Issue with US troops

[David G]

Completely understand the point about not changing a scenario (even for this obvious error) without designer consent. Personally all I really want is to be able to look at the database and see whether or not a particular custom scenario has the out-dated units problem - and marking UPDATED scenarios in some way would solve that. (Oh, are there custom scenarios where the problem has already been fixed but aren't marked.... my head hurts.)

[Jason Petho]

All the stock West Front scenarios are now updated and will be included with the 2.01 UPDATE.

I'll update the LCG's as well and have those included.

Jason Petho

[David G]

All the stock West Front scenarios are now updated and will be included with the 2.01 UPDATE.

I'll update the LCG's as well and have those included.

Jason Petho

Well I for one would like to say thanks for this - look forward to it in due course.

[Crossroads]

As Jason's having a look at the LCG's now, this leaves us with the following scenarios mentioned in this thread, having this issue:

- A Hard Snow Falls, by Craig Foster, played 79 times
- Still Full Of Fight, by Doug Bevard, played 295 times

What to do? Are the designers still around in MCS scene ?

Perhaps a dedicated thread can be put out to collect the classics that would require a modification. I would like to see an active community involvement in that thread though, before committing my limited time to this, especially as it involves editing scenarios designed by others. I hope you see what I mean.

On the other hand, if there is popular demand for a set of scenarios that need modification, I am more than happy to chip in!

Edit: As a separate thought, I think the scenario title should be edited as well, as otherwise it can get very confusing. Two players with different force pools playing an H2H, ouch!

Something like: "Still Full Of Fight [2.0]", so that it is really obvious what version is being played.

[Big Ivan]

IMO I think it is legal to update a stock scenario but give credit to the original designer first then the person who did the update in the discription. I think Rod Coles did something along these lines in updating a few scenarios from the old stocks for playability. However, like you said he made a second independent file for the DB I believe.

As for getting a hold of the original designer issue good luck!
Doug Bevard and Craig Foster were heavily into the first generation of CS. I have not seen or heard of these two gentlemen in quite a while on the net with CS; years in fact. So hence the conflict. They maybe totally out of gaming or heaven forbid not with us anymore.

As for modifying the scenario title for an update, good idea Petri!! That would make it much less confusing.

Thanks!
ItB

[Crossroads]

The thing is we would need to check if the custom scenario pre-dates 1.03. If it does, then it would be a technical fix to allocate for changed unit IDs in the engine. No issues there.

But if we know the custom scenario is 1.03 or later, then the modification would need the designer comment. Maybe there was a reason the late war infantry was modelled using early war units? Lack of anti-armor weapons in a specific battle? I have done that.

As there is no date of origin fields in scenarios, we would need to look at game comments and file dates and if they indicate a 1.02 or earlier date then it would be green light for the modification.

Again, I would like to see an active discussion for specific scenarios that would be opted for the technical fix.

[Kool Kat]

IMO I think it is legal to update a stock scenario but give credit to the original designer first then the person who did the update in the description. I think Rod Coles did something along these lines in updating a few scenarios from the old stocks for playability. However, like you said he made a second independent file for the DB I believe.

John and others, let's be clear on the facts. Rod first came to the officers with a proposal, we (officers) debated it, and than Rod received permission to make the modifications. Please do not modify any existing game files in the database without receiving permission from the Ladder Commander (me) or Dave (Scud) or the Designer/Member.

Blitz ROE #16 states in part the following:

"You also cannot edit (including game files) a scenario entry in the SDB that you did not create yourself without the permission of the Ladder Commander or the Designer/Member. It is also abuse to use the "vote" feature to leave negative comments on a scenario you have not played and reported.

If a SDB entry has been found to have been changed with malicious intent, disciplinary action will be taken and offenders may have their SDB privileges withdrawn."

As for getting a hold of the original designer issue good luck!
Doug Bevard and Craig Foster were heavily into the first generation of CS. I have not seen or heard of these two gentlemen in quite a while on the net with CS; years in fact. So hence the conflict. They maybe totally out of gaming or heaven forbid not with us anymore.

All attempts need to be made to contact the Designer/Member of the scenario first. IF these attempts fail, than please circle back with me and Dave. I would like to better understand how many WF scenarios are impacted? Are we talking less than 50? More than 200?

[Crossroads]

Yes, let us not rush into things here...

I had my second cup of coffee meanwhile, and realised the two scenarios raised are stock scenarios. So both of them will be included in the 2.01.

[Big Ivan]

Mike,

For the record I have no intentions in modifying any existing scenario(s) in your data base except my own. I have enough to keep busy on with my own creations.

I though about what I said after your post and realized it could be taken in the wrong context.
Sorry about that and thanks for the rules clarification! Much appreciated!

As for the club rule about getting in touch with the original designer, yes I agree with it, but like I said good luck with that. I think you'll find that's a brick wall in some cases which will take you right back to the beginning.

Cheers!
John

[Kool Kat]

Mike,

For the record I have no intentions in modifying any existing scenario(s) in your data base except my own. I have enough to keep busy on with my own creations.

I though about what I said after your post and realized it could be taken in the wrong context.
Sorry about that and thanks for the rules clarification! Much appreciated!

As for the club rule about getting in touch with the original designer, yes I agree with it, but like I said good luck with that. I think you'll find that's a brick wall in some cases which will take you right back to the beginning.

Cheers!
John

Hey John:

No worries!

I didn't want folks rushing off and modifying a bunch of scenarios until there was discussion, permissions, and a clear course of action laid out.

We're on the same page here. We'll get this worked and resolved.

Thanks for players weighing in on this challenge!