You guys are killing me!

You guys are killing me! (Full Version)

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

Message

ferrata -> You guys are killing me! (9/2/2008 7:08:24 PM)
Alright, I had to wrestle with myself over this one, and I've come down to the conclusion that both sides of the whole patch/development argument are wrong in their own ways -- but more so on the user side of the house. First, Matrix (or whoever) needs to go ahead and make the v1.02 patch available again (with the v1.02b temporary, as well). This patch seemed to have fixed various game issues without completely changing the engine and so forth. You could call it the "Final Patch for the Classic Game") and just have done with it. If the game is being marketed as the "return of a classic", then it's best to allow the option to play it as classic -- this would be the good user support part. In the meantime, you could still work on the v1.03 and beyond line of optional patches which are tailored to user requests and changes that players and developers may have wanted to see for some time -- this would be the good marketing part, as it may instill confidence and interest in groups of buyers that would like to see these changes made and would keep them roped to Matrix for years to come. As for the users, if you are looking to play the original CS without all of the new bull-dookie, then download the v1.02 patches and have at it. Yes, there are some minor problems, but I have found none that can't be fixed by modifying the files that come with the game. If you need any help doing any of this then talk to each other and figure out how to make the changes you want to make. I'm sure if you ask nicely, some of the developers might be willing to help you out with file syntax as well. Remember - no one has forced the new patches down your throat. They are optional installations. So far all I hear is a bunch of greedy users who want to have their cake and eat it too. If you are looking for new units or oobs, new linked campaigns, changes to dynamic campaigns, whatever... then learn how to do it yourself and make the changes as you like them. Don't hound someone else to do it and then whine because what they have done isn't exactly to your specifications. Especially, don't threaten to scrap a game, just because you don't like the new patch! That's ridiculous! Although I have had to make minor fixes to units here and there, I play patch v1.02b -- it is CS classic at its best. I have no interest in some of the changes I have heard of since, but you won't hear me upbraiding the developer staff for trying to keep the customers happy by working to release upgrades for an already great title. Hell, if anything I would like them to tell me how to de-compile the binaries so I could modify them exactly as I like them.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/2/2008 7:17:18 PM)
who's whining.....i said my piece and over it...I love the classic game, because it made you think and alter your tactics to overcome obstacles, you tweaked this file , tweaked that file them bam you have a great dynamic game....I have no problem with any of the fixes they do, but it was package as a classic and they did have those option available up to a patch...so i bought it not knowing that aspect so I leraned a valuable lesson. But I hope everyone that plays enjoys it in their own way and have fun with it, expand your knowledge base on battles, know the order of battles and try to recreate a misty version of a little known battle or use your imagination and go What if....Just Enjoy

MrRoadrunner -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/2/2008 10:16:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ferrata Alright, I had to wrestle with myself over this one, and I've come down to the conclusion that both sides of the whole patch/development argument are wrong in their own ways -- but more so on the user side of the house. <<<snip>>> <<<snip snap>>> <<<snip snap snip>>> Remember - no one has forced the new patches down your throat. They are optional installations. So far all I hear is a bunch of greedy users who want to have their cake and eat it too. If you are looking for new units or oobs, new linked campaigns, changes to dynamic campaigns, whatever... then learn how to do it yourself and make the changes as you like them. Don't hound someone else to do it and then whine because what they have done isn't exactly to your specifications. Especially, don't threaten to scrap a game, just because you don't like the new patch! That's ridiculous! bites tongue You do know that version 1.03 came with forced default changes and bugs galore? [8\|] Though angry, you have brought something to the table. If you read the "press lines" version 1.04 is a comprehensive upgrade. It eliminates the default nature of the variable visibility and close assault rules. It allows the players to have the options you speak of without having to belay the benefits of the other additions. If you want to have the classic "plus" a whole lot more, download the 1.04 patch. It does give the player choices? [;)] no words of anger anywhere Meep Meep! [:'(]

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/2/2008 10:25:44 PM)
Well said Ferrata!!! But I don't think guys who prefer the game with the 1.02b patch should be classified as "greedy users who want to have their cake and eat it too". The guys that prefer 1.02b are just as anxious to see the game improved as anyone else. Like you, I am content with the fixes up to 1.02b. And I would have liked to get all those neat new units that Jason and the crew created with 1.03 and 1.04. But not at the expense of the gameplay that was present in 1.02b. I am with you 100% in helping those that wish to stop at 1.02b with anything I can do. I have the info on fixing the medals bug in West Front written down. It's really quite easy. And the locations of the 1.02 and 1.02b patch have been posted on the forum. I also have the 1.02b patch as a zipped file that was sent to me. That's part of the co-operation that is going on with fans of the "Classic" game you mention. [;)] Anyone who wants the zipped 1.02b patch can e-mail me and I'll gladly send it. Now for the not-so-good news. I already asked Jason ina thread if Matrix would post ALL the patches from the very first one to the most recent one. That would let people pick and choose what version they used. Here is the short and not too sweet reply: "That's not up to me, but I prefer we didn't. Primarily for the reason that we support the latest UPDATE." Jason Petho You can read the thread here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1901139 The botton line is us guys that want to stop at 1.02b are REALLY on our own. THere is one more major patch needed by ALL of us that is still a bug from the early days of Talonsoft. It't the back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth bug that happens with various units like trucksm HQ units, and other units with high movement values that seem to feel the need to burn up thos emovement points before the turn ends. I am hoping that the fix for this bug will be released independantly of any other fixes or patches. Putting it in an "all inclusive" patch would really screw guys who are using 1.02b. But from the sound of things, fixing that bug is VERY far down the line, sinc eht enext patch isn't expected until 2009 or 2010. Cripes, I may be dead before that patch is released [:D] Anyway, I applaud your idea and hope that maybe the 1.02b users can get together and help each other out. Maybe form a group within the Campoaign Series fans and have some input. Oh yeah, one other thing. From what I am hearing this latest patch was mainly for people playing single scenarios and PBEM games. They seem to be the most vocal about asking for the changes that were made. I guess that's why you see 81MM mortars taking out Elefant tanks. I don't think I ever want to play single scenarios or PBEM games [8\|] Dep

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/2/2008 10:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner quote: ORIGINAL: ferrata Alright, I had to wrestle with myself over this one, and I've come down to the conclusion that both sides of the whole patch/development argument are wrong in their own ways -- but more so on the user side of the house. <<<snip>>> <<<snip snap>>> <<<snip snap snip>>> Remember - no one has forced the new patches down your throat. They are optional installations. So far all I hear is a bunch of greedy users who want to have their cake and eat it too. If you are looking for new units or oobs, new linked campaigns, changes to dynamic campaigns, whatever... then learn how to do it yourself and make the changes as you like them. Don't hound someone else to do it and then whine because what they have done isn't exactly to your specifications. Especially, don't threaten to scrap a game, just because you don't like the new patch! That's ridiculous! bites tongue You do know that version 1.03 came with forced default changes and bugs galore? [8\|] Though angry, you have brought something to the table. If you read the "press lines" version 1.04 is a comprehensive upgrade. It eliminates the default nature of the variable visibility and close assault rules. It allows the players to have the options you speak of without having to belay the benefits of the other additions. If you want to have the classic "plus" a whole lot more, download the 1.04 patch. It does give the player choices? [;)] no words of anger anywhere Meep Meep! [:'(] What about invisible anti-tank guns and anti-tank mortars and artillery? I have the latest 1.04 beta patch on my laptop and I don't see any options to remove that silliness. If it does have that option, I'll put the patch on my desktop comp right now!!!

MrRoadrunner -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/3/2008 1:08:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy What about invisible anti-tank guns and anti-tank mortars and artillery? I have the latest 1.04 beta patch on my laptop and I don't see any options to remove that silliness. If it does have that option, I'll put the patch on my desktop comp right now!!! The small AT guns and AT platoons, being hidden, do add something to the game. They do not stay hidden forever. In a six minute turn I am not sure anyone would be able to see everthing immediately. It takes away from the "boardgame" likeness of the game. The "lucky" mortars and artillery in indirect fire was a bit much. I'm not sure if I remember it correctly but the indirect fire was changed from 3% to 5%. Maybe a compromise of 4% would be in order? I've read accounts of Tiger I's being hit by 120mm mortars that shredded their radiators and made them hors d' combat. And, there is plenty of historical record of artillery stopping or diverting attacks. That cannot be done either? I'm a PBEM'er exclusively, so I may not be "bright" enough to understand why you want to revert to 1.02b. I just can't see the devastating effect of the artillery. [8\|] I do have the file if you need it. Regards, RR

Borst50 -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/3/2008 1:10:36 AM)
Acutaully...it already IS at 4%...see the thread I posted Talonsoft VS MCS:Indirect artillery fire.

MrRoadrunner -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/3/2008 1:35:15 AM)
3 to 4% sounds good to me! Thanks! I searched out and I read some of your posts on the subject. [:)] I'm O.K. with it all unless it can be modified to take out the 81 mm and smaller mortars, as having the same effect as larger caliber guns. RR

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/3/2008 1:39:14 AM)
Well I just played my LAST test game in 1.04 beta. In a late war Dynamic Campaign Game against the Soviets, I lost NINE tanks to indirect fire and ZERO tanks to enemy tank and anti-tank guns in ONE scenario!!!. And all of the indirect fire was "unspotted" fire, ie no enemy unit was spotting my tanks. Am I afraid of Soviet tanks? Nope. I pick them off with ease. Am I concerned about Soviet infantry, nope. They are as easy to kill as the tanks. Enemy bombers? No biggie. My big fear is every time I hear anti-tank artillery open up. Enemy anti-tank artillery has now become the biggest tank killer in the game. And the enemy is pretty slick. They KNOW that their artillery can kill tanks. They use spotters that stay one square out of range of the German tanks and call in the coordinates. So you are forced to leave a defensive position or victory square to engage the spotters. Or get killed by anti-tank artillery. How this can be even remotely historical is beyond me. Did the Soviet tankers and artillerymen have a big summit meeting and decide to exchange the shells each branch used or something??? [8\|] Thank goodness for 1.02b!!!!

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/3/2008 9:54:33 AM)
I would rather do the 1.02b....it was easier to update on the fly....less confusing OOB's to deal with, DCG worked good, was never too much into the scenario side...I like the radomness of the dynamic battles.....Whe you had a tiger platoon heading out in the open you really did not worry about the 81mm you had to worry about those su-85 and t-34, kv-1 those were a pain, the molotovs were a pain but acceptable. how many t-34 were knocked out by 37mm or less front faced armor? I think that if artillery was effective it was in a barrage effect by off board artillery 155 and above...3 hex barrage would have a greater chance to knock out a tank then 2 105 guns firing from 500 yards

big dawg -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 2:53:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy In a late war Dynamic Campaign Game against the Soviets, I lost NINE tanks to indirect fire and ZERO tanks to enemy tank and anti-tank guns in ONE scenario!!!. And all of the indirect fire was "unspotted" fire, ie no enemy unit was spotting my tanks. Deputy, Were you stacking your armor in tight groups with multiple tanks & no avenue to retreat? Both of these factors can greatly affect the damage you receive. A hidden unit would provide LOS on your units. I just read a book called Barrage, the guns in action by Ivan Hogg. He describes battles in Africa where thirty (30) PZR IIIs and IVs attacked a battery 25-pounders of the 4th Indian Division starting at 2,000 yards then continuing to 300 yards before retreating with no less than EIGHT German tanks destroyed, and 5 of the Indian guns destroyed in the 45 minute battle. It goes on to say that the tanks returned late in the day and opened fire from 4,000 yards. The tanks were in tight formations and lost SIX more tanks before retreating. Good luck!

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 4:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: big dawg quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy In a late war Dynamic Campaign Game against the Soviets, I lost NINE tanks to indirect fire and ZERO tanks to enemy tank and anti-tank guns in ONE scenario!!!. And all of the indirect fire was "unspotted" fire, ie no enemy unit was spotting my tanks. Deputy, Were you stacking your armor in tight groups with multiple tanks & no avenue to retreat? Both of these factors can greatly affect the damage you receive. A hidden unit would provide LOS on your units. I just read a book called Barrage, the guns in action by Ivan Hogg. He describes battles in Africa where thirty (30) PZR IIIs and IVs attacked a battery 25-pounders of the 4th Indian Division starting at 2,000 yards then continuing to 300 yards before retreating with no less than EIGHT German tanks destroyed, and 5 of the Indian guns destroyed in the 45 minute battle. It goes on to say that the tanks returned late in the day and opened fire from 4,000 yards. The tanks were in tight formations and lost SIX more tanks before retreating. Good luck! Nope, no tight groups and big stacks. I am well aware of the "12 point limit" for stacking[;)]. And they were Panther tanks, not MKIII or MKIV. I'm pretty much finished with 1.04. I'm back to 1.02b. I just don't like the direction the patches are going. I'm gonna withdraw from complaining too. It's obviously falling on deaf ears. Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I appreciate the assistance. [:)]

borsook79 -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 12:49:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: big dawg quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy In a late war Dynamic Campaign Game against the Soviets, I lost NINE tanks to indirect fire and ZERO tanks to enemy tank and anti-tank guns in ONE scenario!!!. And all of the indirect fire was "unspotted" fire, ie no enemy unit was spotting my tanks. Deputy, Were you stacking your armor in tight groups with multiple tanks & no avenue to retreat? Both of these factors can greatly affect the damage you receive. A hidden unit would provide LOS on your units. I just read a book called Barrage, the guns in action by Ivan Hogg. He describes battles in Africa where thirty (30) PZR IIIs and IVs attacked a battery 25-pounders of the 4th Indian Division starting at 2,000 yards then continuing to 300 yards before retreating with no less than EIGHT German tanks destroyed, and 5 of the Indian guns destroyed in the 45 minute battle. It goes on to say that the tanks returned late in the day and opened fire from 4,000 yards. The tanks were in tight formations and lost SIX more tanks before retreating. Good luck! Nope, no tight groups and big stacks. I am well aware of the "12 point limit" for stacking[;)]. And they were Panther tanks, not MKIII or MKIV. I'm pretty much finished with 1.04. I'm back to 1.02b. I just don't like the direction the patches are going. I'm gonna withdraw from complaining too. It's obviously falling on deaf ears. Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I appreciate the assistance. [:)] Actually Panthers would be more in danger of indirect fire, they had superb front/side armour, but if the missile was coming from above and would heat the back part of the tank the damage to the engine was almost sure, regardless of the calibre.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 12:53:21 PM)
like with anything there is a small percentage of kills for a lucky shot bullet going through the driver visor and killing the viser rifle grenade exploing on a bad joint and causing failure fuel leak and it is fired up by a near by explosion. Those have occured but very rarley. I would still like to see the barrage effect

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 3:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker like with anything there is a small percentage of kills for a lucky shot bullet�going through the driver visor and killing the viser rifle grenade exploing on a bad joint and causing failure fuel leak and it is fired up by a near by explosion. Those have occured but very rarley. I would still like to see the barrage effect Exactly right. This wasn't some "random event". NINE tanks knocked out (not just disrupted) in one salvo is just plane nuts. [X(]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 4:10:09 PM)
shrapnel bouncing off the right guard, hitting the turret going through the eye slit going through the head of the driver exit the the crack in the armor, hitting the nearby tanks fuel leak and exploding it thereby driving the force of the shrapnel even harder to the next tank, hitting the side turret like a sabot and finally resting against the round of an 88 laying next too the commander and firing that off. 3 tanks out of 5 gone....simple

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 4:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker shrapnel bouncing off the right guard, hitting the turret going through the eye slit going through the head of the driver exit the the crack in the armor, hitting the nearby tanks fuel leak and exploding it thereby driving the force of the shrapnel even harder to the next tank, hitting the side turret like a sabot and finally resting against the round of an 88 laying next too the commander and firing that off. 3 tanks out of 5 gone....simple Ahhhhh yes...the magical shrapnel piece. I forgot about that. It's related to the magic bullet that went in all different directions after it hit Kennedy. [:)]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 5:09:36 PM)
one bullet 5 wounds and also it has that 45 degree rebound radar effect

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 5:44:30 PM)
that magic bullet is like a well aimed fart......area effect....you don't see it, you don't hear , but dang it is effective

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 8:40:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker that magic bullet is like a well aimed fart......area effect....you don't see it, you don't hear , but dang it is effective ROFLMAO!!!![:D][:D][:D]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 10:04:47 PM)
New Assault Rules.....Gas Attack...that should wipe out a regiment.....tear gas was often used....smoke generators for a very wide range smoke effect....what is this 1 hex effect?

big dawg -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/8/2008 11:35:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Ahhhhh yes...the magical shrapnel piece. I bet it was a +10 shrapnel blessed by a level 10 cleric & enhanced by the 14th level magic user. AHH the good o'le D&D days.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 12:03:28 AM)
But let us not forget the 45th level Master Supply Sargent...who drove a borrowed deuce and a half that kept going back and forth till it ran out of gas then got the horses borrowed from the cav and they took off like wildfire...

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 5:13:54 AM)
Perhaps they are working on the "bent barrel option" where you can shoot around corners? Believe it or not there WAS a real barrel for the M3 submachinegun that had this mod. I truly think it should be a priority for the CS. [:'(]

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 7:15:37 AM)
well yes but I liked the Mr. Limpet Device.......swam to the beach prior to the assault and the sound waves disrupted all unts on the map

Achsah -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 2:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy quote: ORIGINAL: big dawg quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy In a late war Dynamic Campaign Game against the Soviets, I lost NINE tanks to indirect fire and ZERO tanks to enemy tank and anti-tank guns in ONE scenario!!!. And all of the indirect fire was "unspotted" fire, ie no enemy unit was spotting my tanks. Deputy, Were you stacking your armor in tight groups with multiple tanks & no avenue to retreat? Both of these factors can greatly affect the damage you receive. A hidden unit would provide LOS on your units. I just read a book called Barrage, the guns in action by Ivan Hogg. He describes battles in Africa where thirty (30) PZR IIIs and IVs attacked a battery 25-pounders of the 4th Indian Division starting at 2,000 yards then continuing to 300 yards before retreating with no less than EIGHT German tanks destroyed, and 5 of the Indian guns destroyed in the 45 minute battle. It goes on to say that the tanks returned late in the day and opened fire from 4,000 yards. The tanks were in tight formations and lost SIX more tanks before retreating. Good luck! Nope, no tight groups and big stacks. I am well aware of the "12 point limit" for stacking[;)]. And they were Panther tanks, not MKIII or MKIV. I'm pretty much finished with 1.04. I'm back to 1.02b. I just don't like the direction the patches are going. I'm gonna withdraw from complaining too. It's obviously falling on deaf ears. Thanks for everyone's suggestions. I appreciate the assistance. [:)] Heya Deputy, i'm not sure what others may have replied to after this post so if i repeat something my apologies. Even big tanks can get waked by artillery..this happened a lot in Normandy for example. Like i said before you don't even have to score a real kill..all you have to do is panic or shock the crew the tank. But in fairness its possible that that the program is killing to easy or to much. The early kv tanks for instance used to have bad armor(not thickness) and would flake easily. But having said that, the ai can be surprising accurate in what at least seems unspotted fire(i think the old ef 102 either flat out cheated as a play balance thing or i just did not spot the spotters) if after a normal local victory forces the ai to roll dice and you have a lot of stuff left over around an overun you just completed.This can take on rather serious proportions even in a firefight if you force the enemy spotters out of los!..so not only is hex density an issue so are greater local densities.

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 3:05:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pasha Heya Deputy, i'm not sure what others may have replied to after this post so if i repeat something my apologies. Even big tanks can get waked by artillery..this happened a lot in Normandy for example. Like i said before you don't even have to score a real kill..all you have to do is panic or shock the crew the tank. But in fairness its possible that that the program is killing to easy or to much. The early kv tanks for instance used to have bad armor(not thickness) and would flake easily. But having said that, the ai can be surprising accurate in what at least seems unspotted fire(i think the old ef 102 either flat out cheated as a play balance thing or i just did not spot the spotters) if after a normal local victory forces the ai to roll dice and you have a lot of stuff left over around an overun you just completed.This can take on rather serious proportions even in a firefight if you force the enemy spotters out of los!..so not only is hex density an issue so are greater local densities. Pasha: Sorry we veered off and got a little goofy. [:D] Normandy is kinda special because you are talking NAVAL artillery. That is a lot more powerful than 105 or 155 guns. Panic and shocking the crew should be covered under disruption...it shouldn't destroy tanks. What we see in the new patches is 60 and 82MM mortars destroying tanks. That's just plain silly. The worst effect a tanker would get is ringing in his ears from a mortar round direct hit. And if there is only one tank platoon in a hex, mortar fire should not be deadly accurate anyway. As a matter of fact, mortar fire isn't accurate at all. It was made to be an area fire weapon and not have the rounds all fall in one precise location. I've experienced Tiger tanks knocked out by mortars. I could maybe see a fluke of ONE Tiger tank knocked out, but not 2/3 of a platoon destroyed.

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 3:11:18 PM)
I agree on the normandy issue a big difference between a 14" shell blasting 10 feet from a tank. or an 8" sheel landing in the middle of a platoon , there would be a high degree of disruption as well a higher chance of a immobilize situation...but the turret could still fire...maybe a solutoin would be a disuruption then if moved you lost 20% fire power while still having the whole platoon

marcbarker -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 5:19:20 PM)
A 60mm mortar has a chance to immobilize on a hit to a tread but not even a direct hit on the top of the turret

Deputy -> RE: You guys are killing me! (9/9/2008 5:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker A 60mm mortar has a chance to immobilize on a hit to a tread but not even a direct hit on the top of the turret It would have to be an awful weak tread and a very lucky hit. Since mortars fire in a high arc, the chance of it hitting a tread directly are slim and none and Slim left town [;)] The 60MM mortar is about as powerful as a regular hand grenade. Pretty weak. [:(]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.140625