Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
The "problem" was according to the documentation naval guns MUST be listed sequentially in the Units file from smallest to largest.
The adoption of the Mk 45 mod 4 (5in/62) in 2000 needed to be added.
|
In which case, the existing block of naval guns should have been
renationalised and the names changed perhaps to add a *. Then the brand new block of guns with the extra one inserted could have been laid down in an available block of free slots (9?) - of which there appear to be several such runs still available in the USMC OOB. Then the pick list start ID would need changing to point to the new number for the start of the new block and the number of guns item to have +1 added. And finally, the Formation Templates would need changed to point to one of the new block. Fiddly, but doable
without nuking existing scenarios!.
Simply changing random existing units, which may well be used in scenarios and user's save games is
not at all looked favourably upon because of the existing scenario/ongoing save game problem highlighted here by the end user's problem. Such games will have thier data overriden with the changed data as seen here!. In crowded OOBs where this has to be done for some reason then we have to manually find all scenarios (including those wrapped up in user campaigns!) and individually fix those. However, any end user with a save game based on the OOB, or an existing game or scenario in progress - will have that toasted since we cannot fix them for the individual end user. Unless of course, the renationalisation happened, as described previously - the renationalisation is
precisely to allow for such existing end user saved games to continue!.
IF we had been informed of this in advance then we could have
simply sorted it out using the aforementioned techniques.
However, the OOB went out
without any such necessary remedial work because
we werent informed of this so-called "problem". That is
double plus ungood!.