RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS

RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (Full Version)

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

Message

Huib -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (8/31/2008 9:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: Jason Petho quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy It's obvious nobody did any beta testing in DCG to see what that change would do. With 1.04, there are 50% additional reinforcements over the Talonsoft reinforcements to help compensate for some extra losses that a couple have been complaining about. Jason Petho Jason:Two things occured to me with this fix... #1 If you boost the reinforcements, is that for every campaign and every year? Axis countries had less and less reinforcements as the war progressed. So having a 50% boost in 1944-45 would be very unrealistic. #2 While boosting reinforcements would help to solve the heavy casualty problem of excessively powerful artillery, it has a negative effect on morale of the units the reinforcements are assigned to. So you'd be getting the numbers back up, but the units would be less effective and more vulnerable. Seriously, the best way to fix this is to just restore the setting for artillery that existed in 1.02b. Otherwise, you are causing the exact problem I described above...patches trying to resolve problems that other patches created, and in the process, creating even more problems. You may not like to hear this but.... I don't think AI and DCG's will ever get priority over what the game is really good at: Human vs Human play and for the latter ALL the changes are huge improvements when it comes to realism, so there is not any chance they will be reversed. You've posted the same point about artillery vs armor over and over again. Talking about "realism" in the DCG's is a joke really, because there is nothing realistic about them anyway. It's what someone described before as "shooting puppies". At least that's my opinion. Maybe for Matrix it's commercially interesting to keep the DCG's going because a lot of people still seem to play them. For people who like the game as a historical simulation the DCG's are a dumb sideshow and I personally would never invest any energy in them, let alone sacrifice well researched changes for them. I'm already amazed how much effort and time Jason and Simovitch DID put in them. If you don't like the change, my advice is to stick with 1.02. Once you get used to playing humans and see what the game is really like, you will want to upgrade to 1.04, I'm sure of that. Huib

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (8/31/2008 10:53:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib If you don't like the change, my advice is to stick with 1.02. Once you get used to playing humans and see what the game is really like, you will want to upgrade to 1.04, I'm sure of that. Huib I am sticking to an early version (1.00 for right now. Maybe 1.01 in the future after I try it out). [:)] I just hope that when the back-and-forth fix is finally released, it isn't included with a bunch of tweaks that are totally worthless to DCG players. And I will NEVER "get used to playing humans", because I bought this game to play against the AI. If I wanted to play against humans, I would have bought one of the first person shooters. But I stopped playing DOOM games a long time ago. [:-] I was under the impression that the changes Matrix made were aimed at single scenario users and scenario creators. And the complaints about the changes have not just been from me. There are a whole bunch of people who either won't update because of the ongoing problems, or prefer the settings of the older versions. And I question the suggestion that the majority of people playing this game are mainly online players. That may be true of other games that require more "button clicking", but I classify this as a strategy game. If Matrix decides to "dump" the single player/DCG users, they would be making a big mistake. I would have to hear that comment directly from a Matrix rep or Jason.

Huib -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/1/2008 10:36:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: Huib If you don't like the change, my advice is to stick with 1.02. Once you get used to playing humans and see what the game is really like, you will want to upgrade to 1.04, I'm sure of that. Huib I am sticking to an early version (1.00 for right now. Maybe 1.01 in the future after I try it out). [:)] I just hope that when the back-and-forth fix is finally released, it isn't included with a bunch of tweaks that are totally worthless to DCG players. And I will NEVER "get used to playing humans", because I bought this game to play against the AI. If I wanted to play against humans, I would have bought one of the first person shooters. But I stopped playing DOOM games a long time ago. [:-] I was under the impression that the changes Matrix made were aimed at single scenario users and scenario creators. And the complaints about the changes have not just been from me. There are a whole bunch of people who either won't update because of the ongoing problems, or prefer the settings of the older versions. And I question the suggestion that the majority of people playing this game are mainly online players. That may be true of other games that require more "button clicking", but I classify this as a strategy game. If Matrix decides to "dump" the single player/DCG users, they would be making a big mistake. I would have to hear that comment directly from a Matrix rep or Jason. You can't compare PBEM to any first person shooters like DOOM. That's far fetched. As for the AI you must realize it's design is from the nineties, severe limitations are obvious. I'm a long time veteran player/scenario designer and I do not recognize the "problems" you are mentioning. I admit that I haven't played a DCG for over 10 years, but where single scenarios versus AI are concerned, I'm 100% positive that playability has greatly improved with 1.04. As for the results of Artillery vs Armor, that was researched before it was implemented. We compared the results of several scenarios, with armor damage lists of that particular historical battle until we had a setting that procuded similar results. Right now the campaign series is driven by volunteers who are not paid by Matrix who give their time, effort AND money. I think that on average a single scenario design costs me more than $100 just material costs, maps, books etc, hours not even counted. Because it is my hobby I'm willing to spend such amounts. Consequence is that I will put my time and effort in those parts of the game that I personally find the most interesting. If someone has the same drive to improve the DCG's as I have to improve the historical simulation side of the game, he is free to offer his assistance. Personally I'm not interested in DCGs but I can imagine the commercial value Matrix sees in them. If I were to put effort in them, they would have to pay me. That's basically how it works I think.

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/1/2008 2:51:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: Huib If you don't like the change, my advice is to stick with 1.02. Once you get used to playing humans and see what the game is really like, you will want to upgrade to 1.04, I'm sure of that. Huib I am sticking to an early version (1.00 for right now. Maybe 1.01 in the future after I try it out). [:)] I just hope that when the back-and-forth fix is finally released, it isn't included with a bunch of tweaks that are totally worthless to DCG players. And I will NEVER "get used to playing humans", because I bought this game to play against the AI. If I wanted to play against humans, I would have bought one of the first person shooters. But I stopped playing DOOM games a long time ago. [:-] I was under the impression that the changes Matrix made were aimed at single scenario users and scenario creators. And the complaints about the changes have not just been from me. There are a whole bunch of people who either won't update because of the ongoing problems, or prefer the settings of the older versions. And I question the suggestion that the majority of people playing this game are mainly online players. That may be true of other games that require more "button clicking", but I classify this as a strategy game. If Matrix decides to "dump" the single player/DCG users, they would be making a big mistake. I would have to hear that comment directly from a Matrix rep or Jason. You can't compare PBEM to any first person shooters like DOOM. That's far fetched. As for the AI you must realize it's design is from the nineties, severe limitations are obvious. I'm a long time veteran player/scenario designer and I do not recognize the "problems" you are mentioning. I admit that I haven't played a DCG for over 10 years, but where single scenarios versus AI are concerned, I'm 100% positive that playability has greatly improved with 1.04. As for the results of Artillery vs Armor, that was researched before it was implemented. We compared the results of several scenarios, with armor damage lists of that particular historical battle until we had a setting that procuded similar results. Right now the campaign series is driven by volunteers who are not paid by Matrix who give their time, effort AND money. I think that on average a single scenario design costs me more than $100 just material costs, maps, books etc, hours not even counted. Because it is my hobby I'm willing to spend such amounts. Consequence is that I will put my time and effort in those parts of the game that I personally find the most interesting. If someone has the same drive to improve the DCG's as I have to improve the historical simulation side of the game, he is free to offer his assistance. Personally I'm not interested in DCGs but I can imagine the commercial value Matrix sees in them. If I were to put effort in them, they would have to pay me. That's basically how it works I think. As you are not interested in DCG games, there are many of us that are not the least interested in PBEM games. When I sit in front of the computer to play a campaign game, I plan on having resolutions to at least one or more battles. A PBEM game would take me months to resolve. I want my fun factor in a more compressed time frame. [:)] As to the artillery disaster...the research that was done seems to have been badly flawed. Perhaps you should have talked to actual tankers and artillerymen that are still alive!! Reading history books is going to give you a distroted opinion of the way things really are. The winners get to write history any way they like it. So you won't get an accurate view from them. And the losers are going to have a laundry list of excuses for losing and poor performance. If you wanted to consult with someone who knows what they are talking about, you should have consulted with LIVING sources. I'm sure they would have been glad to give you honest input. You can play any other game with artillery and armor and get a more representative example of the capabilities of both. I suggest Shrapnel Games WinSPMBT or WinSPWW2. They do a good job of showing the capabilities of both. As to current patches...1.04 wouldn't even exist if 1.03 wasn't such a mess. My opinion too much was crammed into one patch without adequate playtesting. I congratulate Matrix/Jason for responding so quickly to the complaints about 1.03. It's unfortunate that they didn't just return to the arty setting of 1.02 and previous versions, which were actually quite accurate. Boosting the replacement numbers to make up for unrealistic artillery attacks is attempting to fix a fix that didn't fix anything in the first place. The AI is quite fine as far as I'm concerned. It's when people start tweaking with other settings in the game, that the AI begins to suffer. Oh yeah...I had ALL the Talonsoft releases of the Campaign Series right up to the last release. I think they were up to version 1.06. So I am no newbie to this series either. [;)]

R_TEAM -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 12:17:11 AM)
Hi, first i musst say, the only "Bug" thats me really angry ATM is the unrealistic Arty Vs Armor thing .. beside this - 1.04 is realy good and cover all wishes of gameplay. You can say it improved the Gameplay H2H many times, but it DONT negate the sillynes of shoting an Tiger tank down with an Mortar !! My understand is : The most time a BIG tank was DISABLED was by HEAVY Artillery and full speed of the tank. It was a hit just in the way of the tank and it drives in the hole ... So by heavy armored Tanks arty is only effective, is the arty HEAVY enough (no Mortar VS Tiger ..) and spend the tank more that 65 action points for moving. Destroying Big Tanks should at very low percent rate ... By medium tanks the percent shuld adjusted too .. but it is most time o.k. .. but mortar should not the new anti-Tank gun now ... By small tanks and armored cars/three-wheels it looks o.k. And disabled tanks shold back on track for the next scenario (maybe a very small percent is irreperable) and so the 50% reinforcement boost is not more needed. Only my minds .... ;) R_TEAM <Aka R-TEAM>

Huib -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 9:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy [ As you are not interested in DCG games, there are many of us that are not the least interested in PBEM games. When I sit in front of the computer to play a campaign game, I plan on having resolutions to at least one or more battles. A PBEM game would take me months to resolve. I want my fun factor in a more compressed time frame. [:)] As to the artillery disaster...the research that was done seems to have been badly flawed. Perhaps you should have talked to actual tankers and artillerymen that are still alive!! Reading history books is going to give you a distroted opinion of the way things really are. The winners get to write history any way they like it. So you won't get an accurate view from them. And the losers are going to have a laundry list of excuses for losing and poor performance. If you wanted to consult with someone who knows what they are talking about, you should have consulted with LIVING sources. I'm sure they would have been glad to give you honest input. You can play any other game with artillery and armor and get a more representative example of the capabilities of both. I suggest Shrapnel Games WinSPMBT or WinSPWW2. They do a good job of showing the capabilities of both. As to current patches...1.04 wouldn't even exist if 1.03 wasn't such a mess. My opinion too much was crammed into one patch without adequate playtesting. I congratulate Matrix/Jason for responding so quickly to the complaints about 1.03. It's unfortunate that they didn't just return to the arty setting of 1.02 and previous versions, which were actually quite accurate. Boosting the replacement numbers to make up for unrealistic artillery attacks is attempting to fix a fix that didn't fix anything in the first place. The AI is quite fine as far as I'm concerned. It's when people start tweaking with other settings in the game, that the AI begins to suffer. Oh yeah...I had ALL the Talonsoft releases of the Campaign Series right up to the last release. I think they were up to version 1.06. So I am no newbie to this series either. [;)] Your sure have a strange view on history books. Some of them were actually written by veterans you know. It's interesting to talk to veterans, as far as they're still alive, but how often did they think EVERY German tank was a Tiger etc? Certainly not more reliable than histrorical research. Here are 2 pretty random tank damage lists. The first is from Charles Mc Donald's Siegfried Line Campaign page 424. The second is a unit report on the 34 Armoured Brigade. 1 "Though CCB had taken its four objectives in less than three days, the results would stand as a monument to the celerity with which an enemy endowed with advantages in observation and assisted by nature can seriously cripple an armored force. The armored infantry had incurred losses of about 50 percent. Of 64 medium tanks at the start of the attack, all but 22 had been eliminated. Including 7 light tanks, total tank losses were 49. Panzerfausts had claimed 6; mistaken U.S. bombing, I; artillery fire, 6; mine fields, 12; and antitank fire, 24. These did not look much like statistics of a breakthrough operation." 2 Tank Casualties, own troops 2. (a) By Enemy Action By Other Causes Mines 5 Turret Segments 13 HE 5 Mech. Failure 20 Bazookas 3 Clutches AP 2 (total failure) 3 __ Bogged 32 15 68 source : http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9th_RTR/tech/reichswald/Reichswald%20Report.htm I probably can't convince you anyway, so this is the last I'll say on this subject. Huib

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 2:36:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib Your sure have a strange view on history books. Some of them were actually written by veterans you know. It's interesting to talk to veterans, as far as they're still alive, but how often did they think EVERY German tank was a Tiger etc? Certainly not more reliable than histrorical research. Here are 2 pretty random tank damage lists. The first is from Charles Mc Donald's Siegfried Line Campaign page 424. The second is a unit report on the 34 Armoured Brigade. 1 "Though CCB had taken its four objectives in less than three days, the results would stand as a monument to the celerity with which an enemy endowed with advantages in observation and assisted by nature can seriously cripple an armored force. The armored infantry had incurred losses of about 50 percent. Of 64 medium tanks at the start of the attack, all but 22 had been eliminated. Including 7 light tanks, total tank losses were 49. Panzerfausts had claimed 6; mistaken U.S. bombing, I; artillery fire, 6; mine fields, 12; and antitank fire, 24. These did not look much like statistics of a breakthrough operation." 2 Tank Casualties, own troops 2. (a) By Enemy Action By Other Causes Mines 5 Turret Segments 13 HE 5 Mech. Failure 20 Bazookas 3 Clutches AP 2 (total failure) 3 __ Bogged 32 15 68 source : http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9th_RTR/tech/reichswald/Reichswald%20Report.htm I probably can't convince you anyway, so this is the last I'll say on this subject. Huib I have a view on history books based on reality. I've seen history "re-written" many times by the victors. And accuracy is oftentimes left by the wayside when it is done. A prime example is the American Civil War. All kinds of "editing" was done to make the reasons and results come out sounding right for the victors. And yes, I know many historical books were written by veterans. What makes you think they are/were immune to this type of writing? And yes, the Tiger was the most feared tank on either side. It was probably SOP among the Allies to call every tank a "Tiger", and probably a good idea lifewise to treat every one as a Tiger. We now know that the Panther was one of the best-designed tanks of WW2. So encountering a Panther and scoffing at it would not be a wise thing to do back then. The people I suggested consulting would be the military in the armored and artillery schools of present day. Not WW2 vets with fading or distorted memories, or history accounts that were more apologist propaganda than actual historical account. Your one single incident doesn't do anything to convince me that artillery, especially MORTARS, as R_Team mentioned above, should be more effective against tanks. And as R_Team also mentions, disabling a tank should not mean it needs a full replacement. It should be an automatic repair by the next scenario and should not be penalized with a replacement cost. If a tank gets a track knocked off, the military doesn't throw the tank away and issue a new one. Ever hear of tank recovery vehicles? I replaced at least two tracks that "came off" and were not a result of enemy fire. It can be done in the field if you are not under enemy fire.

Huib -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 4:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy I have a view on history books based on reality. I've seen history "re-written" many times by the victors. And accuracy is oftentimes left by the wayside when it is done. A prime example is the American Civil War. All kinds of "editing" was done to make the reasons and results come out sounding right for the victors. And yes, I know many historical books were written by veterans. What makes you think they are/were immune to this type of writing? And yes, the Tiger was the most feared tank on either side. It was probably SOP among the Allies to call every tank a "Tiger", and probably a good idea lifewise to treat every one as a Tiger. We now know that the Panther was one of the best-designed tanks of WW2. So encountering a Panther and scoffing at it would not be a wise thing to do back then. The people I suggested consulting would be the military in the armored and artillery schools of present day. Not WW2 vets with fading or distorted memories, or history accounts that were more apologist propaganda than actual historical account. Your one single incident doesn't do anything to convince me that artillery, especially MORTARS, as R_Team mentioned above, should be more effective against tanks. And as R_Team also mentions, disabling a tank should not mean it needs a full replacement. It should be an automatic repair by the next scenario and should not be penalized with a replacement cost. If a tank gets a track knocked off, the military doesn't throw the tank away and issue a new one. Ever hear of tank recovery vehicles? I replaced at least two tracks that "came off" and were not a result of enemy fire. It can be done in the field if you are not under enemy fire. I can only tell you what I know. The artillery vs armor effect has been on the wishlist for years. I didn't put it there btw, but I remember discussions about it at the Blitz from long way back. This was mainly because in the game it was impossible to simulate the breaking up of armored attacks, especially by US artillery fire. When it was implemented, this was done and evaluated in single scenarios: against AI and PBEM. In the time span of those games, a damaged tank is a "total loss", even if in reality those vehicles were recovered and repaired after the battle. I can understand that it works less satisfactory for DCG's in terms of replacements for the next scenario. Like I said before IMO the DCG is the most unrealistic and weakest aspect of JCTS. I would be difficult to sacrifice changes that improve the best parts of JCTS in favor of DCGs. Since we implemented this, I pay extra attention to information about tank losses to artillery fire whenver I come across some info. Most of the times this is indeed about 5-10 % and sometimes even more. You're entitled to refuse to believe that ofcourse. I can only advice to play with 1.02b if that suits your game better. I think Simovitch has already explained how to optimise things to make it work best for you. Your criticism on 1.03/1.04 is far fetched and quite unconvincing IMO especially since you use only a small portion of JCTS.

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 4:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib I can only tell you what I know. The artillery vs armor effect has been on the wishlist for years. I didn't put it there btw, but I remember discussions about it at the Blitz from long way back. This was mainly because in the game it was impossible to simulate the breaking up of armored attacks, especially by US artillery fire. When it was implemented, this was done and evaluated in single scenarios: against AI and PBEM. In the time span of those games, a damaged tank is a "total loss", even if in reality those vehicles were recovered and repaired after the battle. I can understand that it works less satisfactory for DCG's in terms of replacements for the next scenario. Like I said before IMO the DCG is the most unrealistic and weakest aspect of JCTS. I would be difficult to sacrifice changes that improve the best parts of JCTS in favor of DCGs. Since we implemented this, I pay extra attention to information about tank losses to artillery fire whenver I come across some info. Most of the times this is indeed about 5-10 % and sometimes even more. You're entitled to refuse to believe that ofcourse. I can only advice to play with 1.02b if that suits your game better. I think Simovitch has already explained how to optimise things to make it work best for you. Your criticism on 1.03/1.04 is far fetched and quite unconvincing IMO especially since you use only a small portion of JCTS. I suspect too many people watched movies like "Patton", and applied Hollywood fiction as being fact. I also suspect that the German side was winning too many battles too often for some folks, and the need was felt to find some way to counter this. So the answer was anti-tank artillery and anti-tank mortars. So much for reality. Welcome to John Tiller's Fantasy Campaign Series. Out motto is "if you don't like the way the game plays, we'll make unreality reality just for the sake of game play". What a pitty. [image]http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-tank.gif[/image]

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 5:04:26 PM)
Here's an interesting comment on the 1.03 update: 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"." http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1862232 Yep....sounds like artillery is really functioning great [8\|]

Huib -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 7:50:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Here's an interesting comment on the 1.03 update: 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"." http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1862232 Yep....sounds like artillery is really functioning great [8\|] How can you make any claims on reality and historical accuracy when you are a DCG player? And then your assumptions.... I'm not even going into that. You obviously don't know who I am.

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/2/2008 9:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Here's an interesting comment on the 1.03 update: 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"." http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1862232 Yep....sounds like artillery is really functioning great [8\|] How can you make any claims on reality and historical accuracy when you are a DCG player? And then your assumptions.... I'm not even going into that. You obviously don't know who I am. That statement wasn't made by me and wasn't about historical accuracy, other than the fact that artillery raining down and destroying Elefant tanks is pretty ridiculous. And no, I don't know and really don't care who you are. Even if you are John Tiller, I doubt very much he would endorse the mass destruction of tanks by artillery and mortar fire.

marcbarker -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 9:42:15 AM)
Deputy, I agree with you .... I had more fun with a porcupine in a closet then with artillery stuff. I reverted to 1.02b on XP. I already have included some of the newer units in the encrypt files so that is good. I liked the simplicity and how streamlined some of the file structure was in the old tlaonsoft side. It made more fun to learn how to do the modding and such. There should be a thread just for the 1.02b side with incorporation of some units. Great Idea. You have one supporter in your camp Former Grognard that turned into a marshmallow from age

Huib -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 3:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker Deputy, I agree with you .... I had more fun with a porcupine in a closet then with artillery stuff. I reverted to 1.02b on XP. I already have included some of the newer units in the encrypt files so that is good. I liked the simplicity and how streamlined some of the file structure was in the old tlaonsoft side. It made more fun to learn how to do the modding and such. There should be a thread just for the 1.02b side with incorporation of some units. Great Idea. You have one supporter in your camp Former Grognard that turned into a marshmallow from age Barker & Deputy: Good luck with 1.02b Both of you are using only a tiny portion of the game: DCG's and a bit of home modding. Yet I have rarely seen 2 people spamming this board with the same arguments over and over as if what YOU are doing with the game is SO important that everybody else who visits these boards has to read the same stuff dozens of times in multiple threads. It's getting really, but I mean really boring. [>:][>:][>:][>:][>:] Both of you have made your point. Obviously Jason and the crew disagree or are not interested in what you have to say. Please move on and stop repeating yourselves, or at least do not use so many different threads for the same points. Thanks. /H

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 3:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib quote: ORIGINAL: barker Deputy, I agree with you .... I had more fun with a porcupine in a closet then with artillery stuff. I reverted to 1.02b on XP. I already have included some of the newer units in the encrypt files so that is good. I liked the simplicity and how streamlined some of the file structure was in the old tlaonsoft side. It made more fun to learn how to do the modding and such. There should be a thread just for the 1.02b side with incorporation of some units. Great Idea. You have one supporter in your camp Former Grognard that turned into a marshmallow from age Barker & Deputy: Good luck with 1.02b Both of you are using only a tiny portion of the game: DCG's and a bit of home modding. Yet I have rarely seen 2 people spamming this board with the same arguments over and over as if what YOU are doing with the game is SO important that everybody else who visits these boards has to read the same stuff dozens of times in multiple threads. It's getting really, but I mean really boring. [>:][>:][>:][>:][>:] Both of you have made your point. Obviously Jason and the crew disagree or are not interested in what you have to say. Please move on and stop repeating yourselves, or at least do not use so many different threads for the same points. Thanks. /H I keep trying to "move on", but so MANY people keep posting the same complaints[:D]. So we highlight what the problems are with the new patches in the hopes SOMEONE at Matrix might hear us. I don't think it's fair to guys to ignore them because they are complaining about a part of the game that is so important to them. Obviously the new patches have met with a lot less universal approval than 1.02b did. When you completely change the nature of the game, you better expect to hear voices of complaint. Wouldn't you get upset if you were playing chess and suddenly the opposing player said "from now on bishops can move onto any color square"? I've already posted suggestions in another thread about how to try and overcome the new anti-tank artillery. We are using a tiny portion of the game? Nooooooo....we are using the portion of the game we enjoy the most. Or did until the new patches. Now we must forego any improvements in those new patches because of the drastic change in artillery abilities. And were these changes made for ALL players? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like it was done strictly for PBEM and single scenario players. DCG players be damned seems to be the attitude of those who like the mods. I have a feeling that Matrix and Jason weren't aware of how many of us really enjoy the DCG campaigns.

Jason Petho -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 3:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy I have a feeling that Matrix and Jason weren't aware of how many of us really enjoy the DCG campaigns. Are you serious? I've spent countless hours working on new organizations for the DCG players. That in itself is a huge effort. With the help of Richard, hunting down bugs that have caused the notorious DCG crashes. Absurd. Jason Petho

Tim41 -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 5:03:56 PM)
I only return to the site as in watching the reaction of even the most favored users of the Matrix version, they have now experienced the frustration I originally felt. I stand by the pervious statements that Talonsoft runs far better and I continue to use that version exclusively. Without problem. Ever. In fact, some problems (like the sound effect repeat) have not occurred in months and the three games run without error for me. I have been waiting and watching the hundreds of emails on the 1.03 and 1.04 and can say I didn't even apply the patches because it appears that little was resolved and more problems for DCG players like myself have to be resolved. I also didn't want to bug Jason with dumb questions because I was too lazy to read ALL the emails (though now there are just too many to make the game fun). I cannot keep up with them now. In fairness to Jason, I think he's done the best he could but is not getting the support from the manufacturer, Matrix Games. That does not make me want to buy another of their products. I think I mentioned that Play-Testing is the last step before release of any wargame. I imagine it's a lot tougher for Jason with the computer commands than adjusting a hard copy of the rules we use to play with (when using actual minitures). Hang in there Jason. I still own the new version and am sure it will be far better than the Talonsoft version in the end. I'll keep reading the emails and appreciate that you send them to me. Don't give up guy...you've come to far. One might say of some of the comments, "et tu Brute." Tim 41

marcbarker -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 5:13:26 PM)
You may say repeating and boring but look at the threads and see how many repeats are on the Assult rules, Visibility etc....Well I guess I will be boring and heard even if no one listens....Never been in the in crowd and never expect to be here

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 6:32:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jason Petho quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy I have a feeling that Matrix and Jason weren't aware of how many of us really enjoy the DCG campaigns. Are you serious? I've spent countless hours working on new organizations for the DCG players. That in itself is a huge effort. With the help of Richard, hunting down bugs that have caused the notorious DCG crashes. Absurd. Jason Petho Jason: It's very nice and we certainly appreciate that you put forth the effort for new organizations for DCG players. But what good are they when these new artillery and invisibility rules for PBEM and single scenario players have all but made the game unplayable for DCG players in the new patches? We CAN'T use the new organizations because we don't like what we are forced to take to get them. Don't you think we WANT all the new organization features??? Good grief we certainly do!!!! I've been looking forward to the new patch with as much as or more anticipation as everyone else. I can't describe how disappointed we all are that we can't use it because of the unwanted and unnecessary changes it did make.

Jason Petho -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 6:36:16 PM)
The point was that there has been an effort made to bring new elements to the all elements of the Campaign Series. You clearly implied there wasn't. Have you tried altering your tactics? Possibly adjusting to battlefield conditions? Not everyone is having the same issues you are. Jason Petho

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 7:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jason Petho The point was that there has been an effort made to bring new elements to the all elements of the Campaign Series. You clearly implied there wasn't. Have you tried altering your tactics? Possibly adjusting to battlefield conditions? Not everyone is having the same issues you are. Jason Petho Yes...and I described the changed strategy in another thread. But it's usually not practical to hide in forrests or behind hills if you actually want to capture your objectives in the allotted period of time. And I beg to differ...quite a few people are complaining about the exact same thing.

borsook79 -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 7:11:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: Jason Petho quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy I have a feeling that Matrix and Jason weren't aware of how many of us really enjoy the DCG campaigns. Are you serious? I've spent countless hours working on new organizations for the DCG players. That in itself is a huge effort. With the help of Richard, hunting down bugs that have caused the notorious DCG crashes. Absurd. Jason Petho Jason: It's very nice and we certainly appreciate that you put forth the effort for new organizations for DCG players. But what good are they when these new artillery and invisibility rules for PBEM and single scenario players have all but made the game unplayable for DCG players in the new patches? We CAN'T use the new organizations because we don't like what we are forced to take to get them. Don't you think we WANT all the new organization features??? Good grief we certainly do!!!! I've been looking forward to the new patch with as much as or more anticipation as everyone else. I can't describe how disappointed we all are that we can't use it because of the unwanted and unnecessary changes it did make. I have no intention of defending the changes. I have been disagreeing with other changes in the recent patches that were made without no apparent reason and with no benefit. But from your description this particular change has made the game more difficult. Maybe unrealistic, certainly different. But for a game this old each new challenge can be a blessing. I understand your frustration but maybe you should try and approach it differently? Sustaining higher losses means that you have to think harder, if you forgo the annoyance maybe it will actually be fine? Just a suggestion, sometimes when we know something so well we react negatively to any change. You can always go back to a previous version, but maybe it worth a try to take the game as it is, not as it was?

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 7:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Borsook I have no intention of defending the changes. I have been disagreeing with other changes in the recent patches that were made without no apparent reason and with no benefit. But from your description this particular change has made the game more difficult. Maybe unrealistic, certainly different. But for a game this old each new challenge can be a blessing. I understand your frustration but maybe you should try and approach it differently? Sustaining higher losses means that you have to think harder, if you forgo the annoyance maybe it will actually be fine? Just a suggestion, sometimes when we know something so well we react negatively to any change. You can always go back to a previous version, but maybe it worth a try to take the game as it is, not as it was? It just saddens me that a game that was so enjoyable to play has turned into what it is now. I know it's an old game. But Matrix has a few old games they are selling. "Steel Panthers: World at War" is even older than the John Tiller games. But the changes that have been made to it have all been welcomed by users. I've used up every strategy I can think of to win scenarios in a DCG. It really isn't that difficult to figure out alternative strategies, rather than charging straight at an objective. But if you want to take objectives AND not take heavy losses in the process, within the alloted period of time, I just don't think it's possible. Perhaps by presenting these new challenges they have made certain types of games, PBEM and single scenario, more enjoyable. But it seems to have been done at the cost of DCG games. Right now playing with 1.03, 1.04 or 1.04 beta, I feel like I am leading a banzaii suicide charge every time I play a scenario. It has occured to me that the command I choose (always a tank unit) may be my biggest problem. But playing with an infantry unit feels like "fishing with worms". It just takes too long to get anything done. I need a Blitzkrieg style of attack, not a plodding crawling trudge. I fall asleep in front of the computer commanding an infantry unit [:)]

simovitch -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 7:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy ...But what good are they when these new artillery and invisibility rules for PBEM and single scenario players have all but made the game unplayable for DCG players in the new patches? We CAN'T use the new organizations because we don't like what we are forced to take to get them. Don't you think we WANT all the new organization features??? Good grief we certainly do!!!! I've been looking forward to the new patch with as much as or more anticipation as everyone else. I can't describe how disappointed we all are that we can't use it because of the unwanted and unnecessary changes it did make. I'm very satisfied with my results so far in my 1.04 beta Barbarossa DCG. However my character got killed only 2 months into the game.... c'est la vie! I'm continuing on just to test the beta patch. Personally I wouldn't think of starting a barbarossa DCG with a pre-1.04 OOB. I fixed dozens of errors that were potential upgrade crashes - carried over from the Talonsoft days. I use all the optional rules except armor facing. I'm not a proponent of all the new stuff but for me, you dance wit who brung ya. [image]local://upfiles/19728/B49012DC36294ED79CE549224B3BE039.jpg[/image]

Deputy -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/4/2008 9:55:39 PM)
Richard: You certainly have my admiration. Actually, I think I would have rather been killed off than to have to face the OKW with all my units destroyed, which is where I was heading. [:D] Crashing hasn't been a problem for me at all with 1.02b or prior versions of the Matrix game. But when I installed 1.04 beta I experienced my first CTD since Matrix started releasing the game. The good news was it had saved my location so I could resume. The only DCG games I tried were late war (post 1943) games. I just got depressed watching my Tigers and Panthers being systematically destroyed by invisible anti-tank guns and anti-tank artillery barrages. So I am back to 1.02b. It doesn't have all the OOB updates, but it also doesn't have features I don't want. [;)]

MrRoadrunner -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/5/2008 12:34:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib quote: ORIGINAL: barker Deputy, I agree with you .... I had more fun with a porcupine in a closet then with artillery stuff. I reverted to 1.02b on XP. I already have included some of the newer units in the encrypt files so that is good. I liked the simplicity and how streamlined some of the file structure was in the old tlaonsoft side. It made more fun to learn how to do the modding and such. There should be a thread just for the 1.02b side with incorporation of some units. Great Idea. You have one supporter in your camp Former Grognard that turned into a marshmallow from age Barker & Deputy: Good luck with 1.02b Both of you are using only a tiny portion of the game: DCG's and a bit of home modding. Yet I have rarely seen 2 people spamming this board with the same arguments over and over as if what YOU are doing with the game is SO important that everybody else who visits these boards has to read the same stuff dozens of times in multiple threads. It's getting really, but I mean really boring. [>:][>:][>:][>:][>:] Both of you have made your point. Obviously Jason and the crew disagree or are not interested in what you have to say. Please move on and stop repeating yourselves, or at least do not use so many different threads for the same points. Thanks. /H I suggest that as part of "the team" you might want to refrain from telling the "customers" and "players" of the game to "move on". One, you are not a policeman who can tell people to do anything. Two, as a member of the team and "playtester/contributor" you might be part of their problem. Three, if their questions are not satisfactorily answered by those responsible, just what is their recourse? If they wish to repeat themselves that also is their right? If they step out of line they can be modded by the forum hosts? Those hosts happen to be ... ? Why not come up with a solution to their problems and not give them the "party line" of "if you disagree with us you will be told to shut up, move on, or find other tactics". I think that is a silly response and always will believe so. RR

marcbarker -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/5/2008 4:25:07 AM)
Actually I did move on , I added tank Transport, LCI that carries 2 Platoons on a Beach, Rocket LCT, Screaming Mimis, to 1.02b I also got figured out barage effect on Smoke (3 Hex). Working on the Aeronca PUP OB Plane...but hey what the heck it is only 1.02b...Then Again You can marry the OOB's to the Rising Sun Engine and get the Night Excercises....there just is some old school Documents you need to have to walk you through it. You can add countries and etc without messing with the Game engine...also the main, weapon, and Platoon and etc can be edited to add those screaming units..Camo on a barely visible ICON in 3d mode cool...good eye candy but I would rather had the time spent on getting the rampant vehicle derby fixed...but hey what do I know Nada...I am just a consumer.

MrRoadrunner -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/5/2008 9:22:42 PM)
Barker, my friend, I was quoting Huib. He seems to think that being part of the team allows him to tell posters when it is appropriate or how often they can post. Huib is neither an employee or moderator of the forum (at least the last time I checked). When we are on the forums we can all say what concerns we have, as many times as we have to say them. Especially when those concerns seem to be ignored, unanswered, or belittled? The forum moderators have the tools to edit or delete content. I think you and Duputy made some good points. I may not agree with all that you say or how you present it, but I will support your right to express your concerns and ideas. RR

marcbarker -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/5/2008 10:03:09 PM)
Thanks, for the remark...sometimes i am very adament to the point of being abnoxious and I do apologize for that...I just felt that with the eye candy it just wasn't worth the money...granted it is a cool update but when they tought bring a classic back...that is what i fell for because i love the game. I love doing the research to create a game that I can say this is cool stuff and it works...that my freind is a sense of accomplishment...ASL is a great game but tons of variables and rules , counters etc...ever tried to pla a huge 15 board game with regiments on that damn...hours on set up...hours of strategy, then your turn comes up then a fur flash jumps on the table and the family cat is staring at you like WTF...that is why i went into computerized war gaming. You have flexibilty while still having those complex rules built in, and it all fits on a monitor, no worry about the cat but god forbid the errant storm and power outage

borsook79 -> RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS (9/5/2008 10:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker Thanks, for the remark...sometimes i am very adament to the point of being abnoxious and I do apologize for that...I just felt that with the eye candy it just wasn't worth the money...granted it is a cool update but when they tought bring a classic back...that is what i fell for because i love the game. I love doing the research to create a game that I can say this is cool stuff and it works...that my freind is a sense of accomplishment...ASL is a great game but tons of variables and rules , counters etc...ever tried to pla a huge 15 board game with regiments on that damn...hours on set up...hours of strategy, then your turn comes up then a fur flash jumps on the table and the family cat is staring at you like WTF...that is why i went into computerized war gaming. You have flexibilty while still having those complex rules built in, and it all fits on a monitor, no worry about the cat but god forbid the errant storm and power outage Sometimes changes are good. If the Matrix version would be just the old Talonsoft with a bugfix or two many would call it a rip-off... although indeed some of the particular changes are not that great, but still. Since you brought that subject up - actually JTCS is very cat-unfriendly. I happen to have 3 cats and with no undo and only autosave in campaigns a cat who decides that it is the time for a walk on your keyboard or better yet an attack on your mouse (no pun intended) can change the outcome of the battle :)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.421875