Update on 1.03

[Tim41]

Outstanding. Thank you very much. As mentioned, we reinstalled the game completely in a version of XP that neither had the new or old versions on it previously and applied Patch 1.02 & 1.02b. Did I miss any? We will not test the game until the 1.03 is applied and I will advise. It sits waiting. Hopefully the folks at Matrix will work with alacrity (beyond your control I'm sure).
The older version appears to be operating normally which will hold me over. I do look forward to what could be another 8 years of fun without bugging anyone. One classic lesson about game design from the 70's was playability. Balancing complexity with playability is the rub, no? Did the Command and Control aspect of Tillers' game come from Command Decision (1970's) originally? The CAC seems similar (one of the few games a large action could be fun in one afternoon and we did it on the table top).
ONE NOTE: I hope the manual will go into greater detail on all aspects of Engineering units. Perhaps a Boot Camp V in the tutorial scenarios along with info on the operating train (?), and some newer aspects in future patches at least? I did not do boot camp scenarios in the first attempts at JTCS, and though the manual was incomplete in some respects I should have run through these as a matter of course instead of referring to the Unit Handbook and Manual alone. I did not refer to the Unit Handbook with Late War German Infantry units, which again could possibly have explained the more than one hex range against armor of the unit mentioned to you. Another mistake. In defense of my initial experiments, by playing Corps level I was perhaps able to discover more problems quicker than some other players. I think the rat-tat-tat of the questions-4 in the first email kinda proves my point, but which you answered to the best of your ability at the time.
I am impressed at how many people do use this forum, and perhaps I'm just missing a simple rule of business myself. If you can cut costs on a new version of a reasonably popular game but one perhaps not in the most profitable category, maybe it's an efficient cost saver to have the players playtest, that allows the upgrade to happen in the first place. I hope things work out. It's just a kinda of a pain for old hands...that love the game along.
Thanks again Jason

[Warhorse]

Dep, in regards to SPWAW, I too was getting a CTD after a few minutes play, I quit playing it for a few years which sucked, since I helped to develope it!! However, I got the notion, about a month or so ago, to play it again, but decided this time to put my ZoneAlarm (firewall) into game mode, and have not had one crash since??!!!! Do you have this firewall proggy, or perhaps maybe try to shut yours off also, SPWAW is a resource hog, and that seemed to be the ticket!

Tim, I'm not doubting your experience with EF2 not crashing (Talonsoft Version), however, as I stated before, I ALWAYS from day one had a problem with the DCG's in EF2 crashing, sooner or later in the campaign, usually around 1943, but not always. I ALWAYS played with an armored formation, and this problem HAS been fixed now in 1.03!! Just wanted to point out that while your having problems with this version, and others aren't, I had nothing but problems with the original, and you don't!! The problem lies in formations having wrong force ID numbers and such, this is corrected.

Mike

[Tim41]

My system Specs were posted under my string-close to the end (as requested by someone else-perhaps you?). The update to the laptop was needed due to a hardware problem, nothing wrong with the old game. The specs listed include the pre-hardware replacement in the laptop which I can furnish at a later date. As listed there, the games ran fine on both systems. They ran fine on 98 and I think 95 if I'm not wrong (might have been the first Talonsoft in 95)-I have both still (95 and 98-for older games) and can certainly load them again.
One reason the older versions were so much fun for me personally was the fact I never once had to do anything to them to get them to work. Like my problems with the new game, many here claim nothing but problems with the older versions. If I could explain any of that-I'd be playing instead of writing. My goal is to get back to that point! No writing-just playing.
I'm playing two late war campaign games (corps level) in EFIIGold at the same time and poping in and out to see if I can trigger any kind of problem in the older versions mentioned by others. I intend to go back to WFII and experiment also. There have been constructive posts on this site about the older games which ARE valuable to me.
No need for any apologies. I will try the new version without bias when the 1.03 is ready and REALLY-I'd like that to be the one I play in future.

[Deputy]

Mike: I am a BIG fan of SP:WAW!!! I use the normal Windows Firewall. I will disable that and see if it makes any difference. But to be honest, I have gotten so used to hitting the save buttons after every turn, that it has become almost "automatic for me and just a part of the game. [:)]

On Tiller's campaign series games...I never let myself be given higher than battalion command. I am not crazy about moving around the huge number of support vehicles. Normally, on setup before a battle, I move all transport to the bottom of the map and remove it. To me, they are just targets for the enemy to boost his victory points with. One of my requests for future patching is the option to select or remove this transport before starting a turn. Heck, I'd like to be able to select specific unit types like in SP:WAW!!! [:D]

[Tim41]

I gave your problem with transport some thought and have some suggestions. Trucks are only 1VP. Even in Battalion level play, try using trucks as scouts! Better to discover an enemy emplacement with a few 'useless trucks', than a combat unit-all of which are more VP's and deplete your combat power. If it's an antitank or artillery position-then hit it with area artillery fire if you lose direct line of sight and continue the same process-moving forward with 'truck scouts'.
Also, 'demonstrating' can be useful. If attacking, tie down the enemy by finding a point away from your main point of attack where there is some cover (forest-town: anything that hides an area you can move vehicles hidden from view). Put some empty trucks and a few artillery tractors there and run them back and forth-still out of view. It ties the forces there down, expecting attack and sometimes draws the enemy from your actual main thrust area.
How about using the trucks t

[Tim41]

-sorry, continued: using the trucks to lead the way to discover mine fields-or drive them into one and leave the survivors there to mark the spot.

[Jason Petho]

Trucks will be worth 3VP with the 1.03 UPDATE.

Using trucks for scouts is fine when playing HAL, but will be highly scrutinized if one plays against a human opponent.

Certainly a tactic I would not use in either case.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

I like the idea of increasing the VP value of trucks.  In that manner, the game itself discourages using trucks as cannon fodder to use up enemy op fire and discourages using trucks as spotters. 

[Tim41]

In the old version-it's 1VP-I think 3VP's is excessive in the 1.03 but agree there are better uses of transport!
Deputy seems to have little use for it???? Still, I have discovered both an 88 and a Tiger VIb position using this tactic yesterday-better than losing the leading elements of my armor, eh? A few Zil trucks instead? The artillery eleminated the 88, but obviously the Tiger was still there. At least I knew where he was!
It was in the older version though-again: just suggestions for Deputy. Thanks for the warning on the 1.03-I won't employ this tactic except in extreme cases in future, though I don't play human opponents often.

Do you disagree with demonstration suggestion? It's been quite successful for me...

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Tim41

In the old version-it's 1VP-I think 3VP's is excessive in the 1.03 but agree there are better uses of transport!
Deputy seems to have little use for it???? Still, I have discovered both an 88 and a Tiger VIb position using this tactic yesterday-better than losing the leading elements of my armor, eh? A few Zil trucks instead? The artillery eleminated the 88, but obviously the Tiger was still there. At least I knew where he was!
It was in the older version though-again: just suggestions for Deputy. Thanks for the warning on the 1.03-I won't employ this tactic except in extreme cases in future, though I don't play human opponents often.

Do you disagree with demonstration suggestion? It's been quite successful for me...

The demonstration suggestion works fine when playing against newbies, but will usually be ignored by a veteran.

The tactic only works if your opponent is playing with sounds on, of course.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

Tim: WOW!! Never thought of using trucks as cannon fodder!!!![X(]
But I guess that is history now when the update comes out. Still, that was a pretty cool idea. I only play as a battalion commander of armored battalions. Trucks are more for infantry use. Unless there are enemy units in a location that is inaccessable to tanks, I don't use infantry much. In Rising Sun I do use infantry quite a bit. But in East and West Front, I usually just hide them somewhere or use them as VP items when I have secured a safe route to an exit hex. I drop the infantry at the hexes that I capture with armor from the enemy, and send the armor to the VP exit hex. For that type of use, trucks are worthwhile.

[Tim41]

I cannot imagine not 'listening to the battlefield', but I see your point.
In playing the computer, even 'Good enemy commaners' have fallen for this time and again. Even if it works for a few turns, I'll take any advantage. In histories I read, the tactic worked in real life often.
As a campaign player and on corps level- I can't afford to waste transport, but I was trying to find some use for Deputy's trucks.

[Deputy]

Actually, I would like the option of not getting trucks at the beginning of each scenario. Infantry are usually fast enough to get to their objectives on foot, and when they are in trucks they get HEAVY casualties. Right now I just put all the trucks at the bottom of the map and remove them at the beginning of each scenario. And when they up the truck value to 3, I will DEFINITELY not use them unless I absolutely have to.

[Tim41]

You don't have as large a playing field at Battalion level-but I gotta keep MOVING in corps level to take ALL the VP positions. Long term, it's also important for me to keep those trucks in tact! Your tactic of securing taken postions with follow up infantry is also something I practice-DIG IN THOUGH! If you have an engineer unit with you-use him to lay a minefield while using other units to dig in.
I think you may have some success with the demonstration idea over any of the other suggestions. It is correct that it would not be common practice to use your valuable transport as cannon fodder. Jason and the other gentleman are correct that this really detracts from the realism if you practice it. Still, it can be useful in a bad situation and not at all out of order when playing Russian!
Always wondered why there were no Penal Battalions in the Russian formations?

[Tim41]

Nothing hurts more than to have soft skin vehicles (loaded) hit by artillery! It is a huge point loss. When observed-you can disperse, disperse and unload or zig and zag and move on...and risk it. Time sometimes dictates the last option!

[1925frank]

Regarding the 3 VP for trucks, if those trucks were being used to transport ammunition and gasoline, I would think a commander would be far less inclined to waste them.  That might be one way to conceptualize the higher value.  They might have little or no value as a fighting unit but a disproportionate value as a supply unit. 
 
I read somewhere the French had logistical headaches refueling their tanks in May-June 1940 once the campaign became one of rapid movement.  The Germans had planned for refueling while moving rapidly, but the French hadn't.
 
Gasoline also became a precious commodity to the Allies after D-Day.  In that context, supply trucks could assume a disproportionate value.

[Tim41]

I was about to agree with the suggestion of the higher value for the trucks-the logistical considerations for larger formations cannot be ignored. It's not just gas, but ammo, food, etc.

[Mraah]

I'm new to forum so my idea's or opinion's might not float as well of those Matrix veterans and grognards alike but I have an idea about trucks that I'd like to toss on the table and see if you guys think it would work. [&o]

I'm thinking in terms of how to make a truck worth something other than just VP's. I'm thinking long term usage as well as how they could be implemented into a Dynamic Campaign Game.

First of all, I think a transport truck should remain at 1 VP.
Next, a new unit should be created, we'll call it a Supply Truck for discussion purposes, worth 3 VP's and unable to carry troops.

Yes, I'm talking about creating a new Service Company with an OOB containing 36+ supply trucks. That would be ridiculous I know, BUT, it might be necessary to have them appear in your DCG as "Support Forces". Not core forces, just temporary support.

Now, I'm not talking about having these appear in massive quantity every single battle. Only 15% of these supply vehicles would be on the battlefield for every mission with the exception for the DEFENDER during "Pocket Breakout" and "Armored Breakthrough" missions. These two missions represent an exploit in the front line with the chance you can destroy your opponents rear forces and disrupt their supply, and visa versa.

Now, how can destroying transport and supply trucks disrupt supply? Two ways ...
1. Each transport or supply truck VP lost will immediately affect the current supply level for the mission in a one-to-one fashoin, hence a supply truck at 3 VP's will cause you to lose 3% of your current ammo level.
2. Loss VP's carry on into the DCG when determining your Combat Readiness. The combat readiness modifier would obviously have to be implemented into the DCG but it could be a threshold where not only your total combat unit strength in considered but also your supply level. This would determine the length of time between missions (as well as the type of missions) as you absorb new replacements and get back up to strength for Offensive purposes.

Ok, I hope everyone is still following me ...

Now, you might ask .. What if the player or AI decides to move his trucks and supply off the board at the begining of the mission? Well, he would definately save their destruction for future use, however, exiting these units off the map will immediately reduce your ammo supply in the same one-to-one fashion. The question is ... will the player risk his trucks and keep the supply flowing NOW or save them for later.

And one final note. What does 15% supply trucks equate to and how can they be included in the Support Forces?. Well, after v1.03 comes out we'll know how to adjust support forces and they (Matrix Team) needs to create another column or percentage group for the new supply truck designation and we can adjust this value as we see fit. Currently, if you look at a US Tank Battalion TO&E you're roughly looking at 40 vehicles divided into a section of about 3 vehicles each so roughly for each mission you would receive 3 sections of 3 trucks (9 total). At 3 VP's per truck that could be a potential of losing 27% ammo level if you got unlucky .... not to mention the transport trucks at 1 VP which you might have 18 trucks with infantry supporting you and that's another 18% loss .... so , yeah, 45% ammo/supply loss if you send the the motor pool in as your vanguard company!!!

Thanks for listening [:)]. Any thoughts?

Rob

[Deputy]

Good grief. I bought this game to do combat...not move around trucks and supply vehicles. What's next? Supply officers that follow around each supply convoy to make sure the morale of the supply troops stays up? A supply point where all the vehicles have to gather to fill up with gas before going into combat? Supply hexes where a unit has to be X number of hexes from a supply truck or they can't go into combat? First aid stations where units go to get healed? If you are going to implement this type of micro-managing of the game, then you better offer the option of NOT having it for those who are still interested in combat and not in passing out ammunition and c-rations. I definitely WOULDN'T apply a patch that goes that deeply into the complexities of running an army. Make this game too complex, and the fun factor is going to evaporate. As it is right now, this new patch that raises the value of trucks is going to mean either I DON'T use the patch, or it's MANDATORY I take the trucks off the edge on each scenario. Some victory levels can be decided by the 15 points that 5 trucks represent.

[Jason Petho]

I have to agree with Deputy.

There are supply vehicles available already, but are designed to act as high point grabs for certain scenario types for a particular campaign format that is played at The Blitz. You could not find them in LCG's, DCG's or typical scenarios.

If you send me your campaign file, Deputy, I can remove all the trucks from your oob. Doing that means you will have no trucks, ever.

Jason Petho