1.03 UPDATE

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1.03 UPDATE

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> 1.03 UPDATE

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 12:24:27 AM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

A few days have passed with the 1.03 UPDATE being released.

There are a few minor graphic glitches, an error on my part while trying to get as many of Ladmo's graphics incorporated as possible. An OOB glitch that I though I corrected didn't seem to be included with the last UPDATE build. These will be corrected in the next UPDATE or UPDATE PATCH.

Visibility and Assaulting are obviously the big items of discussion as they affect the game system and the style of play for many players the most. I am listenning (reading) what people are saying and the feedback that is being provided. Some of the assaulting isn't functioning as intended, primarily those units with a 0 assault value are taking too much of their morale into account when being assaulted, which is a glitch.

Providing specific examples of issues would be truly appreciated, even a screenshot or two would be even more appreciated.

That being the case, an attempt will be made in a future UPDATE or UPDATE PATCH that will correct the assault issue with 0 assault unit (leaders, horses, trucks, etc) as well as trying to make these an Option, like the Extreme FOW option. Needless to say, this will require fairly significant coding adjustments, so be patient.

If you like it, let me know and why?

If you don't, let me know how it isn't functioning or how you would like to see it improved/altered, apart from what is already noted about the horse/truck/etc issue.

What about the rest of the 1.03 UPDATE. How is it? Do you like the new OOB options? How are the DCG's? How are the new units? Suggestions on altering them or new ones?

We are listenning.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

Post #: 1

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 1:11:42 AM

scottintacoma

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

Jason,

Started an Barbossa DCG today. Playing the Germans, everything worked well, including armor asualting disrupted infantry in non town/fortified hexes. One armor one each side of an Disrtupted infantry in woods, Infantry surrenedered.

I ahve not tried WF yet, last time the infantry had no vehicles. Is that the fix that did not happen, if so can you tell us how to modify the oobs to fix it.

Thank you for all the hard work.

Scott in Tacoma

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 2

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 1:35:57 AM

R.E.LEE

Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline

Jason how do i make a screen shot and then put it here,actualy any good hearted pro could answer this for me ,thanks.

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 3

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 1:36:53 AM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

I ahve not tried WF yet, last time the infantry had no vehicles. Is that the fix that did not happen, if so can you tell us how to modify the oobs to fix it.

Hi Scott

The West Front and Rising Sun OOB's will be getting a work over for the 1.04 UPDATE.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to scottintacoma)

Post #: 4

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 2:02:20 AM

R.E.LEE

Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline

test damn.I AM A FREAKING GOD,YOU HEAR ME

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by R.E.LEE -- 7/14/2008 4:07:42 AM >

Post #: 5

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 3:51:28 AM

scottintacoma

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

Jason,

I tried a WF DCG. Infantry had no Transport, trucks or halftracks. Is there any way to fix this?

Scott in Tacoma

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 6

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 3:58:50 AM

simovitch

Posts: 5488
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Jason,

I tried a WF DCG. Infantry had no Transport, trucks or halftracks. Is there any way to fix this?

Scott in Tacoma

Scott, The first DCG I fired up has plenty of transport. Please give us more to go on, What DCG were you playing?, what side?, what size org?, what type - tank or infantry?

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to scottintacoma)

Post #: 7

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 6:09:35 AM

osiris_slith

Posts: 240
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

Hi Jason

Great work on the patch!

Im all good with the new assault rules..it just makes close assaults a bit harder and you need to be more careful..I did some�testing and it works fine..nicely done..if you found a bug as you stated in a earlier post..I think once the bugs are out it will be fine!

Variable visibilty is my biggest concern..the stock scenarios need to be protected as they were not designed with this function in mind..so even a shift in 1 up or down in visibility can hurt..I think the best solution and I think there are some�now see a on off switch as a good idea..

Graphics! Great work on some of them!...but German trucks are a mess. The fix is simple...I wont post it here and I can send it to you later if you need it and than you can decide if you want to go public with it

Nice work and�kudos to�Jason and�Matrix and the beta brigade!

oh and one more thing..I dont need patch 1.02b

Osiris/rene

< Message edited by osiris -- 7/14/2008 6:10:04 AM >

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 8

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 7:32:03 AM

cw58

Posts: 277
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Hanford, CA, US
Status: offline

Hi Jason,

First, thanks for all the work you and your team did. I know that you all made a huge sacrifice of time and energy and I, for one, appreciate it. I know that not everyone is pleased with the update but to make everyone happy you would probably have to do something illegal.

Just a random thought.

Things I like (love):
-Ladmo's artwork; beautiful
-New concealment rules; very nice, Hal gets some new teeth!

-Bridging & Engineering, mines; very much a plus. Some complain that it changes the scope of the game, but I think the game is flexible enough to handle that. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em.
-The work on the DCG's seems good, though I haven't had much of a chance to really test them out.
-New AA rules; it's nice to see my Storch shot down instead of assaulted by infantry (that can still happen, but it should be much harder now with the new rules)

-I personally liked the loaded/unloaded graphics of the German trucks. Easy for me tell which trucks are empty at a glance. But I can understand why people in H2H games don't like it.
I'm sure there's others but I can't think of them right now.

Things I'm not sure about:
-More potent artillery; I've heard some complaints but I haven't had time to check it out
-Variable Visibility; so far, I had only 1 incident where I noticed it effecting the game. I had a unit on a hill at maximum range spotting for indirect fire. Then suddenly my artillery attacks began to drift. What??? Visibility had dropped 1 hex. Not a big deal, just a surprise. So on this issue, I can take it or leave it.

-New assault rules; you're right about there being a problem with horses, trucks, etc. I did quite a few tests and found something curious. Without a leader stacked with them, the truck (or whatever) would stand and fight, losing about 2-3 SP/assault, retreating about 50% of the time. (That's with 1 German schutzen platoon assaulting). With a leader stacked, the unit would lose 1-2 SP/assault, but retreated every time.

I also did some tests with Russian mortars and ATGs (all 0 assault values) vs. same German unit. The results were even worse. Without leaders, the mortars and ATGs held their ground (in 16 assaults) and lost 1 SP with only 1 unit captured. With leaders, the guns retreated every time and 5 units were captured (in only 8 assaults). So definitely something up with that.

I guess that means I'm on the fence with the new Visibility and Assault rules.

One thing I didn't like: the new encryption code.

But that's water under the bridge.

So overall, I give the 1.03 Update 2 thumbs up (or 2 blue guys bowing). Job well done.

(in reply to osiris_slith)

Post #: 9

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 1:29:44 PM

scottintacoma

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

Simovitch,

Big Red One, as the commander of a US Tank Battalion, using the MCS OOB. I had started one up after the 1.03 beta was released, and had the same problem.

Scott in Tacoma

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 10

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 3:44:56 PM

simovitch

Posts: 5488
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Simovitch,

Big Red One, as the commander of a US Tank Battalion, using the MCS OOB. I had started one up after the 1.03 beta was released, and had the same problem.

Scott in Tacoma

OK I checked through the files and it looks like if you are not recieving any transport for your Infantry then it may still be working as designed, with the new US OOB's. When I tried it, the random force generator for the DCG is selecting the '42 Rifle Company which is not motorized:

42 04 45 12 C1002231 6 Rifle Company 42 (Inf)(T/O 7-17)
42 04 45 12 P10401 Lt.
42 04 45 12 P10201 1st Platoon
42 04 45 12 P10201 2nd Platoon
42 04 45 12 P10201 3rd Platoon
42 04 45 12 P10207 Machinegun Section
42 04 45 12 P10102 Mortar Section

In fact it looks like none of the new Rifle Companies have a transport element. From what I can see If you want motorized infantry in a US player DCG with the new US OOB's you will need to select an Infantry -> Armored Division -> Armored Infantry. Otherwise use the old Talonsoft II Corps.

The old West Front Talonsoft OOB's were debugged for 1.03 and should work fine for both Axis and Allied.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to scottintacoma)

Post #: 11

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 3:47:40 PM

scottintacoma

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

simovitch,

Thanks for the reply. I had thought about that. One of the other differences is the MCS starts you with Shermans, in the Talon Soft you start with Grants, and move to Shermans going into Italy. I might try to edit the oob, and see what happens?

Again thanks.

Scott in Tacoma

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 12

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 4:07:37 PM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

simovitch,

Thanks for the reply. I had thought about that. One of the other differences is the MCS starts you with Shermans, in the Talon Soft you start with Grants, and move to Shermans going into Italy. I might try to edit the oob, and see what happens?

Again thanks.

Scott in Tacoma

If you open up the battalion OOB (battalion10.oob) in a text editor and CTRL + F and search for

!! CAMPAIGN FORMATIONS 1.03 !!

Underneath this is a Medium Tank Battalion (A)[A]

You can change the OOB so it reads from this:

quote:

40 07 45 05 B1010243 4 $. Medium Tank Battalion (A)[A]
40 07 45 05 P10305 #. Medium Tank Battalion HQ
43 09 44 07 + C1000213 Headquarters Company 43 (Armour)(T/O 7-17)
44 08 53 12 C1000222 Headquarters Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
40 07 41 03 + C1000205 A Medium Tank Company (M3)(T/O 17-27)
41 04 41 11 + C1000207 A Medium Tank Company (M3A1)(T/O 17-27)
41 12 43 06 + C1000210 A Medium Tank Company (M5A1)(T/O 17-27)
43 07 44 07 + C1000212 A Medium Tank Company (M4A3)(T/O 17-27)
44 08 44 10 + C1000223 A Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
44 11 45 05 C1000225 A Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W/applique)(T/O 17-27)
40 07 41 03 + C1000205 B Medium Tank Company (M3)(T/O 17-27)
41 04 41 11 + C1000207 B Medium Tank Company (M3A1)(T/O 17-27)
41 12 43 06 + C1000210 B Medium Tank Company (M5A1)(T/O 17-27)
43 07 44 08 + C1000212 B Medium Tank Company (M4A3)(T/O 17-27)
44 09 45 05 C1000223 B Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
40 07 41 04 + C1000205 C Medium Tank Company (M3)(T/O 17-27)
41 05 41 12 + C1000207 C Medium Tank Company (M3A1)(T/O 17-27)
42 01 43 04 + C1000211 C Medium Tank Company (M4A1)(T/O 17-27)
43 05 44 09 + C1000212 C Medium Tank Company (M4A3)(T/O 17-27)
44 10 44 11 + C1000223 C Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
44 12 45 05 C1000227 C Medium Tank Company (M4A3E2)(T/O 17-27)

To This:

quote:

40 07 45 05 B1010243 4 $. Medium Tank Battalion (A)[A]
40 07 45 05 P10305 #. Medium Tank Battalion HQ
43 09 44 07 + C1000213 Headquarters Company 43 (Armour)(T/O 7-17)
44 08 53 12 C1000222 Headquarters Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
40 07 41 03 + C1000205 A Medium Tank Company (M3)(T/O 17-27)
41 04 41 11 + C1000207 A Medium Tank Company (M3A1)(T/O 17-27)
41 12 42 10 + C1000210 A Medium Tank Company (M5A1)(T/O 17-27)
42 11 43 06 + C1000208 A Medium Tank Company (M3 Lee)(T/O 17-27)
43 07 44 07 + C1000212 A Medium Tank Company (M4A3)(T/O 17-27)
44 08 44 10 + C1000223 A Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
44 11 45 05 C1000225 A Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W/applique)(T/O 17-27)
40 07 41 03 + C1000205 B Medium Tank Company (M3)(T/O 17-27)
41 04 41 11 + C1000207 B Medium Tank Company (M3A1)(T/O 17-27)
41 12 42 10 + C1000210 B Medium Tank Company (M5A1)(T/O 17-27)
42 11 43 06 + C1000208 B Medium Tank Company (M3 Lee)(T/O 17-27)
43 07 44 08 + C1000212 B Medium Tank Company (M4A3)(T/O 17-27)
44 09 45 05 C1000223 B Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
40 07 41 04 + C1000205 C Medium Tank Company (M3)(T/O 17-27)
41 05 41 12 + C1000207 C Medium Tank Company (M3A1)(T/O 17-27)
42 01 42 06 + C1000208 C Medium Tank Company (M3 Lee)(T/O 17-27)
42 07 43 04 + C1000211 C Medium Tank Company (M4A1)(T/O 17-27)
43 05 44 09 + C1000212 C Medium Tank Company (M4A3)(T/O 17-27)
44 10 44 11 + C1000223 C Medium Tank Company (M4(76)W)(T/O 17-27)
44 12 45 05 C1000227 C Medium Tank Company (M4A3E2)(T/O 17-27)

That will add M3 Lee's to your MEDIUM TANK BATTALION A

Don't forget to save the file.

You will have to RESTART your campaign and only select the A type of Tank battalion!

Jason Petho

< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 7/14/2008 4:15:16 PM >

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to scottintacoma)

Post #: 13

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 4:51:36 PM

scottintacoma

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

Jason,

Thank you. Now to figure out some tansport for the infantry.

Scott in tAcoma

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 14

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 5:01:50 PM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Jason,

Thank you. Now to figure out some tansport for the infantry.

Scott in tAcoma

Load them on your tanks?

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to scottintacoma)

Post #: 15

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/14/2008 10:52:45 PM

scottintacoma

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline

Jason,

I thought about that.

Scott in tAcoma

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 16

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/15/2008 1:34:33 AM

XLVIIIPzKorp

Posts: 224
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

Jason,

Overall I appreciate everything all of you have done. Great job.... but...

I'm having a hard time watching my platoon of Panthers and their accompanying full platoon of panzergrenadiers fail to assault a battery of Yankee 105's multiple times over multiple turns.

Figure thats part of the "assault bug"?

and it may have been nice if the artillery affects vs. armor had been confined to increasing the disruption chance rather than kills... seeings how in my opponents last artillery shoot I've just lost more Elefants than I had lost from direct combat in the preceding 14 turns of Earl's "Cauldron of Fire".

Increased disruptions vs. AFV's would still give the artillery the capability to break up armored attacks by rendering the AFV's incapable of advancing towards the enemy. Same effect without this new rain of AT rounds from the sky.

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 17

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/15/2008 1:44:23 AM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp

Jason,

Overall I appreciate everything all of you have done. Great job.... but...

Thank you muchly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp

I'm having a hard time watching my platoon of Panthers and their accompanying full platoon of panzergrenadiers fail to assault a battery of Yankee 105's multiple times over multiple turns.

Figure thats part of the "assault bug"?

Yes, that is an issue and will be addressed ASAP. In the meantime, it might be wiser to shoot your way through guns instead of multiple assaults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp
and it may have been nice if the artillery affects vs. armor had been confined to increasing the disruption chance rather than kills... seeings how in my opponents last artillery shoot I've just lost more Elefants than I had lost from direct combat in the preceding 14 turns of Earl's "Cauldron of Fire".

Increased disruptions vs. AFV's would still give the artillery the capability to break up armored attacks by rendering the AFV's incapable of advancing towards the enemy. Same effect without this new rain of AT rounds from the sky.

Duly noted, and I have brought it up behind the scenes.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to XLVIIIPzKorp)

Post #: 18

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/15/2008 1:47:51 AM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

Something to keep in mind, a typical German 105mm battery consists of nearly 50 men, all armed with rifles (in addition to a couple of machineguns). They will put up a fight.

The US 105mm battery has a few more men, 4 x .50 cal machineguns and eight bazooka's.

Jason Petho

< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 7/15/2008 2:05:03 AM >

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 19

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/15/2008 6:38:55 PM

kool_kat

Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

If you like it, let me know and why?

What about the rest of the 1.03 UPDATE. How is it? Do you like the new OOB options? How are the DCG's? How are the new units? Suggestions on altering them or new ones?

We are listening.

Jason Petho

Hi Jason:

Here is some "good stuff" about ver. 1.03.

I really like the following "new" ver. 1.03 Rising Sun scenarios!

Hukawng Valley Charge

Philippine Scouts Stand and Fight

Bougainville

Last Stand at Samarinda

Pozorrubio

Kawkareik

I'm currently playing Bougainville (Japanese) and having a blast! The new patch forces me to be more careful with assaults and avoid overstacking. Artillery appears to be a little stronger (getting more 1 sp results) and it is extremely difficult to pry the Allies (and Japanese for that matter) out of their improved positions / bunkers. Realism looks good to me.

(Other things I like about ver. 1.03):

Native troops, new tankettes, Allied scout cars (Last Stand at Samarinda)
Calvary (ability to mount & dismount) (Philippine Scouts Stand and Fight)
Commando special forces (Allies)
Graphics - artillery barrage

Honestly, there is a lot to explore and discover in ver. 1.03!

I know I'm only scratching the surface right now!

Overall, a good patch - minus the referenced bugs, variable visability, and assault issues.

Thank you Jason and Matrix Games Team!

Regards, - Mike

< Message edited by mwest -- 7/15/2008 8:40:11 PM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 20

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/15/2008 9:00:09 PM

willy g

Posts: 35
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: USA
Status: offline

I agree that the patch is amazing, I love the variable visibility and dont care what others say, I still havent formed an opinion about the artillery, and I was never much of an assaulter anyway. Everything looks great, this may have been there before, but I just noticed the bits of foliage on the Pz IVD. I've been playing DCGs for the better part of 10 years, and I love the new ones. I remember reading somewhere that RS needs more, and couldnt agree more that RS is to the three games, what DCGs were to the CS, the redheaded stepchild. I love the new OOBs and the refrence materials that let me know exactly what I'm getting into with my unit (even though if you pick Russia, your pretty much getting pummeled by German Armor). I dont play Scenarios or LCGs much, but what few I did, were relatively fun (to impersonal for my tastes).

(in reply to kool_kat)

Post #: 21

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/16/2008 2:39:40 AM

awc

Posts: 33
Joined: 9/21/2006
Status: offline

Jason, Just curious that if an american 105mm battery has 50 plus men machine guns, etc. then why were these units/platoons never included in the artillery battalions order of battle?

(in reply to willy g)

Post #: 22

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/16/2008 2:59:08 AM

Jason Petho

Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: awc

Jason, Just curious that if an american 105mm battery has 50 plus men machine guns, etc. then why were these units/platoons never included in the artillery battalions order of battle?

They were there as a test for the Germans with the first release of MCS and were removed again in 1.02 after some complaints about them.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to awc)

Post #: 23

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 1:23:23 AM

Borst50

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline

Overall, the 1.03 update is a huge step forward, one i am happy with. My major pet peeve was indirect artillery fire, but that is being corrected as per another thread, so no need to mention it here.

The new assualt rules seemed to work fine for me, however, this is under the codicil as I do not use assualt all that often, but when I do, I use overwhelming force....I lose very few assualts.

One thing with the new OOB's i did notice, I cannot choose a recon battlion as my core unit in DCG's. The Pz IIIF companies that had no HQ platoons prior to this, now have them in EF, but.....when I started a Barbarrossa campaign, my current OB for my core panzer battalion shows the HQ platoon as Pz IIIG...not F, and thats how they show up in the engagement. WF Pz IIIF companies still do not have the HQ platoon. But the US Rifle Platoons 44 have been fixed back to their normal strength of 6 not 4. I havent played Big Red One yet, so I do not know if the upgrade glitch for the Germans has been fixed. wHere the battalion HQ tank platoon upgraded to Pz IIIg from f...but did not go to full strength, and cannot be rebuilt.

So my final rating on the 1.03 update......4 Starshells out of 5!!!!! (I have Been watching way too much G4.....sheesh!!!!)

Thanks again guys...to all at Matrix staff...and Especially JASON....great job!!!

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 24

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 3:25:44 AM

simovitch

Posts: 5488
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

I havent played Big Red One yet, so I do not know if the upgrade glitch for the Germans has been fixed.

The upgrade bugs should be fixed in WF DCG's. That and the bug that caused no units to show up at start.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to Borst50)

Post #: 25

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 3:21:28 PM

simovitch

Posts: 5488
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

I'm playing "Into the City" with EF 1.03 because I remember this one to be a difficult nut to crack with plenty of bunkers and pillboxes.

So far on turn 6 of 25 I've broken through the first layer of objective/fortification locations a lot easier than I thought it would be (listening to all the diatribes on this forum.) Tank losses from artillery? maybe 1.

There have been a few assaults that failed becuse I didn't deliver enough punishment up front which is now the name of the game (as it should be IMO). Several more that succeeded because they were carried out properly. One sigh of relief when my disrupted grenadiers held out in the rubble against an enemy assault.

One thing I have noticed is that AP shot seems much more effective against infantry in concrete pillboxes (as it should be IMO). This has helped the advance into the city. So far 1.03 is a winner in my eyes.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 26

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 7:41:31 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

very happy overall, especially since my usual opponent loves to assault. The new rules make that tougher. Although a Tiger bounced by a truck does seem a trifle skewed.

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 27

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 9:26:59 PM

jmkas

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: Sparks MD
Status: offline

Apologies if this has been answered before.

If a H2H game is going at the old version, will applying the patch mid-game cause issues?

Thanks
Joe

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 28

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 9:32:21 PM

Huib

Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmkas

Apologies if this has been answered before.

If a H2H game is going at the old version, will applying the patch mid-game cause issues?

Thanks
Joe

You may see some weird graphics (bridges and starshells everywhere) during the transition turn replay. That doesn't affect play and is gone the next turn if both players have upgraded.

(in reply to jmkas)

Post #: 29

RE: 1.03 UPDATE - 7/17/2008 10:20:42 PM

jmkas

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: Sparks MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmkas

Apologies if this has been answered before.

If a H2H game is going at the old version, will applying the patch mid-game cause issues?

Thanks
Joe

You may see some weird graphics (bridges and starshells everywhere) during the transition turn replay. That doesn't affect play and is gone the next turn if both players have upgraded.