For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank. For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank.
Sound like he should have used round 22 to tap gently on the commanders hatch and the pipe to beat unconscious anyone who answered.
Also can you imagine what the North Koreans were thinking. Round One..."WTF!?" Round two..."S**t there it goes again." Round ten... "Je-sus! (KimIllJong!) That was loud." ...and by round #22... "Oh man if those Americans scratch my paintwork again I just know what the colonal's going to say..."
According to what I've read so far, production of Ausführung H (last serial numbers: 86393 + 89540) ended in February 1944, production of Ausführung J (first serial numbers: 86394 + 89541) started in February 1944. Unless you were suggesting that Krupp had parallel production lines and problems with introducing the technical changes you mentioned, I'd prefer to think that the production of version H had been stopped in Febr. in favor of introducing the new J type.
Fair enough. Because I had it close at hand, I quickly drafted the production end and start months in my post from 'Panzers in Normandy' (Eric Lefèvre), which admittedly is now getting old, but you might also have read the following:
quote:
Panzer IV Universe It would seem that the transition from Ausf. H to Ausf. J was not anticipated any better than the one from Ausf. F1 to Ausf. F2. Existing orders for Ausf. H were probably "converted" to Ausf. J. And it looks as if Ausf. J production started at some factories several months before other factories completed Ausf. H production.
(Yes, for once we can link to a site that details its sources very well, and you can see it includes the good sources.)
Andrew, could the installer be changed to read the serial code from registry instead of asking me again ? Only to ask if query of registry returns an empty string ? Because I could even copy the key from the registry if I don't have the code on hand.
Just some question because all needed information should be in the registry and if not ask for them.
the serial code is also in your \WaR folder serialreg.txt... just copy and paste it only takes a second.
Yeah but it's irritating and unecessary and you could fix it. I bought WIA from a different source because I can't stand Matrix asking me for serial numbers every time I download a patch. I'll buy games from another source every time I have the option until it's changed. Sorry but there it is. Making things harder, even trivially so, for your customers seems silly to me. But I guess you know your business best.
It's even easier not to have to bother... and there is no reason to have to bother for those games one can purchase elsewhere that don't require re-entering of a license number to patch. Making customers jump through unecessary hoops (even teensy little hoops) doesn't seem very sensible to me. I'm not griping, Matrix can do as they please - I'm just saying that it loses them sales, maybe the number of such lost sales is so trivial they don't care.
Posts: 1307
Joined: 4/18/2000 From: Adelaide, Australia Status: offline
sure, why not, there are plenty of other games companies that you can buy from, and hey, they only use friendly DRM techniques to protect their IP. Good luck.
Posts: 62
Joined: 12/25/2005 From: NE Illinois Status: offline
Was experimenting with adding Tiger II in the "line" version of "fpools.txt", for Kampfgruppe Peiper. I noticed that if I specify 1 tank, 1 is available in the game (i.e., the combined total of Tiger IIs in the active and inactive areas of the BG is 1). If I specify 4 tanks, 3 are available. If I specify 10 tanks, 7 are available. I also notice that the total active plus inactive numbers of pre-existing vehicles (like Panthers) is also somewhat less than the amount specified in fpools.txt. Is this reduction intentional?
< Message edited by TDeacon -- 3/1/2009 4:12:07 PM >
I believe it is intentional though it does not seem to be working as they wanted since the new patch has the following item listed;
- Force Pools are now initialized as follows: Campaign = full team quantities from the FP file for that date/difficulty. Operation = 2/3 that quantity. Battle = 1/3 that quantity. Previously these were 2/3 for both Camps and Ops and full value for single battles
Posts: 62
Joined: 12/25/2005 From: NE Illinois Status: offline
It was tested in the "Northern Front" mini-campaign. I wonder if that is treated as if it is an "operation"? Anyway, obviously I don't have the big patch yet. <edited: looks like this was a know bug, and they say they're fixing it>.
BTW, the game currently seems to "hard-code" the available BG elements each turn to match the force pool, such that if I have 2 Tiger IIs surviving a winning battle, and if "fpools.txt" only specifies 1 Tiger II for the next turn, then I lose one of my existing Tiger IIs. This really breaks the concept of managing force resources in a campaign. However, Matrix seems to be saying that have fixed this in the upcoming patch, per Andrew: <quote> Changed the way BG reinforcements work - Original code = Existing FP was reset to whatever the base FP was for that date in the Fpools file. New method = Team quantity is set to the higher of the base FP or the existing FP. Team types in the base FP but not in the existing FP are also added to the existing FP <unquote>
Assuming the above fix works the way it sounds, adjustments will probably still need to be made to "fpools.txt" by players, if I understand this correctly. That's because the current turn-by-turn force pool element quanties only slowly decrease over the course of the campaign. Thus it appears that one could loose 90% of a BG's force pool on turn "n", and yet most of that would be restored by "fpools.txt" on turn "n+1". To avoid this, I am guessing that one would have to edit "fpools.txt" to set all element quantities to "0" for all turns after the one in which the BG first appears.
< Message edited by TDeacon -- 3/2/2009 1:37:50 AM >
I and have not understood, whether the new patch is published? Or when it is necessary to expect it? I understand, that any date is àpproximate (plus a minus year :) )
BTW, the game currently seems to "hard-code" the available BG elements each turn to match the force pool, such that if I have 2 Tiger IIs surviving a winning battle, and if "fpools.txt" only specifies 1 Tiger II for the next turn, then I lose one of my existing Tiger IIs.
The forcepool in CCWAR is used for two things; one, it specifies a BG's starting units since not all battles, operations and or campaigns have to start on the 1st day of the campaign and two, it specifies the reinforcements available on any given day of the campaign. If you fight a campaign/operation with a BG the units surviving will be the units available in the next battle unless you reinforce in which case you currently could get less or more units depending on the day with the current version of WAR. The scenario of getting less units is what is fixed in the new patch as the reinforce button will not be available if reinforcing does not give the player any new units and reinforcing will only add units, it will not take away units….
Turn by turn the quantities do slowly decrease in the fpool but the fpool is NOT automatically applied each day to a BG. The AI and player must choose when to reinforce as the number of a times a BG can reinforce is limited.
Posts: 62
Joined: 12/25/2005 From: NE Illinois Status: offline
If I remember my Tiger II experiment correctly (above), I did not "reinforce" (not knowingly anyway), and yet the number of total (active + inactive) Tiger IIs was synchronized in the next turn with the number for that turn in "fpools.txt".
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein >> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? 
RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? - 
RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread