An easy solution for patch complaints

An easy solution for patch complaints (Full Version)

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

Message

Deputy -> An easy solution for patch complaints (8/28/2008 8:35:55 PM)
Why not have an option during the opening splash screen that allows you to select exactly which items in a patch you want to use. I'm sure a lot of folks aren't crazy about everything included in the new patches. It would be nice to be able to select specific features you wanted to use and not be stuck with the whole patch. For instance, make the new artillery vs armor be selectable between the original level and the new level. Same with the "hidden anti-tank feature and many others. Most other games let you custom taylor what features you use. I think this would add greatly to the playability and versatility of the game.

kool_kat -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/28/2008 9:47:33 PM)
Deputy: IMHO, your proposal would be a software programming nightmare and increase the file size of each patch release. It might also make the patch unstable. CS currently allows players to custom tailor their games. We have 6 optional rule selections and a slider bar to increase / decrease the difficulty of playing a specific side. We also have 4 (at least) different patches to choose! [X(] Seems like we have a lot of options already! [8D]

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/28/2008 10:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mwest Deputy: IMHO, your proposal would be a software programming nightmare and increase the file size of each patch release. It might also make the patch unstable. CS currently allows players to custom tailor their games. We have 6 optional rule selections and a slider bar to increase / decrease the difficulty of playing a specific side. We also have 4 (at least) different patches to choose! [X(] Seems like we have a lot of options already! [8D] Not at all. MANY games use this method of selecting what options to use. So no nightmare at all. I am not saying modify the patches. I am saying have a selection screen where you enable or disable whatever options come with the patch. As it is right now, we are FORCED to use whatever mods come on the patch. So things like more destructive artillery fire against armor isn't an option, it's mandatory. What that means for me is I can't use patch 1.03 or 1.04. So I can't get the extra units and all the other features just because I don't like one of many features in the patch. That just doesn't make any sense. Right now I am using patch 1.02 and soon will have 1.02b. And there are only TWO patches available from Matrix. Soon there will be only one posted when they finalize 1.04. So if you haven't stored a patch you liked from the past, you could be screwed. I am lucky in that one of the forum members has the 1.02b patch and is e-mailing it to me. Jason has already stated that Matrix will only support and make available the most current patch. So if anyone wants an older version, they better get it while the getting is good.

Huib -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/28/2008 11:31:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Why not have an option during the opening splash screen that allows you to select exactly which items in a patch you want to use. I'm sure a lot of folks aren't crazy about everything included in the new patches. It would be nice to be able to select specific features you wanted to use and not be stuck with the whole patch. For instance, make the new artillery vs armor be selectable between the original level and the new level. Same with the "hidden anti-tank feature and many others. Most other games let you custom taylor what features you use. I think this would add greatly to the playability and versatility of the game. It is not an easy solution. In fact from programming point of view it's completely impossible. From a support point of view its impossible as well. I wonder which "other games" let you taylor choose features from updates. I can't hink of one. The biggest changes have been made optional. That seems a good solution to me. but you can't make every little change optional now can you. Installing 1.02 because one doesn't like the small AT guns hidden or more effective artillery versus armor seems out of proportion to me. But to each his own ofcourse.

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/28/2008 11:38:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Huib quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Why not have an option during the opening splash screen that allows you to select exactly which items in a patch you want to use. I'm sure a lot of folks aren't crazy about everything included in the new patches. It would be nice to be able to select specific features you wanted to use and not be stuck with the whole patch. For instance, make the new artillery vs armor be selectable between the original level and the new level. Same with the "hidden anti-tank feature and many others. Most other games let you custom taylor what features you use. I think this would add greatly to the playability and versatility of the game. It is not an easy solution. In fact from programming point of view it's completely impossible. From a support point of view its impossible as well. I wonder which "other games" let you taylor choose features from updates. I can't hink of one. The biggest changes have been made optional. That seems a good solution to me. but you can't make every little change optional now can you. Installing 1.02 because one doesn't like the small AT guns hidden or more effective artillery versus armor seems out of proportion to me. But to each his own ofcourse. I consider making artillery into anti-tank weapons a pretty big change. Where can I disable that? As to the other games, just look at the list of games in my signature. ALL of them allow varying options to custom tailor the game to the player's abilities and likes. So much for "impossible". [:D] And if you play against the Soviet Union, you will see why artillery as an anti-tank weapon has drastically altered the game. And I still can't figure out what "genius" decided that "small" anti-tanks guns should be invisible after they have fired. We aren't talking LAW rockets or Dragon missiles. I suspect who ever thought up that mod has never seen one of those "small" anti-tank guns fire in person. [8\|]

kool_kat -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/29/2008 1:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Not at all. MANY games use this method of selecting what options to use. So no nightmare at all. I am not saying modify the patches. I am saying have a selection screen where you enable or disable whatever options come with the patch. I have done software programing and currently support both development and marketing IT technology teams. Anytime you introduce more user executable commands and routines into software code, you increase the total number of line code. This would significantly increase the patch file sizes and make patch support / troubleshooting extremely difficult. Your "easy solution" would require a massive programming effort to rewrite the base code. This translates into programming labor and testing costs, plus a long development cycle. So, since any "new," "improved," "better" widget you want to introduce into a product comes with a price tag - how much are you willing to pay for your "extreme selection menu?" $10 more? How about $20? Oh, think that the kind of patches you are proposing should be made "free" to all current CS game owners? Ok, so how much do you want to increase the cost of the basic CS game? No software company is going to sink labor, development and marketing costs to "improve" a product to the degree you are proposing, without a cost recovery plan in place. It is not going to happen. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy As it is right now, we are FORCED to use whatever mods come on the patch. So things like more destructive artillery fire against armor isn't an option, it's mandatory. So I can't get the extra units and all the other features just because I don't like one of many features in the patch. That just doesn't make any sense. Seems kind of extreme to hold out on using a patch because you don't like the way artillery fire is used against armor or the anti-tank gun rules. But you certainly have that option. [;)] BTW... nobody is forcing you to use any of the released patches. Again, you have a choice here too. I could use the argument that I am FORCED to use the gun muzzle sighting rule... but I don't think it is realistic and it should be made optional too. Let's put that option in the "extreme selection menu" too. How many user-defined options do you want to enable? 18? 24? 30? More? Where does it stop? quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy What that means for me is I can't use patch 1.03 or 1.04. So I can't get the extra units and all the other features just because I don't like one of many features in the patch. . What is means is you don't WANT to use patch 1.03 or 1.04 because you don't like one of the many features in the patch. This is your choice and decision. Again; as I pointed out in an earlier posting, we have 6 optional rule selections and a slider bar to increase / decrease the difficulty of playing a specific side. We also have 4 (at least) different patches to choose. You may also have access to the patches released under the original Talonsoft titles. More options. More choices. CS currently has "...varying options to custom tailor the game to the player's abilities and likes." So, CS players have many options within the current game and also many different patch options. Options abound! [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Jason has already stated that Matrix will only support and make available the most current patch. That is the only prudent and cost-effective method to support a software program.

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/29/2008 3:05:02 PM)
My reply without the C&P junk: I am not a programmer. I am a user. If you don't satisfy the user base, all you programmers are going to be looking for new jobs. "Can't" shouldn't even be in a programmers vocabulary. What should be in a programmers vocabulary is "let me work on it and I'll come up with something". That's how software companies keep customers and stay in business. If you worked for my software company and told me "we can't" you'd be cleaning out your desk. [:)] I have seen MAJOR changes in the past done to games that were far more complex than what I am asking for. And they were done for FREE. And if my changes make the user happy and keep him buying the game, then it has already paid for itself many times over. It may not happen in the software company you work for, but it has happened for other successful software companies. There are already numerous complaints from campaign Series users about the new patches. And they aren't just bug complaints. I warned Jason long before this came out that some features had better be optional or people weren't going to use the patch. They weren't made optional and now you see the complaints popping up. Artillery vs armor. Sounds like you don't play East Front very often. [:D] Artillery is a major asset of the Soviets. With the major boost in anti-tank ability on armor, Matrix has in effect, made EVERY artillery piece from the smallest mortar to the largest howitzer into a combined anti-personnel/anti-tank gun. That IS a major change in the game play. And not a very historically accurate one I might add. This alleged ability to damage a tank with indirect fire has been blown way out of proportion. And damaged in the game is just like destroyed. If you are playing at full realism settings in a DCG, you will quickly lose the armored unints you are commanding. Replacements don't happen quick enough and large enough to make up for the damage. Even with the slider at full Axis advantage, the tanks get destroyed in such large numbers that it's not even funny. The slider has become almost useless with the new patches in a DCG. It still works in a single scenario, but DCG seems to be a different situation entirely. Plus that slider doesn't really tell you ANYTHING. it doesn't tell you what you are increasing or decreasing. The book says "higher or lower combat loses depending on where you set it". HUH? Is that general losses or specific losses by unit type. And how much higher?? I set the slider at full Axis advantage and the Axis forces got slaughtered. It didn't seem to make ANY difference in a DCG. In a scenario game it did seem to make a difference, but there was no artillery in that game. Nobody is forcing me to use any of the patches??? Really? Well nobody is forcing anyone to BUY the game either. One would hope the patches would correct errors and bugs in the game. But the same bugs keep showing up after every patch. One that is most noticeable and most irritating is the "insane driver" bug. It usually affects trucks and other wheeled vehicles with a lot of movement points. They drive to a certain hex, then they have leftover movement points, so they drive back and forth and back and forth between two hexes until the movement points are burned up. Providing patches for user-requested changes is all well and good (for those certain users). But fixing the bugs should be a priority over any new doodads they can provide. "We also have 4 (at least) different patches to choose." (I use quotes...it's more traditional.) Really? Let's take a look on Matrix' website. I see the 1.03 patch. Unless you are a registered user, 1.04beta isn't available. I am a registered user, so I have access to both of them. Where on the Matrix sight are the other two (or more) patches you are speaking of? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question. The answer is NOWHERE. Patches previous to 1.03 are NOT available for download from Matrix. As Jason has stated, Matrix no longer supports previous patches. So the user is forced to look elsewhere for previous patches. I still had 1.02 on my comp, so it was no problem for me. And some guys did a thorough search and found the 1.02 patch at a game website. I don't know how much longer that patch will remain there, since the 1.03 patch was released and game websites often post just the most current patch. If someone wants the 1.02 patch, I suggest they download and save it immediately. I was fortunate to find someone who had the 1.02b patch and he sent it to me via e-mail. That version isn't posted anywhere as far as I can tell. So don't feed me that BS about us have 4 or more patches to choose from. When 1.04 goes out of beta, we will have ONE patch to choose from, unless you are downloading and saving every patch that comes out. Which in the case of this game, is probably a very good idea [:)] "Options abound". No, patches abound (if you can find them). And the two newest patches are NOT finding universal acceptance like previous patches did. So I suggest Matrix needs to take a step back and re-think the whole patch process. If they are gonna play around with non-adjustable game mechanics (like the anti-tank artillery), they are likely going to upset a large group of users. Is that really worth it to have a "feature" that is of questionable authenticity? I think not. It's a big enough negative for me to NOT use either of the two new patches. I am willing to forsake the new units that are included in the new patches in order to maintain some sense of realism. And don't kid yourself, that is NOT an easy choice to make. [:(] Dep

dominican -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/29/2008 4:15:07 PM)
Is Jason receiving payment for what he does concerning patches? It's my understanding he's doing this for free in his spare time. That's not to say Matrix might look into paying some folks for updates and patches if that's the case with Jason. I just haven't had the unfortunate results you're getting in DCGs, Deputy. I'm in my 13th battle at full regimental strength versus the Russians, 255 tanks. Like I said in another thread, I'm guessing I lose at the most one tank per battle to artillery and mortar fire. I'm going to start keeping track of such losses out of curiosity. I'm playing with all options on except the one for side and rear armor thickness because I understand that gives the player too much of an advantage against the computer. I wonder if that's what might generate more losses, because quite often artillery fire is coming from the side later in a battle. My slider is set for 0 advantage and I'm playing at Average difficulty. Hello, fellow 59 year-old guy.

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/29/2008 4:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dominican Is Jason receiving payment for what he does concerning patches? It's my understanding he's doing this for free in his spare time. That's not to say Matrix might look into paying some folks for updates and patches if that's the case with Jason. I just haven't had the unfortunate results you're getting in DCGs, Deputy. I'm in my 13th battle at full regimental strength versus the Russians, 255 tanks. Like I said in another thread, I'm guessing I lose at the most one tank per battle to artillery and mortar fire. I'm going to start keeping track of such losses out of curiosity. I'm playing with all options on except the one for side and rear armor thickness because I understand that gives the player too much of an advantage against the computer. I wonder if that's what might generate more losses, because quite often artillery fire is coming from the side later in a battle. My slider is set for 0 advantage and I'm playing at Average difficulty. Hello, fellow 59 year-old guy. Hmmmm....interesting theory about armor facing. I generally leave that option ON. You may be on to something!!! [:)] As to Jason getting paid...I have the highest respect for Jason and ALL the people who work on the game. That is NOT the issue. What year of the war are you in? Towards the end of the war the Soviets used massive amounts of arty, as can be seen by the long time it takes for all their artillery fire to complete. I have my slider set at full Axis advantage and played at Average difficulty also. Even then, it wasn't able to offset the anti-tank artillery advantage. It got so bad that replacements just couldn't keep up with eliminations. So I just ended the game and re-installed 1.02b More and more I think the slider in DCG games isn't doing much. In single scenarios it seems to be much more noticeable.

dominican -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/29/2008 5:11:28 PM)
I'm playing the Barbarossa Center campaign, 13 battles through late October 1941. If that's the case with late-war Russian artillery, I don't look forward to facing their late-war guns. Jason has said in another thread that 1.03 probably will still present a problem getting past December 1942 and hopefully will be fixed in 1.04, so chances are I'll be starting over when 1.04 becomes official.

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/29/2008 6:17:12 PM)
Well I installed the game and patched it to 1.04 and started a late war campaign. I set it with NO armor facing effects and no other options turned on. Beginner level and slider all the way to Axis side. First battle and ALL the casualties to my tanks came fron indirect fire artillery. One Panther platoon was reduced to 1. The rest were 2. And there were FIVE platoons affected. Not good. And when I started the next scenario, I received NO replacements. I can't even imagine playing a game with the slider in the middle.

dominican -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/30/2008 5:00:21 AM)
Definitely sounds like it needs fixing, huh? What do you lose in 1.02b vs 1.03 besides the artillery effects vs armor?

Hard Sarge -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/30/2008 5:26:22 AM)
And if you play against the Soviet Union, you will see why artillery as an anti-tank weapon has drastically altered the game. And I still can't figure out what "genius" decided that "small" anti-tanks guns should be invisible after they have fired. We aren't talking LAW rockets or Dragon missiles. I suspect who ever thought up that mod has never seen one of those "small" anti-tank guns fire in person. I take it you have never seen a LAW or a Dragon fired, it also just sounds like all you do is charge forward and then take losses and camplain it is not right and what do you think a anti tank gun is ? just in case, it is artillery and another just in case, the Russian had a gun, the Germens nicknamed Crash-Boom, the only way you knew it was firing was when a tank blew up, and unless you were looking right at it, you didn't see it, and the Germens were happy to capture them, they used them though out the war I would say the programmers added the changes to the game, because then felt they were correct and wanted them to be part of the game, and it sounds like the testers, and programmers and other players think the idea works

kool_kat -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/30/2008 12:54:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge I take it you have never seen a LAW or a Dragon fired, it also just sounds like all you do is charge forward and then take losses and camplain it is not right and what do you think a anti tank gun is ? just in case, it is artillery. I would say the programmers added the changes to the game, because then felt they were correct and wanted them to be part of the game, and it sounds like the testers, and programmers and other players think the idea works It is also a very different experience to play against the AI vs a human opponent! [:)] I play all my CS games against human opponents... and charge forward tactics against a competent player will reduce your armored spearhead columns to smoking wrecks! [X(] IMHO, to really experience CS to its full potential... play with the majority of optional rules ON - especially Extreme Assault and Fog-of-war... against a human opponent!!! You will NOT go back to playing against the AI. It is a whole different ballgame.

kool_kat -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/30/2008 1:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy My reply without the C&P junk: My reply with the C&P junk. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy I am not a programmer. I am a user. I am a CS player and started with this game platform during the Talonsoft days. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy If you don't satisfy the user base, all you programmers are going to be looking for new jobs. "Can't" shouldn't even be in a programmers vocabulary. What should be in a programmers vocabulary is "let me work on it and I'll come up with something". That's how software companies keep customers and stay in business. If you worked for my software company and told me "we can't" you'd be cleaning out your desk. [:)] Since I do work in the software industry, let me explain some marketplace fundamentals to you. Matrix has a CS player install base they need to keep relatively happy with new patches, but this is NOT the revenue stream. The company already has their money from the initial customer game purchases. There is little net new CS money to be made from this customer set. The real revenue lies with NEW purchases of CS from NEW customers. That is the market Matrix needs to harvest. Matrix also has several other game platforms for revenue growth besides CS. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy I have seen MAJOR changes in the past done to games that were far more complex than what I am asking for. And they were done for FREE. And if my changes make the user happy and keep him buying the game, then it has already paid for itself many times over. You are commenting from a user's perspective. I am commenting from a user, programmer and software market analyst perspective. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy It may not happen in the software company you work for, but it has happened for other successful software companies. I work for IBM. I'm sure you may of heard of that software company? I think IBM has been fairly successful. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy There are already numerous complaints from campaign Series users about the new patches. And they aren't just bug complaints. I warned Jason long before this came out that some features had better be optional or people weren't going to use the patch. They weren't made optional and now you see the complaints popping up. Sounds like Jason "needs" to listen to you more... so the CS game platform does not go bust. IMO, you need to follow up directly with Jason and other Matrix Game representatives. Maybe you can be part of the Beta Brigade and/or join a Matrix consumer opinion feedback group where your constructive feedback would be of value. quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy "We also have 4 (at least) different patches to choose." (I use quotes...it's more traditional.) Really? Let's take a look on Matrix' website. I see the 1.03 patch. Unless you are a registered user, 1.04beta isn't available. I am a registered user, so I have access to both of them. Where on the Matrix sight are the other two (or more) patches you are speaking of? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question. The answer is NOWHERE. Patches previous to 1.03 are NOT available for download from Matrix. As Jason has stated, Matrix no longer supports previous patches. So the user is forced to look elsewhere for previous patches. I still had 1.02 on my comp, so it was no problem for me. And some guys did a thorough search and found the 1.02 patch at a game website. I don't know how much longer that patch will remain there, since the 1.03 patch was released and game websites often post just the most current patch. If someone wants the 1.02 patch, I suggest they download and save it immediately. I was fortunate to find someone who had the 1.02b patch and he sent it to me via e-mail. That version isn't posted anywhere as far as I can tell. So don't feed me that BS about us have 4 or more patches to choose from. When 1.04 goes out of beta, we will have ONE patch to choose from, unless you are downloading and saving every patch that comes out. Which in the case of this game, is probably a very good idea [:)] I never stated that the various patches were available on the Matrix Web site. Software companies are under no obligation to make available or provide support for down level software versions.

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (8/30/2008 6:43:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge And if you play against the Soviet Union, you will see why artillery as an anti-tank weapon has drastically altered the game. And I still can't figure out what "genius" decided that "small" anti-tanks guns should be invisible after they have fired. We aren't talking LAW rockets or Dragon missiles. I suspect who ever thought up that mod has never seen one of those "small" anti-tank guns fire in person. I take it you have never seen a LAW or a Dragon fired, it also just sounds like all you do is charge forward and then take losses and camplain it is not right and what do you think a anti tank gun is ? just in case, it is artillery and another just in case, the Russian had a gun, the Germens nicknamed Crash-Boom, the only way you knew it was firing was when a tank blew up, and unless you were looking right at it, you didn't see it, and the Germens were happy to capture them, they used them though out the war I would say the programmers added the changes to the game, because then felt they were correct and wanted them to be part of the game, and it sounds like the testers, and programmers and other players think the idea works I have fired LAW rockets on numerous occasions (when and if they fired, wet weather in Viet Nam and LAW rockets didn't go together very well). I realize that the anti-tank guided missiles like TOW and DRAGON leave a trail. But by the time it is spotted, the job has been done (if the missile team is worth a dang). "and what do you think a anti tank gun is ? just in case, it is artillery" If you truly believe that, then you really don't know what you are talking about.[:(] An anti-tank gun is NOT artillery by any stretch!!!!! Artillery is an indirect fire/high arc weapon that uses rounds designed mainly for anti-personnel destruction. If an artillery unit has to lower the barrel to direct fire level, then they are in DEEP POOP and are facing either a ground attack from infantry, or being overrun by armor. An anti-tank and tank gun is a DIRECT FIRE weapon designed mainly for anti-armor combat. It is NOT made for indirect fire. It has sights designed for DIRECT fire. The ammunition it uses is designed for direct fire (although they do have HE rounds that can be used for DIRECT FIRE against specific infantry and light armor targets). If you want verification of this, just go into ANY of the scenarios and try using a tank or anti-tank gun for indirect fire. YOU CAN'T!!! "I would say the programmers added the changes to the game, because then felt they were correct and wanted them to be part of the game, and it sounds like the testers, and programmers and other players think the idea works" Really? If that is the case, then I wonder why there is a NEW 1.04b patch coming out to correct the errors made with the changes in the 1.04 patch? What it looks like to me is the players are ALL being used as beta testors for these patches. And the authorized patches (1.03 for example) seem to be causing more problems than they are curing. And they really don't seem to be curing ANY real problems. They are just modifications to make some players happier with unit selections and minor tweaking to minor problems created by other patches. The fact is, there are bugs in the game that go all the way back to Talonsoft's version of it. After god knows how many patches, we STILL have the bug left over from Talonsoft of the back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth movement of some units like trucks, command vehicles, etc. Instead of all these "feature" patches that are being released, I'd sure like to see them work on actual bugs left over from the Talonsoft days. Dep

marcbarker -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/4/2008 5:24:16 PM)
Yep nothing like that empty truck doing the indy 500 then followed by a commander then another truck....i did expereince a horse race though...that interesting to see....the new unmounted horse rules makes for a neat derby

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/4/2008 7:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker Yep nothing like that empty truck doing the indy 500 then followed by a commander then another truck....i did expereince a horse race though...that interesting to see....the new unmounted horse rules makes for a neat derby LOL.....are you kidding about the horses????!!!! [X(][X(][:D]

marcbarker -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/5/2008 4:26:32 AM)
Happened twice...funniest dang thing.....had the German Cav dismounted and moving to cover.....scared up a hq unit then off to the races....I almost placed a bet

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/5/2008 2:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker Happened twice...funniest dang thing.....had the German Cav dismounted and moving to cover.....scared up a hq unit then off to the races....I almost placed a bet ROFLMAO!!! Oh MAN!!! That is WILD!!!! [:D]

marcbarker -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/6/2008 12:25:06 PM)
Just tried the horse thing again.....and did not do it in turn 1,2,3 turn 4 there it poped...setretariat comming arounf the turn and headed down the stretch.....there is an idea for a patch...all the things you don't want in a game.....scenario for east front.....The Moscow Derby....meet the cossacks....A Day at the Races........Seabisquit, Cavalary on hte hoof? these could be designed for 1.04c,d, e, patch.....maybe even get in the hugee 1.05 patch comming soon to a theater near you.....comming in 2012

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/6/2008 2:51:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker Just tried the horse thing again.....and did not do it in turn 1,2,3 turn 4 there it poped...setretariat comming arounf the turn and headed down the stretch.....there is an idea for a patch...all the things you don't want in a game.....scenario for east front.....The Moscow Derby....meet the cossacks....A Day at the Races........Seabisquit, Cavalary on hte hoof? these could be designed for 1.04c,d, e, patch.....maybe even get in the hugee 1.05 patch comming soon to a theater near you.....comming in 2012 I can add to that. Dismounted horses and dismounted motorcycles that race against each other. They already have dismounted horses moving and dismounted motorcyle movement has already been suggested. It's gotten so bad I had to chain my Harley to the wall because it kept on trying to wander out of the garage. [:D]

schaef -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/6/2008 4:00:14 PM)
Deputy You are one stuborn guy!! If the Motorcyle unit (platoon) has a assigned driver attached to each motorcyle (like each truck has in a platoon) then it should be able to move without the combat part of the platoon! If we use your logic then none of the trucks in the game should be able to move!!!!!!

marcbarker -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/6/2008 5:43:06 PM)
What about thehandlrs for the bicycle patoons.....we goin tohav bies running rampant on he feld of battle......ther's a thought...tour de france via matrix.....dang have a derby, tour de france and a motorcycle gang...now that is a update

Deputy -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/6/2008 5:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: schaef Deputy You are one stuborn guy!! If the Motorcyle unit (platoon) has a assigned driver attached to each motorcyle (like each truck has in a platoon) then it should be able to move without the combat part of the platoon! If we use your logic then none of the trucks in the game should be able to move!!!!!! I prefer to call myself persistent[;)]. A truck driver is not considered as a combatant and the driver doesn't "dismount" to do combat. A motorcyle driver is a combatant. If a motorcycle driver dismounts and goes off to fight, how in the world is the motorcycle moving??? Reminds me of my youth when we didn't have enough kids to make a full baseball team, so we called "invisible man on first" to run bases. [:D] Now we have invisible men moving vehicles around. [8\|]

marcbarker -> RE: An easy solution for patch complaints (9/6/2008 5:47:27 PM)
Th fantac4 in a game

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.34375