Matrix Games Forums

I play with XL and have two EF DCGs in progress, about a dozen battles altogether, and have not had any problems thus far. I sometimes use the Next Unit button without a problem.

Borsook,

That is the system I have as well. I have never had a problem with the next unit button, and that is the only way I cycle through units.

I wish I had some ideas to help you. Good luck.

Scott in tAComa

Great for that fix in the DCG's......I know alot of the fixes are for scenario specific stuff, but incorporate those in the DCG's WoooHooo!!!!!........

The fixes are related to upgrade dates with a broken syntax like so:

42 11 44 10 + C1000005 A Company
44 12 45 05 C1000006 A Company

In this example, you would experience a crash in November 1944 (44 11) in a DCG that culled this force, or "A Company" would be missing from the OOB if a scenario was set in November 1944.

Unfortunately we discovered that even the 1.03 OOB's were not 100% immune to these bugs. 1.04 should fix the whole lot of them, Talonsoft OOB's included. Thanks to Arkady for developing a diognostic that cut countless hours off of the debugging process and allowed us to fix hundreds of these syntax errors in a matter of hours.

I've had the Matrix release since early on. As a matter of fact, I am using Version 1.00 with NO patches at all. If I could find Ver 1.01, I might try it. Back in the days of Talonsoft, I had every release of the Campaign Series that was available. The DCG was the one that gave headaches. When you tried to restart a campaign, it would give an error message. The Mickey Mouse fix from Talonsoft was to delete two of the saved files and, in effect, "skip" the next scenario. That worked, but it was a real PITA to do, and you never felt like you really played a complete game. The Matrix version has been rock solid for me, and I haven't experienced any crashes since I bought it.

The patch situation, however, has been one of my greatest disappointments with Matrix. Instead of setting the priority at fixing the remaining bugs in the game, Matrix seems to have gone down a different road and worked on tweaks that players have requested. To me, that seems like putting the donkey before the cart. The prime example of this is the bug left over from early Talonsoft days of certain units like command cars, HQ units, trucks, and other vehicles with large movement points, going back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth between two squares until they burn up all their movement points. This may seem like a relatively minor irritation, but when it happens multiple times in one turn, it can make that turn seem endlessly long.

Another problem for me is the changes that are made, not based on reality, but on what some users suggest as being a "good idea". If you play version 1.00 of the game in Beginner setting with the slider all the way to Axis advantage, you will find that Axis units are all but unbeatable. And with those settings that is the way it should be!! The same holds true if you move the slider all the way to the Allied side. I normally play with it dead in the middle. With each new patch two things seem to be happening. Many players are upset about how difficult it is to beat Germany. So the opposing units are getting "beefed up" with overly strong advantages geared to making it much easier for Allied units to win. A prime example of this is the "anti-tank artillery" change that was done in 1.03. That change was so negative to gameplay in DCG that in 1.04b they ended up boosting the replacement rates to help compensate for it. But there really wasn't anything wrong with the original artillery setting that Talonsoft used. It was a change done strictly to make some users happy.
The second item is the slider adjustment. After trying it out on five different versions of the game (1.00, 1.02, 1.02b, 1.03, 1.04), I definitely notice that someone is doing a lot of "adjusting" to the slider bar abilities. Maybe not directly, maybe it's just with the settings of the OOB.
But things have definitely changed since the Talonsoft style of adjustments. In Matrix version 1.00 it works very much like it did in the last Talonsoft release of the game. I dunno about 1.01. But 1.02 you start to see some changes, especially in killing power. In 1.03 and 1.04 the slider setting in a DCG doesn't seem to matter at all. I can move the slider all the way to the Axis side and get hammered by indirect fire anti-tank artillery and direct fire from relatively weak Soviet tanks vs Tiger tanks. If I put it in the middle the losses go up higher. If I move it all the way to the Allied side, I will be completely out of armored vehicles in about 5 turns.
None of what I say above applies to the slider use in single scenario use. So maybe the folks doing the tweaking are concentrating on single scenarios at the expense of DCG gameplay.
Something else I also notice is the earning of medals and victory points in DCG campaigns has gotten much more difficult than with the Talonsoft version of the game. Again, this could be due to the way each unit is being valued in the OOB. But back in the Talonsoft day I used to accumulate Iron Cross First and Second Class by the ton. And I even got a couple of the Knight's crosses. It was actually harder to get the lower ranking medals. That has been completely reversed. Getting fifteen awards of the lowest and second lowest medals doesn't exactly work wonders on a players morale. [;)]

Dep

ORIGINAL: Deputy
The prime example of this is the bug left over from early Talonsoft days of certain units like command cars, HQ units, trucks, and other vehicles with large movement points, going back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth between two squares until they burn up all their movement points. This may seem like a relatively minor irritation, but when it happens multiple times in one turn, it can make that turn seem endlessly long.

Actually, if I recall correctly, this is the only Talonsoft bug that has not been fixed.

All of the others have been remedied.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Deputy
The prime example of this is the bug left over from early Talonsoft days of certain units like command cars, HQ units, trucks, and other vehicles with large movement points, going back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth between two squares until they burn up all their movement points. This may seem like a relatively minor irritation, but when it happens multiple times in one turn, it can make that turn seem endlessly long.

Actually, if I recall correctly, this is the only Talonsoft bug that has not been fixed.

All of the others have been remedied.

Jason Petho

Jason: Please understand I am not attacking your efforts with the game. I know you do this for free and I certainly appreciate the effort. I know the crash bug I used to experience has been fixed on my machine with the Matrix release of the game. On others comps, I don't know what the problem is. The back-and-forth bug not being fixed by patch 1.04 seems to be a bit odd to say the least. I would have thought it deserved higher priority than the other changes made in the other patches released. As to the patches themselves, I consider myself lucky that I have version 1.00 of the game on CDROM. I now have patch 1.01 and will give it a try after the current DCG I am playing has ended. I've tried ALL the other patches and other than maybe 1.02b, I wouldn't use any of them. Lately it's almost like patches are being released just to solve problems created by previous patches. I know patches from Talonsoft were few and far between. But at least the patches they released were thoroughly tested before they were released. These new patches from Matix seem to just be thrown together and released with fingers crossed. I am curious....who exacly came up with the idea of the "anti-tank artillery" change. That has to be the single dumbest thing I have ever seen installed in this game. It's obvious nobody did any beta testing in DCG to see what that change would do. And instead of just going back to the old version of artillery that was present in 1.0, Matrix is gonna boost the replacement rates. C'mon....at least be honest enough to say "we goofed" and just go back to the way it used to be. [:)]

Hi,
 
i musst agree in most parts from Deputy ...
The "back-and-forth bug.." is realy bad if this happen more times in one Turn ...
( if this only happen One time it is more funny ...but a bug always )
 
And the atry strenght now against armored vehicles is by very strong armored tanks to unbalanced!
Have played against the UK in the end of the war (~44) and my Tigers was from the enemy tanks never touched .. ( i stay at safe distant) .. but i lost one tiger .. a MORTAR shot him down .........
 
The arty adjustment need realy a rethinking
I understand that even a tiger can DISABLED by HEAVY arty fire ... but remember ->
DISABLED and HEAVY Arty ....
 
R_TEAM <Aka R-TEAM>

ORIGINAL: Deputy
It's obvious nobody did any beta testing in DCG to see what that change would do.

Incorrect.

A lot of testing was done on the DCG's. In all the campaigns I ran during the testing (early, mid and late war EF campaigns) I never had a problem at all with armour losses to artillery. Sure, there was the odd disable, but not nearly to the point of what you are stating.

Different playing styles, I presume.

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

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Deputy
It's obvious nobody did any beta testing in DCG to see what that change would do.

Incorrect.

A lot of testing was done on the DCG's. In all the campaigns I ran during the testing (early, mid and late war EF campaigns) I never had a problem at all with armour losses to artillery. Sure, there was the odd disable, but not nearly to the point of what you are stating.

Different playing styles, I presume.

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: I won't argue the arty situation. It was bad enough for me to go back to a very early version of the game to solve it, and I know I am not alone with this complaint. The difference in arty effects between 1.00 and the current version is night and day. And it can't even be compensated for with the slider. I don't understand why the arty can't just revert back to it's original Talonsoft settings. But at least I can use the older game version and still enjoy playing [:)]

Please do me one small favor...if and when you guys decide to fix the back-and-forth bug, please release that fix as a stand alone fix and not an "all inclusive" patch that forces everyone to adopt all the changes made in patches up to now. There are still many of us who prefer to use the older versions of the game that don't include all these new mods.

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

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.

ORIGINAL: Deputy

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

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.

You may not like to hear this but....
I don't think AI and DCG's will ever get priority over what the game is really good at: Human vs Human play and for the latter ALL the changes are huge improvements when it comes to realism, so there is not any chance they will be reversed. You've posted the same point about artillery vs armor over and over again.
Talking about "realism" in the DCG's is a joke really, because there is nothing realistic about them anyway. It's what someone described before as "shooting puppies". At least that's my opinion. Maybe for Matrix it's commercially interesting to keep the DCG's going because a lot of people still seem to play them. For people who like the game as a historical simulation the DCG's are a dumb sideshow and I personally would never invest any energy in them, let alone sacrifice well researched changes for them. I'm already amazed how much effort and time Jason and Simovitch DID put in them.
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

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.

ORIGINAL: Deputy

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.

ORIGINAL: Huib

ORIGINAL: Deputy

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.

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. [;)]

Hi,
&nbsp;
first i musst say, the only "Bug" thats me really angry ATM is the unrealistic Arty Vs Armor
thing .. beside this - 1.04 is realy good and cover all&nbsp;wishes of gameplay.
You can say it improved the Gameplay H2H many times, but it DONT negate the sillynes of shoting
an Tiger tank down with an Mortar !!
&nbsp;
My understand is :
The most time a BIG tank was DISABLED was by HEAVY Artillery and full speed of the tank.
It was a hit just in the way of the tank and it drives in the hole ...
So&nbsp;by heavy armored Tanks arty is only effective, is the arty HEAVY enough (no Mortar VS Tiger ..)
and spend the tank more that 65 action points for moving.
Destroying Big Tanks should at very low percent rate ...
&nbsp;
By medium tanks the percent shuld adjusted too .. but it is most time o.k. .. but mortar should not
the new anti-Tank gun now ...
&nbsp;
By small tanks and armored cars/three-wheels it looks o.k.
&nbsp;
And disabled tanks shold back on track for the next scenario (maybe a very small percent is irreperable) and so the 50% reinforcement boost is not more needed.
&nbsp;
Only my minds ....
&nbsp;
R_TEAM <Aka R-TEAM>

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. [;)]

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_RT ... Report.htm

I probably can't convince you anyway, so this is the last I'll say on this subject.

Huib

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_RT ... Report.htm

I probably can't convince you anyway, so this is the last I'll say on this subject.

Huib

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.

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.

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.

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.

I suspect too many people watched movies like "Patton", and applied Hollywood fiction as being fact. I also suspect that the German side was winning too many battles too often for some folks, and the need was felt to find some way to counter this. So the answer was anti-tank artillery and anti-tank mortars. So much for reality. Welcome to John Tiller's Fantasy Campaign Series. Out motto is "if you don't like the way the game plays, we'll make unreality reality just for the sake of game play". What a pitty.

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"."

tm.asp?m=1862232

Yep....sounds like artillery is really functioning great [8|]