1.03 disappointing....Jason

[Deputy]

I just installed the 1.03 patch and resumed an East Front campaign I had been playing. First thing I noticed was the Soviet artillery....WAY too effective against armor. Sorry....but artillery is devestating against infantry and artillery, but against armor it is more an irritation than anything else. This is especially true when firing indirect fire. Just too many Tiger tanks being knocked out and disabled by artillery in this new patch. I even tried moving the slider all the way over to Axis advantage and it didn't make any difference. With 1.02 I didn't have this situation at all. However, the German artillery seems to have gotten WEAKER in this new patch. It is useless against Soviet armor, even armored cars are immune to it. And it only has mild success against infantry and opposing artillery.

Also, the large number of commander's vehicles are a bit of a joke. For one thing they are running around all over the place. Command cars did NOT make themselves easy targets in ANY war!!!! They mainly stayed behind the lines or stayed attached to an armored or armored reconaissance unit. And the same problem that has been present with the Campaign Series since it's inception is still there. The Command Cars zoom back and forth between the same two hexes like the driver is insane or trying to burn up the fuel in his tank. Only now there are a lot more of them doing this.

Bottom line....I want to uninstall this new patch and revert to the 1.02 patch. I know I'll probably have to do a full uninstall and re-install. But this game is just not playable for me in this condition.

Jason: Is the 1.02 patch still available?

[kool_kat]

Deputy:

Why don't you load the ver. 1.04 beta patch?

It is a cumulative patch (rather large file size) that gives you the option of either using the pre. 1.03 assault rules or the new "extreme assault" ones. It also allows you to toggle off variable visibility. Plus you get all the new units, nationalities, scenarios, etc. that were included in ver. 1.03. [:)]

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: mwest

Deputy:

Why don't you load the ver. 1.04 beta patch?

It is a cumulative patch (rather large file size) that gives you the option of either using the pre. 1.03 assault rules or the new "extreme assault" ones. It also allows you to toggle off variable visibility. Plus you get all the new units, nationalities, scenarios, etc. that were included in ver. 1.03. [:)]

Because that patch doesn't address the problems I mentioned. I need 1.02 or 1.02b
Plus I looked and didn't see any 1.04 patch at the download area. [:)]

[Jason Petho]

The 1.02 UPDATE is in your installation. Look in the folders.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The 1.02 UPDATE is in your installation. Look in the folders.

Jason Petho

I looked. Nowhere to be found. Someone has suggested that it would be nice to have ALL the patches posted so that folks could pick and choose exactly what version they wanted to use. That's a great idea!!!

[GHQ]

It's more than just my opinion but artillery was pretty effective against tanks you just have to read history books to see that.
Previous versions of JTCS didn't do it justice but in JT's HPS PzC's things are very different, indirect fire often wrecks tanks.
I'm just reading yet another book on WWII, "The Germans in Normandy" by Richard Hargreaves, those Germans there found it very effective.
Even for those who think the Tiger invincible, it could easily be damaged by Allied artillery by indirect fire and that puts it out of action. Lots of things besides penetration of the armour can disable a tank, gunsights, radiators, tracks, bogies, exhausts and the like are all susceptable to indirect fire. Large calibre shells landing close to a tank can cause all sorts of problems to these things.
If you read some of the so called German Aces in tank warfare, they respected indirect fire, it would often damage their tanks and they tried to keep mobile to avoid it.
Don't be dissapointed the truth is often different to the myth.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: GHQ

It's more than just my opinion but artillery was pretty effective against tanks you just have to read history books to see that.
Previous versions of JTCS didn't do it justice but in JT's HPS PzC's things are very different, indirect fire often wrecks tanks.
I'm just reading yet another book on WWII, "The Germans in Normandy" by Richard Hargreaves, those Germans there found it very effective.
Even for those who think the Tiger invincible, it could easily be damaged by Allied artillery by indirect fire and that puts it out of action. Lots of things besides penetration of the armour can disable a tank, gunsights, radiators, tracks, bogies, exhausts and the like are all susceptable to indirect fire. Large calibre shells landing close to a tank can cause all sorts of problems to these things.
If you read some of the so called German Aces in tank warfare, they respected indirect fire, it would often damage their tanks and they tried to keep mobile to avoid it.
Don't be dissapointed the truth is often different to the myth.

I keep hearing this "you have to read history books" comment to refute complaints. Trust me...I am 59 years old and a big history buff...I've READ history books. I was also assigned to a tank during the Viet Nam war, so I know what I am talking about. Indirect artillery fire causes only a minor worry to a tank and it's crew. The chances of a shell hitting it in a vital location are minimal at best. And even direct artillery fire doesn't pose much of a worry. Artillery shells are made to kill infantry...NOT TANKS. Even armor piercing shells in WW2 had a very hard time knocking out a Tiger tank. There were only certain locations where it could be effectively destroyed. Could it be damaged by indirect fire? It would have to be a very lucky hit to damage a tank with indirect artillery fire. Yes, gunsights could be destroyed. But that doesn't take a tank out of action. You just use the boresighting method to aim the cannon. Not as fast, but equally effective. Exhausts are no problem. Radiators would have to be a lucky hit on the engine compartment. A DIRECT hit. Even then, there's no guarantee it's going to be effective. Artilley shells explode in an up-and-out direction....not in like an AP round. The problem in the game is all kinds of indirect fire is knocking out tanks. Including mortars. Mortars have NO direct fire capability. They can't be "aimed' because they don't have direct fire sights. And their shells are VERY weak against a tank. Yet tanks are not only being disabled but DESTROYED by mortars. That is just plain wrong.

Fortunately I located the 1.02 patch and I will do a full reinstall with that patch. I will gladly forego all the new additions of 1.03 and 1.04 to have some semblance of realism.

[scottintacoma]

Deputy,

In any scenerio Disabled and destroyed are the same thing. Yes the disableds should be able to be back quickly in a campaign game, but that is a limitation of the mechanics.

From what I have seen artillery rarely destroys a tank in 1.03, It disables them.

Also, Armor in WWII is much different and easier to damage then what you where operating with in Nam.

Scott in Tacoma

[junk2drive]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The 1.02 UPDATE is in your installation. Look in the folders.

Jason Petho

I looked. Nowhere to be found. Someone has suggested that it would be nice to have ALL the patches posted so that folks could pick and choose exactly what version they wanted to use. That's a great idea!!!

I have the 1.04 beta and do not see any patches anywhere.

Unit Viewer is in Tools and Mods btw.

[Jason Petho]

Apologies.

I created a PATCHES folder in my installs and that is where I store the various updates. I thought I included it as part of the normal update install, but didn't due to the excessive file size.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Deputy,

In any scenerio Disabled and destroyed are the same thing. Yes the disableds should be able to be back quickly in a campaign game, but that is a limitation of the mechanics.

From what I have seen artillery rarely destroys a tank in 1.03, It disables them.

Also, Armor in WWII is much different and easier to damage then what you where operating with in Nam.

Scott in Tacoma

Then I defintely want to use 1.02. Much fewer disabled/destroyed tanks in that version. Actually, a Tiger tank was very similar to the M48 tank used in Nam. Similar gun size and armor was quite comparable.
I rather doubt that Krupp steel was weaker than that on an M48. Besides, we are talking about artillery damage to a tank, not tank vs tank damage. The vulnerable points on a Tiger and an M48 are pretty much identical.

[countblue]

I must agree with the post of deputy, from all what I read I wouldnt install 1.03, too many complaints.
No offence intended, but this one (1.03) went somehow wrong I think.
For the moment I´d rather stick to the units and the concepts of 1.02.

My prime question is:
What would be the killer feature of 1.03? (or in other words why should I install it?)

regards

CB

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: countblue

I must agree with the post of deputy, from all what I read I wouldnt install 1.03, too many complaints.
No offence intended, but this one (1.03) went somehow wrong I think.
For the moment I´d rather stick to the units and the concepts of 1.02.

My prime question is:
What would be the killer feature of 1.03? (or in other words why should I install it?)

regards

CB

I agree 100% count. I tried BOTH 1.03 and 1.04 and didn't like either one. Right now I am using 1.02b and having a great time with it.
If you need the 1.02b version let me know and I'll send it to you. It seems to have disappeared from Matrix' website and I couldn't find it anywhere for download. A kind soul from the forum sent it to me. It's not too big that it can't be sent via e-mail. It's main fix is to OOB's.

The one big feature I saw in 1.03 and 1.04 was the new units. But that one feature isn't enough for me to use the whole patch. Too many downsides for me. I am curious as to WHO'S input Matrix used to come up with these new patch ideas like anti-tank artillery?? It certainly couldn't have come from people who actually served in a war as a tanker or artilleryman. Those who base their opinions strictly on books written after the war have to understand that those books were written either by the victors, who get to write history the way THEY want it to read, or the defeated, who are trying to make excuses for LOSING the war. Neither one gives an accurate representation of actual combat.

[dominican]

I haven't seen an excessive number of panzer deaths by artillery and mortar in my v1.03 East Front Barbarossa DCG campaign. Now in my 13th battle, there has been perhaps one tank knocked out per battle by artillery fire, though I agree, mortar shells were unlikely to destroy a tank, or even disable it, since the shell is coming from above and wouldn't do anything to the tracks. I haven't been keeping track of such statistics, but I would guess I have lost more tanks to mortars than regular artillery, but overall, I don't fear artillery any more than adjacent small arms fire. I'll start keeping track of how my panzers are destroyed and report that in the thread, for Jason's interest from the standpoint of improving the product.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: dominican

I haven't seen an excessive number of panzer deaths by artillery and mortar in my v1.03 East Front Barbarossa DCG campaign. Now in my 13th battle, there has been perhaps one tank knocked out per battle by artillery fire, though I agree, mortar shells were unlikely to destroy a tank, or even disable it, since the shell is coming from above and wouldn't do anything to the tracks. I haven't been keeping track of such statistics, but I would guess I have lost more tanks to mortars than regular artillery, but overall, I don't fear artillery any more than adjacent small arms fire. I'll start keeping track of how my panzers are destroyed and report that in the thread, for Jason's interest from the standpoint of improving the product.

The DCG game I was playing was late in the war. Soviet artillery was much more heavily concentrated then. I wouldn't have a strong objection to DIRECT fire artillery occasionally taking out a tank. That happened even in the 1.02b patch and it should be a possibility. But indirect fire should be VERY rare. And mortars, not at all. If the artillery settings returned to the 1.02b patch settings, my complaints would be minimal. [:)]

[countblue]

Thanx for the offer Deputy, would be nice, my email is countblue@gmail.com.

I have a 1.02 Patch but I am not sure if its 1.02b !

thanx again Deputy

CB

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: countblue

Thanx for the offer Deputy, would be nice, my email is countblue@gmail.com.

I have a 1.02 Patch but I am not sure if its 1.02b !

thanx again Deputy

CB

count: I was able to locate the 1.02b patch online!!! You can find it here:
http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/pe ... 070806.zip

The regular 1.02 patch is no longer available, though.

[dominican]

"The DCG game I was playing was late in the war. Soviet artillery was much more heavily concentrated then."
 
Ah, I hadn't considered that. In the Barbarossa campaign, I get about a dozen Russian artillery fires at the most at the start of their turn, less as they'er knocked out during the battle. What 1944-45 Russian artillery is like, I don't know.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: dominican

"The DCG game I was playing was late in the war. Soviet artillery was much more heavily concentrated then."

Ah, I hadn't considered that. In the Barbarossa campaign, I get about a dozen Russian artillery fires at the most at the start of their turn, less as they'er knocked out during the battle. What 1944-45 Russian artillery is like, I don't know.

Something else has been mentioned as a possibility in another thread. The "armor facing effects" setting. If that is turned to the ON position, it may be negatively affecting tanks during artillery attacks. Meaning that tanks MAY be getting knocked out more by indirect fire artillery because the sides and rear of the tank are being taken into consideration when the arty shell explodes. It's just a theory, of course, But since arty has now been changed to affect armor more drastically than before, this may be why I am experiencing so much damage from it. I tend to leave armor facing "ON" all the time. I may just install the game on my laptop and see if this is what is happening.

[cw58]

Supposedly, armor facing only effects direct fire attacks. Quoting from the game manual found in the manuals sub-folder:

"Armor Facing – This only applies to Direct Fire vs. armored (i.e., “Hard”) targets." MCS-manual103, p.98.

"Q: When the Optional Rule for “Armor Facing Efects” is “on”, which defense factor is used by an armored (“hard”) unit defending in (counter) assaults?
A: The “armor facing” defense values apply only to Direct Fire; the standard defense value (as shown in the unit info box) is always used when defending in (counter) assaults." MCS manual103, p. 157.

By implication, it would seem that in indirect fire attacks, only the defense value and not the armor facing value is considered. So it shouldn't matter whether that option is selected or not, the AI should always be attacking (with indirect fire) against a tank's defense value, not its armor facing value. [:(]Sorry, that doesn't solve your problem, so I guess it's just FYI.