Scenario template won't finalize

[Styker]

Can someone take a look at the attached scenario template.  I can get it to generate, but it will not finalize.  After generation, it shows in the briefing room, I deploy a lance, right click on the scenario and click edit, but nothing happens.  It does not bring up the dialog box with the finalize button, nor does it allow pre or post editing per the documentation.  This is simply a test scenario, so if you could correct it and re-post it I would also appreciate that.  Alternately, if someone has a scenario template that they know works and could post that, that would be helpful.  I have a feeling that I'm simply missing something but I can't see what.


Thanks

[NickAragua]

I just encountered this myself, it looks like there's an omission in the dev release. Your mekhq/data folder should contain a "scenariomodifiers" subfolder - if it doesn't, the edit scenario popup bugs out.

It's a little inconvenient, but you can grab the contents of the folder at the link below, and put it into the mekhq/data/scenariomodifiers folder (create if it doesn't exist): https://github.com/MegaMek/mekhq/tree/master/MekHQ/data/scenariomodifiers

[Styker]

Did that work for you?  I still have the same problem.  I put 34 files (2.22mb) in data/scenariomodifiers (had to create).  Generated from template, right-click scenario, click edit...and nothing.  Should it maybe go in the scenarios sub-folder?

[NickAragua]

The only thing I can think of is you'd have to restart mekhq. If that doesn't work, can you post the mekhq.log file?

[Styker]

I already restarted MekHQ.  I also started a new campaign.  I even tried reloading and re-saving the scenario template, just in case it required some of the missing .xml files.  I see several exceptions to the AtB dynamic scenario.  I have attached the MekHQ log.

Thanks

[NickAragua]

Most of the exceptions look like you're clicking 'finalize' on a standard AtB breakthrough scenario, which the UI shouldn't allow you to do, but if it did, that's the error it would throw. The first exception is the scenario modifier stuff failing to load.

Could you upload
a) a screenshot of the folder where you put the scenariomodifier stuff, including the full path? I want to make sure you put it in the right place.
b) the campaign save?

[Styker]

O.K.  You are correct, I did try to "finalize" an AtB scenario out of curiosity.  I'm attaching the campaign file and a screenshot.

Thanks

[NickAragua]

You've got the folder in the right place, but it still looks like MekHQ is failing to load the scenario modifier manifest, it should be called "modifiermanifest.xml". The file names are all case sensitive, so you can try to doublecheck spelling and letter case.

[Styker]

O.K.  I found the problem.  The file names are fine but the contents were wrong.  I thought the links on this page:  https://github.com/MegaMek/mekhq/tree/master/MekHQ/data/scenariomodifiers were download links.  They're not.  All I ended up saving was the link itself.  When I opened the .xml all I found was a bunch of gobbledygook.  I followed each link to the text, then copied and pasted the text into each file instead.  It now will finalize and generate forces and maps.  I went ahead and started it in MM, just to be sure and it works.

Thanks for your help.

[NickAragua]

No problem. Glad to see people using the feature, it's a stepping stone to creating some seriously gnarly scenarios (and scales to forces of any size).

Let me know about any improvements you'd like to see (other than that god-awful window re-sizing issue that you'll know when you see).

[Styker]

One thing I am trying to do is create a true campaign feel.  Right now no matter how many 'mechs or vehicles I destroy there are always more.  I am currently on an objective raid, and have destroyed a company of 'mechs, and probably 2 of vehicles, and yet the only result has been to reduce the operational tempo.  I have been on planet for over 3 months for a raid that should have taken only days, weeks at most and am no closer to my objective. 

The campaign scenarios I'm setting up are designed to move towards an objective.  As the player moves forward, successfully completing missions and destroying enemy units, the enemy gets weaker.  This would also allow certain events, such as enemy or allied reinforcements to actually mean something, as they would actually receive reinforcements.  Along the way I am creating side missions that can further assist the attacker, such as destroying the enemy airfield.  This will prevent the enemy from using air assets during defensive missions for the next 3d6 weeks (The defender can still used them offensively, they would just launch from further away and coordinate their timing  with the rest of the attacking force, defensively their would not be time to get to the battle before it's over).

I am currently (by hand) creating OpFor and allied TO&Es.  These allies and OpFors don't use maintenance, repairs, healing, parts or money.  Basically, if an OpFor 'mech was destroyed it's removed from the TO&E, otherwise it is instantly and completely repaired. 

So, what I would really like to see, is the scenario generator to choose, rather than from a RAT, from my OpFors or allies TO&E.  This could be by .mul or straight from a campaign file.  Either way it would choose only 'mechs and other units that that force currently has in it's TO&E. 

[NickAragua]

"Non-unlimited" opfor is on my road map, but it's a ways down. However, the AtB overhaul I'm currently working on is significantly more focused on accomplishing specific objectives rather than just fighting to the end of the contract or dropping the morale to "rout". ETA unknown due to feature complexity (and limited time due to personal circumstances). I think I posted an updated AtB rule set on this board some time ago, you may want to take a look at that to see what's in store.

[Styker]

Accomplishing objectives is exactly what my own scenarios are geared for.  Beginning with the orbital approach (if the OpFor has any aerospace assets), to the planetary landing, meeting engagement and so on.  Recon raids would be used to conduct recon, and would give either initiative or BV bonus to the raider for the next battle only if successful.  Some of the current scenarios would only be used in specific circumstances.  For example, an extraction raid could be conducted by either side, but only if prisoners had been taken by the enemy, rather than just randomly rolling an extraction raid.

Would you happen to have a link to these updated AtB rules?  I definitely would be interested in looking at them.

[Easy]

Would you happen to have a link to these updated AtB rules?  I definitely would be interested in looking at them.

MegaMek GITHub: https://github.com/MegaMek/mekhq
MegaMek Slack:      https://megamek-public.slack.com/messages/C2EUT1K0B/

[Edit: Er, 'kay, you knew that, but if you didn't! Sometimes the answer is in the Slack, but since more of the search features have been put behind the paywall, I don't have quite as much access as I used to. I just don't have enough reasons to pay Slack for it.]

[Styker]

Thanks anyway Easy, but there's nothing on that github link and I don't have a slack (whatever that is) account.  He said he posted it on these forums so I'll just have to search his posts.


Actually, it turns out you can just search his attachments.  Made it easy.

[Easy]

Slack invite link: http://megamek.org:3000/

[Styker]

I already found it.  All I had to do was search NickAragua's attachments.