Healz
General
Does this mean that those people who have already downloaded version 2.73 will need to download an update or will we have to download the whole thing again to fix those errors with the flanking attack you found?
[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0
- Thread starter Wolfshanze
- Start date
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
v2.73 is ancient history... that's for those old-timers with v3.13 of BtS.
The previous version was v2.80... but the flanking attacks were bugged.
The new v2.81 fixes the flanking attack, and a lot more changes were done... including a lot of new models.
So v2.81 is a LOT MORE then just a fix for the flanking attacks... you'll need to download the whole thing... but if you're playing v2.73, flanking attacks work in v2.73 (thats because v2.73 was PERFECT in all regards... it was just for v3.13 of BtS). v2.80 was flawed, but it was for v3.17 of BtS.
If you're playing v2.73, you have nothing to fear, all is working, and nothing to upgrade to... v2.81 is not compatible with v2.73 saves... if you're playing v2.80, the flanking attacks are bugged, but fixed in v2.81 (and save-game compatible)... you can either continue in v2.80 without the flanking attacks, or upgrade to v2.81, which fixes the flanking attacks and adds a whole lot more models and other fixes to the game.... it will require a new download though.
I'm not really into doing little tiny patches, sorry (it becomes more headache then it's worth)... it's all or nothing with me... but when I do offer a update, I always try and throw in a lot more then just one small fix... hence v2.81 has a lot more then just the flanking fix.
I suppose a case could be made that there is a gap right now between WWII units and the modern multirole fighters. I know there wasn't a "light bomber" during the cold war, but on the other hand, it wasn't a case of going from light bombers straight to multiroles either. The F-15 Strike Eagle didn't enter serivce until 1989. That's 44 years since WWII. Granted, it replaced the F-111 which I think was originally designed to be multirole, but didn't really operate as one.
Anyway, this is not really a subject I feel to strongly about, but I can certainly see a valid point.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I merely gave the F-15 Strike Eagle as an example... it was certainly NOT the first multi-role fighter/bomber in service... there's been plenty, including the F-4 Phantom of Vietnam War vintage that did just as much ground-pounding as air superiority roles... so clearly the start of multi-role jets wasn't invented in 1989! 
The term (and role of) 'light-bombers' fell out of use in the 1950s... that's just the way it is... I didn't will it to happen, it just did!
The Wolfshanze Mod goes from WWII-vintage aircraft to Jet Aircraft... which covers roughly the 1950s to today. You've got at least 40 years or more of multi-role strike fighters at least since Vietnam till today to cover, so I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to cover this as I mentioned the way I did.
The term (and role of) 'light-bombers' fell out of use in the 1950s... that's just the way it is... I didn't will it to happen, it just did!The Wolfshanze Mod goes from WWII-vintage aircraft to Jet Aircraft... which covers roughly the 1950s to today. You've got at least 40 years or more of multi-role strike fighters at least since Vietnam till today to cover, so I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to cover this as I mentioned the way I did.
Healz
General
Sorry I meant to say 2.80. Oh well I'll download the fix now.
Wodan
Deity
Would be interesting to add something like a B-25H. Though, when we add in the game's abstraction, there's probably no functional difference between it and a normal bomber.
Hey Wolfshanze....i want to use your beautiful buttons and a couple of your units in my own mod. i dont find them on this site. can you tell me how i can unpack your .fpk file. i try it with the fpkunpacker but it permanently crashes.
THX
THX
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Functionally the B-25 is a Light Bomber... would fall into the light bomber category... currently I use the TBF Avenger as America's light bomber... I choose to use single-engine light bombers over twin-engine light bombers simply because they're quite-often used on carriers... and it makes a lot more sense to see a TBF Avenger fly off a carrier then a B-25 (even though they did fly off a carrier once, that was an anomaly).Wodan said:
I would recomend you use PakBuild to unpack the files.Hey Wolfshanze....i want to use your beautiful buttons and a couple of your units in my own mod. i dont find them on this site. can you tell me how i can unpack your .fpk file. i try it with the fpkunpacker but it permanently crashes.
THX
Here's how:
1) Start PakBuild
2) Select "Pak" from the pull-down menu
3) Select "UnPack"
4) Select the "Wolfshanze.FPK" file
5) Tell the program what folder you would like to unpack the files to
That's it... it will then unpack the Wolfshanze.FPK art files, including all the units, flags and buttons.
Healz
General
Any chance of a Heavy Bomber that does more damage... Just a thought for adding in the B-52H which is a large bomber... Also could we perhaps have the ability to build two divergent lines of bombers at stealth- a stealth type that doesn't carry quite so many bombs but has a lower chance of being intercepted and a regular bomber that has a higher chance of being intercepted and a higher bomb damage ratio. It just feels like stealth comes along and poof- in game all the regular bombers vanish when Stealth Aircraft are really only a relatively small percentage of the Air Force at the moment...
Berenthor
King
If I remember correctly the B52 is already in the game (correct me if I'm wrong) as the jet bomber for america. It has increased range over a normal jet bomber. I think in appearance the H-variant looks quite similar so it would be strange to have it twice.
You're right about stealth-bombers being a small percentage of the air force. I read that the USAF even tends to keep the B52s until at least 2040. The problem is probably game mechanical. If you add an extra one, than which one do you build. Probably you see the AI build only one of the two (whichever it deems better) and due to the limitations on the number of aircraft in BtS (at least this is what I remember, maybe I'm wrong) large diverse forces in you're cities would be a little problematic. Just my 2 cents, it is Wolfschanzes mod after all
Healz
General
Ok, yes, I see the problem there. It was just a thought...
warriordude
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12
You can still build Swordsmen and axemen with Iron only though correct? My favorite civ is the Romans, and Legionaires are most definitely superior to axemen, except in the open field.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
Yes definately... you need either Copper or Iron... not both! If anything, it made using the Roman Legionaires easier to build, not harder. Of course, the trade-off is that you're really screwed if you reach the Medieval Age without a source of Iron, because you can't build the Maceman/HeavyFoot unit without Iron (used to be able to build it with Copper, but that option is gone now).
In a nutshell... Copper is more useful in the Bronze Age, since you can now build Swordsmen (and their UUs) with Copper... and if you have no source of Iron, that would be a good time to use those Bronze Swords to secure a source of Iron for the Middle Ages (because you'll need it!).
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
I haven't really payed much attention to the Gallic Warrior, but if that's what made him "special" over all other Swordsmen... I'd consider that a very lame UU. To be honest, the Swordsmen seems to be a pretty weak unit to begin with... it gets slaughtered by axemen (which require copper or iron, while by default the weaker swordsmen was tougher to get), and the swordsmen just really wasn't all that special unless the only opponent in an enemy town were archers... stick one or two axemen in the enemy town and the swordsmen was nearly worthless... I'd rather have 3x CR Axemen then any kind of Swordsmen.
Allowing bronze swordsmen to be built and disallowing bronze macemen is the right thing in my book... seems cheap that the best medieval ground-pounder could be made with bronze, while all others required iron-only.
I'll look at the Gallic Warrior... if his only special was being able to be built with Bronze, I'll give him some other bonus, because that's weak considering the swordsman was kinda weak to begin with.
Allowing bronze swordsmen to be built and disallowing bronze macemen is the right thing in my book... seems cheap that the best medieval ground-pounder could be made with bronze, while all others required iron-only.
I'll look at the Gallic Warrior... if his only special was being able to be built with Bronze, I'll give him some other bonus, because that's weak considering the swordsman was kinda weak to begin with.
Healz
General
I didn't mind the Celts when I played them originally. Haven't played them since. Bit hard to get around to being able to play all the Civs when you only get time to play on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Oh well, I liked the Gallic Warrior but I don't think I tried any wars with him. That might have made a difference...
Healz
General
Okay, so they are not quite entirely useless as some opinions seem to be saying...
warriordude
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12
Oh heck, give me copper on that hill near Rome and I'll have all of Europe and Africa underfoot by the time the first Maceman appears.
