-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
OK will change the other. So line 2317 ETA is not used at all or should that be gesch. Ankunftszeit ?ADukes said:
Last edited:
Although it seems like line 2317 is not used at all, GAZ is ok for both lines to be on the safe side.
Ok. i have changed it so. Unfortunately i have gotten myself a really bad infection in my leftarm so i will not be able to do much work the next week atleast.Dilbert-A- said:
Damn Fitness training, knew it was a bad idea.
line | misspelling | suggested correction
602 | gesch. Ankunftszeit | Fertigstellung
132, 133, 134 | Aggresivität | Aggressivität
573 | Befestigungenen | Befestigungen
579, 580 |Verhängsivolle | Verhängnisvolle
845 |gerrechnet | gerechnet
2588 |Seperat | Separat
2590 |Armeee-Modifikatoren | Armee-Modifikatoren
Corrected the typo in Shinhoto Chi-Ha. I found one site that actually list the type 5 CHI-RI tank as type 5 CHI-RE, its the same tank. http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/japan/japan-tank.htmlRandwyck said:
You seem to be correct the intire japanes arm models could probably need a reclassification.
Last edited:
No units names for the USA, Japan, the USSR and Italy...
I have just installed the version 0.40 of the CDCP mod.
But when building units as the USA in the 1936 scenario I only get generic names (1st BC, 1st Infantry Division, etc.).
It is worse when building units as either Japan, Italy or the USSR...these units get strange names like USA, KAZ, etc.
Has my install of the mod gone wrong....or is there an error in version 0.40 of the CDCP mod?
I have just installed the version 0.40 of the CDCP mod.
But when building units as the USA in the 1936 scenario I only get generic names (1st BC, 1st Infantry Division, etc.).
It is worse when building units as either Japan, Italy or the USSR...these units get strange names like USA, KAZ, etc.
Has my install of the mod gone wrong....or is there an error in version 0.40 of the CDCP mod?
There are some weird errors in unitnames.csv in version 0.4 that could explain the weird names you see.Herodotus said:
When i changed some units names i temporarily used some cells to the left off the names as holding cells for names i was swapping around.
Apparently i only deleted the text in those cells and not the cells. So there are some additional ;;;;; in that file aswell as a duplicate KMS Hipper name in coloum 4. Which should be deleted. open the db\unitnames.csv in notepad and go down to the german section. Then you will easily see the redundant ;;;; after unitnames that should get deleted and the duplicate KMS Hipper name in coloum 4.
I will upload a new version where this is fixed though. Sorry for the inconveniance.
EDIT: I have uploaded a version 0.41 to moddir & Modhoi, should be up for dl later today.
Last edited:
Well, it's type 5 and not type 4 (and the photo was, as I already mentioned, from another model).Gormadoc said:
By the way, in Japanese leaders file you can find Vice admiral Kato T. I'm not sure he's Katō Tomosaburō (looks like it), but if he is, he died in 1923. Don't know if it's that important though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kato_Tomosaburo
Lately I've been working on IJN models, and was quite surprised at the lack of them. For instance, there are only two CAs (Furutaka and Nachi), while I can name these:
Aoba - 1926
Furutaka - 1926
Myoko (<Nachi) - 1928-1929
Takao - 1932
Mogami - 1935-1937
Tone - 1938-1939
Ibuki - project
Same with CVLs, there are only 2 of them, one being CV and not CVL (Hosho). I can name Furutaka - 1926
Myoko (<Nachi) - 1928-1929
Takao - 1932
Mogami - 1935-1937
Tone - 1938-1939
Ibuki - project
Ryujo (<Hosho)- 1933
(Ryuho - 1933*)
(Shinyo - 1934*)
Zuiho - 1941
Taiyo - 1941
Hiyo - 1942
Unryu - 1944
Again, it's not game-braking, just somewhat inaccurate.(Ryuho - 1933*)
(Shinyo - 1934*)
Zuiho - 1941
Taiyo - 1941
Hiyo - 1942
Unryu - 1944
I think i will leave leaders traits start/enddates, skill lvls to the CIMP team. It will just be double work. Besides those guys now a lott more about that than i do. I only fix buggy/missing pictures wrong type traits and such.Randwyck said:
On the Ship model names issue, you should not use year as determining factor on what model it is. Hosho was reconfitted in the thierties and never served as a fleet carrier, it only served breifly as a airplane ferry and escort carrier but where quite fast relegated to be used for training purpose in the inland sea. Its the same with some of the early UK carriers Hermes, Eagle and one more, all built as fleet carriers, but all where more like a light or escort carrier in ww2 era. Thats why the first Japanese CVL Model is called hosho.
It could very well be argued that Hosho should be left out and the first class should be named Ryuho. The next class is Zuiho class which is OK i think. no more class names in original game. I have named the next class for Taiyo class, since they where the only japanese carriers with armoured flightdeck. But in all other respect where very similar to Zuiho class in both speed, range and number of aircrafts afair. Same holds for the next japanese cvl's. The late war japanese CV's where not that different from the ones build in the thierties because Japan simply did not have the industrial muscles to make cv's like US Essex class. Some of the allied latewar models of cvl's had 40-50 planes while the japanese had 15-25 or something in that order. I gues thats why they dont have any names for the latewar models.
If i use the latewar japanese cvl's and use their names as names for models i fear i will have half the forum in here all arguing that in no way can the Jap latewar cvl's be compared with a British Centaur class cvl. Which they are quite right in.
Unryo where more like Hiryo fleet carrier than anything else. It gets tricky when the models also have to be aligned with other countries models.
I know next to nothing about Japanese cruiser so i will refrain from commenting that.
Last edited:
Actually, I don't think that's a valid argument: certainly Italian M.15/42 or Japanese Type 1 Chi-He is no match for e.g. T-34. That's just the way the technology tree approximation works.Gormadoc said:
But you're right, of course, in that it's beyond the scope of CDCP-mod.
I would burn out if i tried to overhaul the model names database. Just the research involved would be breathtaking.Randwyck said:
Is CDCP available anywhere in .zip format? Another mac user here and I only see .rar files in the links...
Howler said:
Not that I know of, but a .zip format version of this mod would be most appreciated. How about it, CDCP crew?
I can easily make a .zip version. Just curios though but what are the problems with .rar for mac users ?CSABadass said:
Good call. I renamed the manchuku names in the 1944 scenario aswell, for unknown reason they where in English instead of the Manchuku names used for the other scenarios.ADukes said:
Last edited:
Gormadoc said:
I'm no tech guru but I believe .rar files are windows-specific and not readable by the Mac OS. Same with .exe, so no auto-installs either.
.zip works fine for Mac with manual installations.
A .zip upload would be much appreciated, and keep up the great work!
~Howler
A search within the archiving topic on Sourceforge for "rar macos" yields 27 results.
However, I also prefer zip because just about every OS (even Windows) comes with a programme capable of handling the format; for plain text the extra compression efficiency available with some other formats is normally not necessary.
However, I also prefer zip because just about every OS (even Windows) comes with a programme capable of handling the format; for plain text the extra compression efficiency available with some other formats is normally not necessary.
- Status