1.03 disappointing....Jason

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 disappointing....Jason

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 >> John Tiller’s Campaign Series Support >> 1.03 disappointing....Jason

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/27/2008 7:20:07 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

I just installed the 1.03 patch and resumed an East Front campaign I had been playing. First thing I noticed was the Soviet artillery....WAY too effective against armor. Sorry....but artillery is devestating against infantry and artillery, but against armor it is more an irritation than anything else. This is especially true when firing indirect fire. Just too many Tiger tanks being knocked out and disabled by artillery in this new patch. I even tried moving the slider all the way over to Axis advantage and it didn't make any difference. With 1.02 I didn't have this situation at all. However, the German artillery seems to have gotten WEAKER in this new patch. It is useless against Soviet armor, even armored cars are immune to it. And it only has mild success against infantry and opposing artillery.

Also, the large number of commander's vehicles are a bit of a joke. For one thing they are running around all over the place. Command cars did NOT make themselves easy targets in ANY war!!!! They mainly stayed behind the lines or stayed attached to an armored or armored reconaissance unit. And the same problem that has been present with the Campaign Series since it's inception is still there. The Command Cars zoom back and forth between the same two hexes like the driver is insane or trying to burn up the fuel in his tank. Only now there are a lot more of them doing this.

Bottom line....I want to uninstall this new patch and revert to the 1.02 patch. I know I'll probably have to do a full uninstall and re-install. But this game is just not playable for me in this condition.

Jason: Is the 1.02 patch still available?

< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/27/2008 7:21:28 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

Post #: 1

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/27/2008 7:58:05 PM

kool_kat

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

Deputy:

Why don't you load the ver. 1.04 beta patch?

It is a cumulative patch (rather large file size) that gives you the option of either using the pre. 1.03 assault rules or the new "extreme assault" ones. It also allows you to toggle off variable visibility. Plus you get all the new units, nationalities, scenarios, etc. that were included in ver. 1.03.

< Message edited by mwest -- 8/30/2008 1:44:50 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 2

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/27/2008 8:12:03 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

Deputy:

Why don't you load the ver. 1.04 beta patch?

It is a cumulative patch (rather large file size) that gives you the option of either using the pre. 1.03 assault rules or the new "extreme assault" ones. It also allows you to toggle off variable visibility. Plus you get all the new units, nationalities, scenarios, etc. that were included in ver. 1.03.

Because that patch doesn't address the problems I mentioned. I need 1.02 or 1.02b
Plus I looked and didn't see any 1.04 patch at the download area.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/27/2008 9:47:57 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to kool_kat)

Post #: 3

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/27/2008 9:22:47 PM

Jason Petho

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

The 1.02 UPDATE is in your installation. Look in the folders.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 4

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/27/2008 9:59:14 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The 1.02 UPDATE is in your installation. Look in the folders.

Jason Petho

I looked. Nowhere to be found. Someone has suggested that it would be nice to have ALL the patches posted so that folks could pick and choose exactly what version they wanted to use. That's a great idea!!!

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 5

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/27/2008 11:25:52 PM

GHQ

Posts: 14
Joined: 1/2/2007
Status: offline

It's more than just my opinion but artillery was pretty effective against tanks you just have to read history books to see that.
Previous versions of JTCS didn't do it justice but in JT's HPS PzC's things are very different, indirect fire often wrecks tanks.
I'm just reading yet another book on WWII, "The Germans in Normandy" by Richard Hargreaves, those Germans there found it very effective.
Even for those who think the Tiger invincible, it could easily be damaged by Allied artillery by indirect fire and that puts it out of action. Lots of things besides penetration of the armour can disable a tank, gunsights, radiators, tracks, bogies, exhausts and the like are all susceptable to indirect fire. Large calibre shells landing close to a tank can cause all sorts of problems to these things.
If you read some of the so called German Aces in tank warfare, they respected indirect fire, it would often damage their tanks and they tried to keep mobile to avoid it.
Don't be dissapointed the truth is often different to the myth.

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 6

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/28/2008 12:50:12 AM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHQ

It's more than just my opinion but artillery was pretty effective against tanks you just have to read history books to see that.
Previous versions of JTCS didn't do it justice but in JT's HPS PzC's things are very different, indirect fire often wrecks tanks.
I'm just reading yet another book on WWII, "The Germans in Normandy" by Richard Hargreaves, those Germans there found it very effective.
Even for those who think the Tiger invincible, it could easily be damaged by Allied artillery by indirect fire and that puts it out of action. Lots of things besides penetration of the armour can disable a tank, gunsights, radiators, tracks, bogies, exhausts and the like are all susceptable to indirect fire. Large calibre shells landing close to a tank can cause all sorts of problems to these things.
If you read some of the so called German Aces in tank warfare, they respected indirect fire, it would often damage their tanks and they tried to keep mobile to avoid it.
Don't be dissapointed the truth is often different to the myth.

I keep hearing this "you have to read history books" comment to refute complaints. Trust me...I am 59 years old and a big history buff...I've READ history books. I was also assigned to a tank during the Viet Nam war, so I know what I am talking about. Indirect artillery fire causes only a minor worry to a tank and it's crew. The chances of a shell hitting it in a vital location are minimal at best. And even direct artillery fire doesn't pose much of a worry. Artillery shells are made to kill infantry...NOT TANKS. Even armor piercing shells in WW2 had a very hard time knocking out a Tiger tank. There were only certain locations where it could be effectively destroyed. Could it be damaged by indirect fire? It would have to be a very lucky hit to damage a tank with indirect artillery fire. Yes, gunsights could be destroyed. But that doesn't take a tank out of action. You just use the boresighting method to aim the cannon. Not as fast, but equally effective. Exhausts are no problem. Radiators would have to be a lucky hit on the engine compartment. A DIRECT hit. Even then, there's no guarantee it's going to be effective. Artilley shells explode in an up-and-out direction....not in like an AP round. The problem in the game is all kinds of indirect fire is knocking out tanks. Including mortars. Mortars have NO direct fire capability. They can't be "aimed' because they don't have direct fire sights. And their shells are VERY weak against a tank. Yet tanks are not only being disabled but DESTROYED by mortars. That is just plain wrong.

Fortunately I located the 1.02 patch and I will do a full reinstall with that patch. I will gladly forego all the new additions of 1.03 and 1.04 to have some semblance of realism.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/28/2008 2:17:39 AM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to GHQ)

Post #: 7

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/28/2008 1:17:24 AM

scottintacoma

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

Deputy,

In any scenerio Disabled and destroyed are the same thing. Yes the disableds should be able to be back quickly in a campaign game, but that is a limitation of the mechanics.

From what I have seen artillery rarely destroys a tank in 1.03, It disables them.

Also, Armor in WWII is much different and easier to damage then what you where operating with in Nam.

Scott in Tacoma

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 8

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/28/2008 1:59:10 AM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The 1.02 UPDATE is in your installation. Look in the folders.

Jason Petho

I looked. Nowhere to be found. Someone has suggested that it would be nice to have ALL the patches posted so that folks could pick and choose exactly what version they wanted to use. That's a great idea!!!

I have the 1.04 beta and do not see any patches anywhere.

Unit Viewer is in Tools and Mods btw.

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 9

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/28/2008 2:15:00 AM

Jason Petho

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

Apologies.

I created a PATCHES folder in my installs and that is where I store the various updates. I thought I included it as part of the normal update install, but didn't due to the excessive file size.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 10

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/28/2008 2:25:04 AM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Deputy,

In any scenerio Disabled and destroyed are the same thing. Yes the disableds should be able to be back quickly in a campaign game, but that is a limitation of the mechanics.

From what I have seen artillery rarely destroys a tank in 1.03, It disables them.

Also, Armor in WWII is much different and easier to damage then what you where operating with in Nam.

Scott in Tacoma

Then I defintely want to use 1.02. Much fewer disabled/destroyed tanks in that version. Actually, a Tiger tank was very similar to the M48 tank used in Nam. Similar gun size and armor was quite comparable.
I rather doubt that Krupp steel was weaker than that on an M48. Besides, we are talking about artillery damage to a tank, not tank vs tank damage. The vulnerable points on a Tiger and an M48 are pretty much identical.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to scottintacoma)

Post #: 11

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 1:23:05 PM

countblue

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/8/2008
From: Vienna,Austria
Status: offline

I must agree with the post of deputy, from all what I read I wouldnt install 1.03, too many complaints. ;-)
No offence intended, but this one (1.03) went somehow wrong I think.
For the moment I´d rather stick to the units and the concepts of 1.02.

My prime question is:
What would be the killer feature of 1.03? (or in other words why should I install it?)

regards

CB

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 12

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 2:16:46 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: countblue

I must agree with the post of deputy, from all what I read I wouldnt install 1.03, too many complaints. ;-)
No offence intended, but this one (1.03) went somehow wrong I think.
For the moment I´d rather stick to the units and the concepts of 1.02.

My prime question is:
What would be the killer feature of 1.03? (or in other words why should I install it?)

regards

CB

I agree 100% count. I tried BOTH 1.03 and 1.04 and didn't like either one. Right now I am using 1.02b and having a great time with it.
If you need the 1.02b version let me know and I'll send it to you. It seems to have disappeared from Matrix' website and I couldn't find it anywhere for download. A kind soul from the forum sent it to me. It's not too big that it can't be sent via e-mail. It's main fix is to OOB's.

The one big feature I saw in 1.03 and 1.04 was the new units. But that one feature isn't enough for me to use the whole patch. Too many downsides for me. I am curious as to WHO'S input Matrix used to come up with these new patch ideas like anti-tank artillery?? It certainly couldn't have come from people who actually served in a war as a tanker or artilleryman. Those who base their opinions strictly on books written after the war have to understand that those books were written either by the victors, who get to write history the way THEY want it to read, or the defeated, who are trying to make excuses for LOSING the war. Neither one gives an accurate representation of actual combat.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to countblue)

Post #: 13

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 3:42:49 PM

dominican

Posts: 60
Joined: 3/17/2008
Status: offline

I haven't seen an excessive number of panzer deaths by artillery and mortar in my v1.03 East Front Barbarossa DCG campaign. Now in my 13th battle, there has been perhaps one tank knocked out per battle by artillery fire, though I agree, mortar shells were unlikely to destroy a tank, or even disable it, since the shell is coming from above and wouldn't do anything to the tracks. I haven't been keeping track of such statistics, but I would guess I have lost more tanks to mortars than regular artillery, but overall, I don't fear artillery any more than adjacent small arms fire. I'll start keeping track of how my panzers are destroyed and report that in the thread, for Jason's interest from the standpoint of improving the product.

< Message edited by dominican -- 8/29/2008 3:46:35 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 14

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 3:55:34 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dominican

I haven't seen an excessive number of panzer deaths by artillery and mortar in my v1.03 East Front Barbarossa DCG campaign. Now in my 13th battle, there has been perhaps one tank knocked out per battle by artillery fire, though I agree, mortar shells were unlikely to destroy a tank, or even disable it, since the shell is coming from above and wouldn't do anything to the tracks. I haven't been keeping track of such statistics, but I would guess I have lost more tanks to mortars than regular artillery, but overall, I don't fear artillery any more than adjacent small arms fire. I'll start keeping track of how my panzers are destroyed and report that in the thread, for Jason's interest from the standpoint of improving the product.

The DCG game I was playing was late in the war. Soviet artillery was much more heavily concentrated then. I wouldn't have a strong objection to DIRECT fire artillery occasionally taking out a tank. That happened even in the 1.02b patch and it should be a possibility. But indirect fire should be VERY rare. And mortars, not at all. If the artillery settings returned to the 1.02b patch settings, my complaints would be minimal.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to dominican)

Post #: 15

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 4:09:06 PM

countblue

Posts: 160
Joined: 1/8/2008
From: Vienna,Austria
Status: offline

Thanx for the offer Deputy, would be nice, my email is countblue@gmail.com.

I have a 1.02 Patch but I am not sure if its 1.02b !

thanx again Deputy

CB

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 16

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 4:22:06 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: countblue

Thanx for the offer Deputy, would be nice, my email is countblue@gmail.com.

I have a 1.02 Patch but I am not sure if its 1.02b !

thanx again Deputy

CB

count: I was able to locate the 1.02b patch online!!! You can find it here:
http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/petho/images/MCS_TEMP_102B_20070806.zip

The regular 1.02 patch is no longer available, though.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to countblue)

Post #: 17

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 4:28:41 PM

dominican

Posts: 60
Joined: 3/17/2008
Status: offline

"The DCG game I was playing was late in the war. Soviet artillery was much more heavily concentrated then."

Ah, I hadn't considered that. In the Barbarossa campaign, I get about a dozen Russian artillery fires at the most at the start of their turn, less as they'er knocked out during the battle. What 1944-45 Russian artillery is like, I don't know.

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 18

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 4:36:30 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dominican

"The DCG game I was playing was late in the war. Soviet artillery was much more heavily concentrated then."

Ah, I hadn't considered that. In the Barbarossa campaign, I get about a dozen Russian artillery fires at the most at the start of their turn, less as they'er knocked out during the battle. What 1944-45 Russian artillery is like, I don't know.

Something else has been mentioned as a possibility in another thread. The "armor facing effects" setting. If that is turned to the ON position, it may be negatively affecting tanks during artillery attacks. Meaning that tanks MAY be getting knocked out more by indirect fire artillery because the sides and rear of the tank are being taken into consideration when the arty shell explodes. It's just a theory, of course, But since arty has now been changed to affect armor more drastically than before, this may be why I am experiencing so much damage from it. I tend to leave armor facing "ON" all the time. I may just install the game on my laptop and see if this is what is happening.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to dominican)

Post #: 19

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 10:41:04 PM

cw58

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

Supposedly, armor facing only effects direct fire attacks. Quoting from the game manual found in the manuals sub-folder:

"Armor Facing – This only applies to Direct Fire vs. armored (i.e., “Hard”) targets." MCS-manual103, p.98.

"Q: When the Optional Rule for “Armor Facing Efects” is “on”, which defense factor is used by an armored (“hard”) unit defending in (counter) assaults?
A: The “armor facing” defense values apply only to Direct Fire; the standard defense value (as shown in the unit info box) is always used when defending in (counter) assaults." MCS manual103, p. 157.

By implication, it would seem that in indirect fire attacks, only the defense value and not the armor facing value is considered. So it shouldn't matter whether that option is selected or not, the AI should always be attacking (with indirect fire) against a tank's defense value, not its armor facing value.

Sorry, that doesn't solve your problem, so I guess it's just FYI.

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 20

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 8/29/2008 11:04:32 PM

Deputy

Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

cw58: Yep, it appears you're correct. I did an install of the game and then patch to 1.04. Didn't check armor facing and I still ended up with my armor getting clobbered by arty in a DCG. Panthers got blown to pieces. When I started the second scenario I got ZERO replacements. If I kept up like that all my armor would have been gone by the end of of the 4th scenario. Back to 1.02b for me.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/29/2008 11:06:35 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to cw58)

Post #: 21

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/10/2008 4:17:19 PM

dravazed

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/7/2001
From: live in Portland, Oregon
Status: offline

This seems like the right place to post my concern, so...I just re-upped with my ISP after having been off the net for a year, one of the main reasons being so I could update my Campaign game(s). I have tried three times thusfar to download the 1.03 patch, and since I have dial-up, this means about 10-11 hours to get the whole thing done. To date, I've tried three times, and have only made it to 45% of the download before I unaccountably lose connection. Could this be the Matrix server? I'm working with my ISP to see what it could be on my end...and have disabled anything I think could interfere on my machine.

As you might guess, this is pretty frustrating...especially having made it to 45% with no apparent problems (sailing along at 5.8 kbps, for the most part).

Any idea what the problem might be on this end?

(in reply to Deputy)

Post #: 22

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/10/2008 4:28:48 PM

Jason Petho

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

You may wish to try a download manager program, that way if it cuts off at 45% it will continue from there the next time you try downloading.

http://www.download.com/1770-2001_4-0.html?query=download+manager&tag=srch&searchtype=downloads

Alternatively, if possible, an internet cafe or university or library may have a faster internet connection. Saving to a thumb drive.

Lastly, email Matrix support, contact Erik in the main matrix forum, and see if it is possible to acquire a CD with the latest update. I presume they would charge for such a service.

1.04 UPDATE should be available in the next day or two, which unfortunately will be another 220MB file, so I may recommend holding off a couple days.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to dravazed)

Post #: 23

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/10/2008 4:30:56 PM

Huib

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dravazed

This seems like the right place to post my concern, so...I just re-upped with my ISP after having been off the net for a year, one of the main reasons being so I could update my Campaign game(s). I have tried three times thusfar to download the 1.03 patch, and since I have dial-up, this means about 10-11 hours to get the whole thing done. To date, I've tried three times, and have only made it to 45% of the download before I unaccountably lose connection. Could this be the Matrix server? I'm working with my ISP to see what it could be on my end...and have disabled anything I think could interfere on my machine.

As you might guess, this is pretty frustrating...especially having made it to 45% with no apparent problems (sailing along at 5.8 kbps, for the most part).

Any idea what the problem might be on this end?

I think a download manager program that allows you to continue at the point where the connection was lost might help. Personally I'm not familiar with them but I've read posts about it over here from others who have a dial up connection and have used such tools succesfully.

edit: LOL Jason was faster....

< Message edited by Huib -- 9/10/2008 4:31:03 PM >

(in reply to dravazed)

Post #: 24

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/10/2008 6:10:49 PM

dravazed

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/7/2001
From: live in Portland, Oregon
Status: offline

Thanks for the helpful replies. I looked around and couldn't find Erik--I thought there might be a list of moderator names in a link or something like that, but didn't see/find it. I *would* be willing to pay for a CD with the requisite update, since the Update feature on my Campaign disk does not work (ahem). However, it would have to be Vista compatible. I would gladly send a letter, email, or make a phone call to any specific address, if I thought someone could give me a firm answer about this.

I downloaded Starload (or something like that) and started to read the documentation, which is slightly clearer than mud to me. This is a big part of why I hate the internet and all the virtual world...it just is not easy for me, and I am *not* "a computer person." I just want things to work.

One question: will 1.04 include everything that 1.03 was supposed to do? I didn't quite get that clear. If so, then it certainly would make sense to wait for 1.04...assuming, of course, that I can *get* 1.04. Thanks again.

(in reply to Huib)

Post #: 25

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/10/2008 6:22:44 PM

Jason Petho

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dravazed

Thanks for the helpful replies. I looked around and couldn't find Erik--I thought there might be a list of moderator names in a link or something like that, but didn't see/find it. I *would* be willing to pay for a CD with the requisite update, since the Update feature on my Campaign disk does not work (ahem). However, it would have to be Vista compatible. I would gladly send a letter, email, or make a phone call to any specific address, if I thought someone could give me a firm answer about this.

Erik's email is erikr@matrixgames.com

quote:

ORIGINAL: dravazed
I downloaded Starload (or something like that) and started to read the documentation, which is slightly clearer than mud to me. This is a big part of why I hate the internet and all the virtual world...it just is not easy for me, and I am *not* "a computer person." I just want things to work.

Perfectly understandable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dravazed
One question: will 1.04 include everything that 1.03 was supposed to do? I didn't quite get that clear. If so, then it certainly would make sense to wait for 1.04...assuming, of course, that I can *get* 1.04. Thanks again.

Yes, 1.04 is cumulative. It includes 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 and 1.04. Which is why it is 220MB.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to dravazed)

Post #: 26

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/10/2008 7:21:15 PM

dravazed

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/7/2001
From: live in Portland, Oregon
Status: offline

I have emailed Erik--thanks much for the link.

I've spent entirely too many hours with this bit of frustration in the past day and a half, so I'm going to give it a break and go for a walk.

It's good to see that the outstanding support I recall at this site is just as good as I recall. Now, if only the updates and patches could rise to that level...

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 27

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/11/2008 12:51:19 AM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

dravazed, try this program, it's what I use, let me know how you get on with it, if you try it, ok? Get the trial version-http://getright.com/

Mike

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to dravazed)

Post #: 28

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/11/2008 1:15:33 AM

dravazed

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/7/2001
From: live in Portland, Oregon
Status: offline

First of all, thanks for the suggestion. I looked at the link, and it does appear promising. I'm going to wait, though, both because 1.04 is coming out soon (I understand), and because just today, I upgraded to Firefox 3...which, among other things, has as part of its Download tool, the capacity to save/retrieve downloads that are only partially done when they are terminated (for whatever reason).

I may yet give Getright a try--it's probably a lot faster than Firefox. For now, though, and partly because of the fatigue of trying to solve all of this, I'm content to just stand pat. I hope 1.04 is available soon!

(in reply to Warhorse)

Post #: 29

RE: 1.03 disappointing....Jason - 9/18/2008 6:02:54 AM

osiris_slith

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

HI

In the LCG im designing Leaders running around in cars is not going to happen..No company leaders for sure. HQ trucks are gone as well..If its a regimental scale game you get 1 HQ truck..the regimental HQ truck..regimental subunits like battalions get leaders but no HQ trucks..they have no business in a game of this scale. And all they are is an excuse to cheat and use them for line of sight..they should be banned in 1.05 or replaced with something better.

osiris

(in reply to dravazed)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

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

Page: [1] 2 next > >>