, you have to have a very precise set of circumstances, but if those conditions are met, you get the skip to guns every time. Report to Mantis: http://mantis.advancedgaming.biz/view.php?id=2415

So basically are we happy with these to the point that I can close them in Mantis, or should we leave them up a while? I did close out a couple of very old reports yesterday which had no new complaints on them, seemed they were fixed well enough.

Personally if I were the one neck deep in salt water, I'd not be very happy if they didn't stop and try to bring me on board a still floating ship. On the other hand, sometimes you have to run to save what's still floating. I can see why it would go both ways.

Well that does explain why some of the AARs I've seen written show the player only destroying part of what I assigned as victory conditions. I thought one of us had simply miscounted. Good catch on this one.

Herman, was the submarine assigned as part of the SAG? I'm betting that has something to do with it if it is the case. PS I'm at work right now, so I can't take a look at teh file yet.

You know, I could actually see it happening that a green fleet would shoot down anything that got in range to attack it in the middle of a warzone simply as self defence. If the planes are overflying the green fleet is it really that unrealistic? After all, does the nuetral side truly know the intentions of either the player or the AI in this case. Though the player shouldn't even be alerted when it happens, that much I do agree on. Nor should the player be getting intel info off of green units.

I addressed this one as part of this bug report, as I ran into the same problem when testing for the other. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2429 I've also noticed that patrols don't always start where they were ordered to in the SE.