Patch version 1.02 and 1.02B available again!!

[Deputy]

I have uploaded version 1.02 and version 1.02B to a free file-sharing location. Now folks that don't want to use version 1.03 or 1.04 can revert to the "classic" Talonsoft version of the game. Unfortunately, if you bought a new game, it will probably be 1.04 and I don't think you can go back. Sorry about that. I can't help you folks. [:(]

Here is the location of the patches:

Version 1.02B
http://www.filefactory.com/file/cf5b606 ... 070806.zip

Version 1.02
http://www.filefactory.com/file/cf5b7b6 ... R-v102.zip

[MrRoadrunner]

Can of worms! [&:]

RR

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Can of worms! [&:]

RR

Hardly. Are you practicing at being Mr. Negative or what? Many folks prefer the 1.02 version of the game. I offer it for those who want it. Again, NOBODY'S arm is being twisted to use it.

[MrRoadrunner]

Sorry Deputy dog.
I speak for no one, but myself.

So I cannot say I think everyone believes as you seem to think that you can.

[>:]

RR

[Deputy]

Sorry whoever you are. You are on my ignore list so can't see your ridiculous posts. Have a nice day. [:D]

[Wolfie1]

There is so much crap coming out of you that I can't believe that the Mods haven't neutered you yet

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

I have uploaded version 1.02 and version 1.02B to a free file-sharing location. Now folks that don't want to use version 1.03 or 1.04 can revert to the "classic" Talonsoft version of the game.

You do realize how much you lose by reverting back to a earlier, and I believe not supported, version 1.02 CS patch - correct? [&:]


You Lose:

* Trains
* Warships
* Pontoon Ferry / Self Propelled Boats
* Half tracks with improved firepower
* Maintenance units
* Bridging, mining, and construction engineers
* Units with Green or Veteran Designation
* Over a dozen scenarios (Primarily West Front)
* Calvary firing while mounted
* Boot Camps (training scenarios) #5 - #12
* A West Front Dynamic Campaign game
* Extended order of battles for Russian, German, and American forces. Note - These Order of Battle changes directly impact the Dynamic Campaign Order of Battles - especially the East Front campaigns for the Germans and Russians.
* Automatic campaigns save function

The above are some of the major losses you suffer by reverting to an earlier patch... there are more.

Hopefully, you made an "informed choice" when you decided to play with an earlier patch version? [&:]

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Deputy

I have uploaded version 1.02 and version 1.02B to a free file-sharing location. Now folks that don't want to use version 1.03 or 1.04 can revert to the "classic" Talonsoft version of the game.

You do realize how much you lose by reverting back to a earlier, and I believe not supported, version 1.02 CS patch - correct? [&:]


You Lose:

* Trains
* Warships
* Pontoon Ferry / Self Propelled Boats
* Half tracks with improved firepower
* Maintenance units
* Bridging, mining, and construction engineers
* Units with Green or Veteran Designation
* Over a dozen scenarios (Primarily West Front)
* Calvary firing while mounted
* Boot Camps (training scenarios) #5 - #12
* A West Front Dynamic Campaign game
* Extended order of battles for Russian, German, and American forces. Note - These Order of Battle changes directly impact the Dynamic Campaign Order of Battles - especially the East Front campaigns for the Germans and Russians.
* Automatic campaigns save function

The above are some of the major losses you suffer by reverting to an earlier patch... there are more.

Hopefully, you made an "informed choice" when you decided to play with an earlier patch version? [&:]

The main things I am glad I DON'T have are 60MM and 81MM mortars as well as field artillery killing tanks at will. Plus the hidden units staying hidden in hexes right next to your units and only showing up if your unit tries to move into their hex. I GLADLY trade all of the list you have posted to eliminate those two "features". They have such a major affect on gameplay that they alter the game into something totally differerent.

It's my choice and I stand by it. Not suggesting anyone else make the change. I don't play against human opponents and I am not into creating my own scenarios or using those others have created. I rarely play Linked Campaigns. The 1.02B patch may not be supported, but it is stable and I am more than happy with it.

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

The main things I am glad I DON'T have are 60MM and 81MM mortars as well as field artillery killing tanks at will.

I believe smaller caliber mortars / artillery chances to disable armor will be either eliminated or reduced in the upcoming version 1.05 patch. Maybe larger artillery too?

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Plus the hidden units staying hidden in hexes right next to your units and only showing up if your unit tries to move into their hex.

250 meters is a large area (over 820 feet or 0.16 mile)... fairly easy for a small silhouette unit (e.g. AT gun) to remain hidden? There are tactics to overcome hidden units.

ORIGINAL: Deputy

I GLADLY trade all of the list you have posted to eliminate those two "features". They have such a major affect on gameplay that they alter the game into something totally differerent.

Again, there are tactics to overcome both hidden units and artillery kills against armor. Hidden units: Close assault with infantry. Target artillery barrages into the enemy occupied hex. Bypass the unit. Artillery kills against armor: Keep your armor moving. Shoot & Scoot tactics.

ORIGINAL: Deputy

It's my choice and I stand by it.

Nobody stated otherwise? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Not suggesting anyone else make the change. I don't play against human opponents and I am not into creating my own scenarios or using those others have created. I rarely play Linked Campaigns.

You just play Dynamic Campaigns against the AI? [&:]

So, that gives you roughly the following: EF (17 campaigns), WF (9 campaigns) and RS (3 campaigns)

And that's it?

Well, looks like version 1.02 will serve you well! Have fun! [:)]

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Deputy

The main things I am glad I DON'T have are 60MM and 81MM mortars as well as field artillery killing tanks at will.

I believe smaller caliber mortars / artillery chances to disable armor will be either eliminated or reduced in the upcoming version 1.05 patch. Maybe larger artillery too?

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Plus the hidden units staying hidden in hexes right next to your units and only showing up if your unit tries to move into their hex.

250 meters is a large area (over 820 feet or 0.16 mile)... fairly easy for a small silhouette unit (e.g. AT gun) to remain hidden? There are tactics to overcome hidden units.

ORIGINAL: Deputy

I GLADLY trade all of the list you have posted to eliminate those two "features". They have such a major affect on gameplay that they alter the game into something totally differerent.

Again, there are tactics to overcome both hidden units and artillery kills against armor. Hidden units: Close assault with infantry. Target artillery barrages into the enemy occupied hex. Bypass the unit. Artillery kills against armor: Keep your armor moving. Shoot & Scoot tactics.

ORIGINAL: Deputy

It's my choice and I stand by it.

Nobody stated otherwise? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Not suggesting anyone else make the change. I don't play against human opponents and I am not into creating my own scenarios or using those others have created. I rarely play Linked Campaigns.

You just play Dynamic Campaigns against the AI? [&:]

So, that gives you roughly the following: EF (17 campaigns), WF (9 campaigns) and RS (3 campaigns)

And that's it?

Well, looks like version 1.02 will serve you well! Have fun! [:)]

I don't like chopping up posts as it makes it hard to decipher. I use quotes instead [:)]

"I believe smaller caliber mortars / artillery chances to disable armor will be either eliminated or reduced in the upcoming version 1.05 patch. Maybe larger artillery too?"

Maybe so. But that patch has been coming out for how long? Am I supposed to not play the game until the patch comes out? I don't think so.

"250 meters is a large area (over 820 feet or 0.16 mile)... fairly easy for a small silhouette unit (e.g. AT gun) to remain hidden? There are tactics to overcome hidden units.'

Yes, but an AT gun is hardly a small target. Especially in 50MM and above. When a tanker is not engaged in active combat they have the hatches open and every member of the crew is actively searching for targets. They aren't just sitting 1/2 way out of the hatch to look cool or pose for photographs. A tank commander sitting out of the hatch of a King Tiger has an amazing view because of the height of the tank. Plus he is using binoculars to enhance his viewing distance. Yet in 1.04 you have invisible anti-tank guns that aren't seen until the tank literally bumps into them. That may hold true in dense vegetation or forrest hexes. But in clear terrain hexes, no way.
My infantry is rarely up front. I usually keep them far back mounted in trucks. Infantry is used to hold ground, not take it. Tanks take ground.
Tactics should not be necessary to overcome an inappropriate situation in the game. I believe the 1.04 patch has gone too far with hidden units. My opinion.

"You just play Dynamic Campaigns against the AI?"
That is correct. Always did that since the very first incarnation of the game long before Matrix took over. Only recently have I played Linked Campaigns. They are okay, but I don't like that nobody in the unit gets any awards or decorations for a job well done. I don't much care for RS. I only play EF and WF. So subtract 3 campaigns from the list. [:)]

"Again, there are tactics to overcome both hidden units and artillery kills against armor."
I am fully aware of the tactics to TRY and overcome artillery kills against armor. But I see random artillery kills agaist armor that aren't even spotted. And by mortars that are pretty much large hand grenades (60MM and 50MM). That is simply unrealistic. And that problem is magnified when you don't get replacements for that armor in the next scenario.

"Well, looks like version 1.02 will serve you well! Have fun! "
Thank you. I AM having a great time with the game after a long hiatus. There are a few more folks that feel or felt the same way I do. Those that don't believe it can simply do a search of old threads to find them. They may have left the game and moved on. Or they may have changed comps and can't find the 1.02B patch. That's why I'm offering it for them to use. I was lucky enough to find a forum member who still had it and I posted it up for anyone to download that want's it. I'm not ragging on those who like the new patch. I simply offer an alternative. [;)]

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Yes, but an AT gun is hardly a small target. Especially in 50MM and above. When a tanker is not engaged in active combat they have the hatches open and every member of the crew is actively searching for targets. They aren't just sitting 1/2 way out of the hatch to look cool or pose for photographs. A tank commander sitting out of the hatch of a King Tiger has an amazing view because of the height of the tank. Plus he is using binoculars to enhance his viewing distance. Yet in 1.04 you have invisible anti-tank guns that aren't seen until the tank literally bumps into them. That may hold true in dense vegetation or forrest hexes. But in clear terrain hexes, no way.

The hidden anti-tank gun rule (50% to remain hidden when it fires) applies to 57mm or SMALLER guns. Any AT gun larger than 57mm is automatically spotted when firing in the LOS of enemy units. And I would argue that 57mm AT guns or smaller caliber guns are small targets! For example, both the German Pak 38 (50mm) AT and Pak 35 (37mm) AT have an overall height of only 3 feet and overall width of 5-6 feet. These are small and low silhouette guns that can be easily concealed. Also, you have to understand we are talking about these small AT guns concealed in a 250 meter area (820 feet or 0.16 mile). Lots of area to hide? And your example of a tank commander scanning from a open hatch... assuming the tank is moving... the commander and / or crew members need to be looking at the exact location of the concealed AT gun when it fires (to either see a muzzle flash, movement, etc.)... all the while in a jarring, vibrating, and moving AFV... AND than be able to target that exact location (again we are talking about a 250 meter area)... and hit that 3 foot high concealed AT gun. Also, both the German Pak 50 and Pak 35 don't require a tow vehicle to be moved and can be (fairly quickly) man-handled into another position. [/b]

IMO, this is a reasonable and pretty realistic rule. [:)]

[MrRoadrunner]

This is the Matrix - John Tiller - Campaign Series forum?

I think that the Talonsoft forums are a thing of the past or stuck in cyber space where no one can reach them. Heck, half of what Deputy wants was discussed there twelve plus years ago.

When the first patch that included Extreme Assault was implemented I might have felt the same a Deputy. "Let's go back to the old Talonsoft versions and lose the new garbage."
But, I do like the support. I do like the new additions (minus EA and Vv).
I play Campaigns and have learned to alter my style of play to minimize the effects of the new rules. Plus, if you want a "Hal" that is two steps up from "Moron Hal", you need to play campaigns using Extreme Assault. This gives Hal a fighting chance against disrupt and overrun.

My only "irk" with Deputy is that he might have done one thread; "Why I hate Matrix JTCS", or "I play only versus the computer and I hate all the changes", where he could have waxed poetic about all the things he finds wrong and why he wants to play in the old Talonsoft version.
Four or five threads of why this game stinks and why I hate everything about the new version, here are ways to play it the old Talonsoft way, from a person who only plays versus the AI, kinda grinds after the second or third thread, let alone numerous posts?
I have a number of copies of Talonsoft versions and the early Matrix version (which was a copy of the Talonsoft version), that I would have gladly shipped to Deputy. Emphasis on "would have" as I could not ship to someone who ignores me. [:D] [8|]

I think these threads staying on the forum are a testament to Jason's patience and good heart. If I were he, I would have bombed this long ago. [;)]

RR

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I play Campaigns and have learned to alter my style of play to minimize the effects of the new rules. Plus, if you want a "Hal" that is two steps up from "Moron Hal", you need to play campaigns using Extreme Assault. This gives Hal a fighting chance against disrupt and overrun.

My only "irk" with Deputy is that he might have done one thread; "Why I hate Matrix JTCS", or "I play only versus the computer and I hate all the changes", where he could have waxed poetic about all the things he finds wrong and why he wants to play in the old Talonsoft version.

I noted the same with the OP's posts.

Ironically, the majority of the complaints, in these referenced threads, are directly related to either the sub-par AI... or an individual's playing style - both subjects that the OP does not want to either discuss or address? [&:]

In fact, I was "strongly encouraged", by this OP, to start my own thread on "Why I love PBeM." And in that single thread, I stated the major reasons why I love human versus human play. Several other players weighted in on the subject... and I actually "found" another opponent - who previously had only played against the AI! I introduced him to H2H play and he is having a great time! Again, this was done in one thread... and not in a series of one topic threads that address the same issues?

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Yes, but an AT gun is hardly a small target. Especially in 50MM and above. When a tanker is not engaged in active combat they have the hatches open and every member of the crew is actively searching for targets. They aren't just sitting 1/2 way out of the hatch to look cool or pose for photographs. A tank commander sitting out of the hatch of a King Tiger has an amazing view because of the height of the tank. Plus he is using binoculars to enhance his viewing distance. Yet in 1.04 you have invisible anti-tank guns that aren't seen until the tank literally bumps into them. That may hold true in dense vegetation or forrest hexes. But in clear terrain hexes, no way.

The hidden anti-tank gun rule (50% to remain hidden when it fires) applies to 57mm or SMALLER guns. Any AT gun larger than 57mm is automatically spotted when firing in the LOS of enemy units. And I would argue that 57mm AT guns or smaller caliber guns are small targets! For example, both the German Pak 38 (50mm) AT and Pak 35 (37mm) AT have an overall height of only 3 feet and overall width of 5-6 feet. These are small and low silhouette guns that can be easily concealed. Also, you have to understand we are talking about these small AT guns concealed in a 250 meter area (820 feet or 0.16 mile). Lots of area to hide? And your example of a tank commander scanning from a open hatch... assuming the tank is moving... the commander and / or crew members need to be looking at the exact location of the concealed AT gun when it fires (to either see a muzzle flash, movement, etc.)... all the while in a jarring, vibrating, and moving AFV... AND than be able to target that exact location (again we are talking about a 250 meter area)... and hit that 3 foot high concealed AT gun. Also, both the German Pak 50 and Pak 35 don't require a tow vehicle to be moved and can be (fairly quickly) man-handled into another position. [/b]

IMO, this is a reasonable and pretty realistic rule. [:)]

Any AT gun in OPEN TERRAIN is going to be VERY difficult to hide. And once it fires it should be "game over" for them. They should be spotted immediately. And that is where these guns are hiding in 1.04. In CLEAR TERRIAN. I speak from personal experience. I served on an M60A1 tank with the 3rd Armored Cav in Ft. Lewis Washington. That tank is comparable in height to a King Tiger. Possibly slightly lower. And the visibility in clear terrain far exceeds what most people imagine it is. A 50MM or smaller anti-tank guns shouldn't even phaze a King Tiger. And that is an AP round. Yet 1.04 has 60 and 50MM MORTAR ROUNDS killing King Tigers. Tell me that isan't all screwed up.

As to human vs human play...sorry...not interested. Not what I bought the game for. It's that simple. [:)]

[MrRoadrunner]

Sounds like a guy who never read historical accounts, from WWII, where the Allies were slowed down to a crawl by hidden AT guns. Not withstanding his military service where practice was in the open and no one actually shooting at him.
Today there are sound devices that allow soldiers to find where a shot came from.

Many a tank commander was killed or severely wounded driving around unbuttoned.
I do agree that smaller caliber mortar rounds do damage that should not be possible. But, as Jason said, that was an oversight that will be corrected in an upcoming patch. Patience is a virtue?

You may want to purchase Modern Wars when it is released. I am sure you will find your M60A1 there?
And, the glitches in mortars will be fixed in it too?

Oops ... that's right ... he's not reading me. I guess others might be? [>:]

RR

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Any AT gun in OPEN TERRAIN is going to be VERY difficult to hide. And once it fires it should be "game over" for them. They should be spotted immediately. And that is where these guns are hiding in 1.04. In CLEAR TERRIAN. I speak from personal experience. I served on an M60A1 tank with the 3rd Armored Cav in Ft. Lewis Washington. That tank is comparable in height to a King Tiger. Possibly slightly lower. And the visibility in clear terrain far exceeds what most people imagine it is. A 50MM or smaller anti-tank guns shouldn't even phaze a King Tiger. And that is an AP round. Yet 1.04 has 60 and 50MM MORTAR ROUNDS killing King Tigers. Tell me that isan't all screwed up.

As to human vs human play...sorry...not interested. Not what I bought the game for. It's that simple. [:)]

Really? I guess, if you assume you are in a stationary tank with hatches open and tank commander standing upright in the turret... scanning ahead with binoculars... an AT gun is very difficult to hide. Unfortunately, in a battlefield environment, you would quickly become a casualty?

Now, imagine this scene. You are in a tank charging across open terrain... hatches buttoned up... because you are receiving small arms fire... and in that loud, violently shaking and vibrating AFV, your trying to peer out of a tiny slit... with a view that is obscured by dust, and smoke... attempting to spot a small, silhouette AT gun with an overall height of only 3 feet... and suddenly it becomes a whole lot more difficult to spot it... even in clear terrain?

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Any AT gun in OPEN TERRAIN is going to be VERY difficult to hide. And once it fires it should be "game over" for them. They should be spotted immediately. And that is where these guns are hiding in 1.04. In CLEAR TERRIAN. I speak from personal experience. I served on an M60A1 tank with the 3rd Armored Cav in Ft. Lewis Washington. That tank is comparable in height to a King Tiger. Possibly slightly lower. And the visibility in clear terrain far exceeds what most people imagine it is. A 50MM or smaller anti-tank guns shouldn't even phaze a King Tiger. And that is an AP round. Yet 1.04 has 60 and 50MM MORTAR ROUNDS killing King Tigers. Tell me that isan't all screwed up.

As to human vs human play...sorry...not interested. Not what I bought the game for. It's that simple. [:)]

You have stated numerous times (including in this post) that you don't like either the hidden AT rule or artillery versus armor... and because of these rules... you have decided to revert to a back level, unsupported patch version. I got it. Go for it! [:)]

What I don't understand... is why you feel the need to create multiple threads... in which you constantly "rag" (your term) on JTCS? [&:] You like playing the version 1.02 patch... others like playing with the version 1.04 patch. Why should you care?

You've made your decision to play exclusively against the AI and play with a back level, unsupported patch version. Why do you feel the need to constantly justify or explain that decision? [&:]

This thread was about me making version 1.02B available to anyone who wishes to use it. The 1.04 fans are the ones who jumped in and stirred the pot. It's my thread and I get to say whatever I please as long as I don't do personal attacks (like some folks seem to enjoy) or violate forum rules. I don't try and force ANYONE to like 1.02B. And I won't be pressured into liking 1.03 or 1.04. get it?[8|]

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

This thread was about me making version 1.02B available to anyone who wishes to use it. The 1.04 fans are the ones who jumped in and stirred the pot. It's my thread and I get to say whatever I please as long as I don't do personal attacks (like some folks seem to enjoy) or violate forum rules. I don't try and force ANYONE to like 1.02B. And I won't be pressured into liking 1.03 or 1.04. get it?[8|]

Yes. The thread subject is making CS version 1.02B available. I highlighted some of the major functionality, game rules, units, countries, order of battles, etc. that a player will lose by reverting to a back level, non-supported version patch - a related subject to the OP, and one of great importance for any player who would consider playing with version 1.02B.

The OP brought up both the hidden AT and artillery versus armor rules. An erroneous comment was made on what the hidden AT rule covered... and this point was commented on and corrected by me.

All contributors to this thread made comments relative to subjects and views presented by the OP. All contributors to this thread have a right to voice their opinions on views and comments in a public forum, as long as they don't make personal attacks or violate forum rules.

And nobody is "forcing" or "pressuring" anyone on any subject. Contrary to the OP's opinion, thread "creators" cannot "control," "pressure," or "force" other contributors to "their" thread to either agree or disagree with various viewpoints and opinions. [:-]

[MrRoadrunner]

"Stirring the pot"
"Personal attacks"
"Jumping in"
"Causing Havoc"
"Dogs and cats playing together"

What pot stirring? What personal attacks? What jumping in? What havoc? What dogs and ... (get the point?)

This is a forum to discuss "Matrix John Tiller Campaign Series". It is not the Talonsoft CS series, nor is it the Deputy forum to bitch and moan about the Matrix version while extolling the virtues of the original Talonsoft version.
Remember, the game has evolved and is supported by Matrix.

Some of us who made comments don't even care for some of the upgrades or "improvements", such as Extreme Assault, Variable Visibility, and units that don't seem to fit the game's scale. Some of us commented a couple years back about artillery and the way "Hal" works. But, we know the game is supported and things will get fixed.
We've been told that hidden units are staying in the game. Deal with it. Change your playing style (or tactics, if you will) and overcome the ambushes. Artillery will be changed so that smaller caliber mortars will not have the same effect as large caliber guns. The changes are coming. Maybe not at the pace you want, but they are coming and a great many look forward to them.

90% of my CS time is playing versus human opponents. I find them more challenging. And, the chance of losing to a human is 99.9% greater than losing to "Hal".
The support and improvements have mostly been to aid H2H players. A lesser amount has been to those who only play campaigns. I think Jason and crew made the right choice and salute them for it.

You want others to march with you into the past. Support an unsupported game on a forum that is for the (wait for it) ... Matrix - John Tiller - Campaign Series. Put the emphasis on Matrix and your threads become as valuable as Dumbasrocks threads on his hybrid PG/CS monster blend. Which had as much relevance here as going back to the Talonsoft version.

You can complain. Heck, I've complained plenty. But, please, stick to Matrix JTCS and not your desire to dilute the product and subvert the Matrix team's attempt to support and improve the game.

Just sayin'!

RR

[Deputy]

I don't care WHAT others do. They can update to the current version or not. I simply offered an alternative. You don't like it? Tough toenails. Dont download it. It's that simple. All these other comments are just blowing smoke and padding post counts.