Slitherine

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

I have a feeling that Matrix and Jason weren't aware of how many of us really enjoy the DCG campaigns.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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