Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> John Tiller’s Campaign Series Support >> Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 10:51:05 AM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
In my most humble opinion I got more stability out of the Talonsoft version then the Matrix version. I am steadily getting erros on games. I have reinstalled and reinstalled but to no avail. Most of the errors occur in West Front , Followed by Rising Sun. Granted I play DCG's vs Scenarios but that should not be relavent. I think the game was released prematurely prior to working some of the issues. We are getting ready for a 1.04 update....hmmmm initial release 1.01 1.02 1.02a 1.02b intermediate fixes, 1.03 and now 1.04...hmmm makes one wonder is all. Talonsoft did not have this many issues in such a short time frame. Just a though is all
Post #: 1
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 11:40:37 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3618
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

In my most humble opinion I got more stability out of the Talonsoft version then the Matrix version. I am steadily getting erros on games. I have reinstalled and reinstalled but to no avail. Most of the errors occur in West Front , Followed by Rising Sun. Granted I play DCG's vs Scenarios but that should not be relavent. I think the game was released prematurely prior to working some of the issues. We are getting ready for a 1.04 update....hmmmm initial release 1.01 1.02 1.02a 1.02b intermediate fixes, 1.03 and now 1.04...hmmm makes one wonder is all. Talonsoft did not have this many issues in such a short time frame. Just a though is all


Can't remeber Talonsoft version very well, been a long time since I played it but I thought it didn't play well. I've not played WF or RS yet but I don't have any problems with EF and that's under Vista.

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 2
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 2:10:05 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4182
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
In the past year the team has fixed over 100 errors in the Talonsoft OOB's alone - ones that would cause the DCG games to crash, ones that would cause forces to disappear, ones that would skip over organic transport, and on and on.

Not until Arkady produced some long needed diagnostic programs were we finally able to see just how extensive the problems were with the OOB's and the units. It was disheartening at best, but these have been fixed.

Even the old Talonsoft cronies said the mysterious bugs could never be ironed out, but we found the needles in the haystack and increased the stability and accuracy of the game many times over. Most of these fixes will only be recognized by people who design new scenarios or play DCG's and random battles, but that is a significant percentage of the players so we felt that the time and effort was worth it.

I think 1.04 responds well to the majority opinions on the problems with 1.03. Much of the contaversey could have been reduced by labelling 1.03 as a 'public beta patch' which is essentially what it turned out to be.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to barker)
Post #: 3
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 2:12:12 PM   
Huib


Posts: 565
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline
I have not had a single crash since JTCS came out and I play it every day. I must admit that crashes with the old Talonsoft version were also very rare on my systems. I have XP on all 3 computers and I don't play DCG's.
I am not aware on any issue regarding stability of the game. The updates 1.01 to 1.04 also have nothing to do with stability fixes. The only stability related issue in 1.01 was to make the game Vista compatible.

I have not heard many others about frequent game crashes, so perhaps there is something on your system that causes a conflict with JCTS?


Huib

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 4
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 4:07:04 PM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
It is how the files get read on Vista...I have narrowed it to that...All the real fixes seem to be in Task specific scenarios with a gloss over on DCG. ON lcg's I have problem after problem and gave up most in west front.....The OOB's granted is time consuming and appreciated. Now what maybe happening in these files from time to time is a file is trying to read that has a typo.....

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 5
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 4:14:18 PM   
andym


Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/12/2006
From: Kings Lynn UK
Status: offline
I have had no crashes at all,i play all scenarios and both of the types of Campaign.So far no probelms at all.

_____________________________

Press to Test...............Release to Detonate!

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 6
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 4:33:27 PM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
I think I will install it on my XP and see if I get the same type of errors.

(in reply to andym)
Post #: 7
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 8:47:56 PM   
Huib


Posts: 565
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

I think I will install it on my XP and see if I get the same type of errors.


That might be the best thing for now. Obviously if the game is proven to perform worse on Vista systems, the developers need to look into that sooner or later.
I didn't realize you had Vista as the Talonsoft version is unplayable on Vista.

< Message edited by Huib -- 8/12/2008 8:49:25 PM >

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 8
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/12/2008 8:55:12 PM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
Yeppers.....strange huh

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 9
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 1:54:59 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2152
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
I too have never had an error since working through the initial "white flash" problem on vista.  Game runs great for me.

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 10
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 4:20:29 AM   
yeats

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/25/2007
Status: offline
I'm getting a little confused here - the last update I heard of was 1.03 and it had some bugs to be ironed out (assault issues and some other stuff - Is 1.04 out or the quick fix to 1.03?

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 11
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 4:25:20 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 5187
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Calgary, AB, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: yeats

I'm getting a little confused here - the last update I heard of was 1.03 and it had some bugs to be ironed out (assault issues and some other stuff - Is 1.04 out or the quick fix to 1.03?


The next update, the 1.04 UPDATE, will be released in a couple/few weeks.

Stay tuned.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

Petho Cartography

Mapping Military History

(in reply to yeats)
Post #: 12
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 6:36:16 AM   
Zap


Posts: 1639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline
Confused! as well. With this talk of stability. I have been considering the purchase of said game. Theres a but. And it is after reading many threads and posts is the overall concencise that this game is moving in the right direction?

I have been waiting, looking from the outside-in and at times the impression I get is confusing. And as you know impressions came make or break a sale with some.

(in reply to yeats)
Post #: 13
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 10:36:13 AM   
Borsook


Posts: 469
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
I for one get frequent crashes when using the "next unit" button, other than that never had any.

(in reply to Zap)
Post #: 14
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 10:51:59 AM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
Well, I do get less crashes on Xp then Vista......I understand the necessity of the upgrade to 32 and 64bit, but instead of upgrading certain parts of each program it would have been more fesable to, in my very sheepish opinion, to have used one engine for the upgrade, after all the bugs on that one engine were resolved then incorporate the other secondary files into that system, for example:

1. Map Editor - Make one map editor with a drop down that can be used on all fronts at all times. It may do that now I do not know.

2. Game Engine - Stabalize the best gaming engine, East Front, Incorprate West front Rules and OOB's Etc, Maps what have you. Now you have a stable engine with 2 games on one platform. The Rising Sun Incoorporation. This may Take awhile but it would be worth it for updates to rule changes. You could do the rule changes to effect global lines of code for all 3 game systems.

3. OOB Editor - Change that Sucker...Jason You said yourself that you use an ASCI Text Editor instead of the Editor...Why? Too cumbersome, Too Slow, Not User freindly?  If it is not liked then rewrite it and change it to a more freindly and Interactive GUI?

This is just a fleeting thought thought from a mind that has been on too much caffeine the past 3 days....too many hours at work...lol

(in reply to Borsook)
Post #: 15
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 1:24:11 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borsook

I for one get frequent crashes when using the "next unit" button, other than that never had any.


LarryP reported a problem with the "next unit" button as well. His thread is in the support section. I never use the "next unit" button. I push "T" to see the thermometers, and I use the organizational button on the bottom to see where companion units are.

I use XP and have never had any problem with crashes. The only problem I had was the cavalry firing loop which was supposedly corrected with 1.03. My understanding was that most, if not all, of the crashes were associated with the Dynamic Campaigns. My understanding there is the EF Dynamic Campaigns are fixed (provided you use Matrix OOB), and the WF and RS will be fixed. Most of the complaints I read were with the EF Dynamic Campaigns, so I'm not even sure of a problem or the extent of a problem in WF and RS.

(in reply to Borsook)
Post #: 16
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 1:27:57 PM   
scottgibson

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
Borsook,

What operating system do you use. I use XP, and have never had a problem with the next unit button.

Scott in tAcoma


(in reply to Borsook)
Post #: 17
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 1:34:00 PM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
All the fixes to all the problems...hmmm will be in the next update...stay tuned for the expansion pack with the update in which you will have to pay additional money for and oh let us not forget the next update for the minor tweak of a tweak that may require a tweak that somehow may need a nudge to go in a specifc way to the next update which requires a new version of of a service pack to another update

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 18
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 1:45:05 PM   
Borsook


Posts: 469
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottgibson

Borsook,

What operating system do you use. I use XP, and have never had a problem with the next unit button.

Scott in tAcoma



I have reported the problem in the support section too, anyway I use Win XP SP3. The next unit button seems to work fine most of the time, but esp when I have moved majority of units it does CTD the game. If I save just before that reload it sometimes CTDs again but usually not...

(in reply to scottgibson)
Post #: 19
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/13/2008 7:10:05 PM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
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!!!!!........
1. Is there a way to edit the Random map for the DCG to incoorporate trains , fuel dumps etc?
2. When design your own scenario and in the map editor where is these new fangled wiz bag thingys that the fixes are in for?
I will take my answer off line

thanks

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 20
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/14/2008 12:07:00 AM   
dominican

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 3/17/2008
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to barker)
Post #: 21
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/14/2008 1:12:57 AM   
scottgibson

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
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


(in reply to Borsook)
Post #: 22
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/14/2008 4:50:50 AM   
simovitch


Posts: 4182
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to barker)
Post #: 23
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/30/2008 10:05:45 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/30/2008 10:07:49 PM >


_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 24
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/30/2008 11:41:01 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 5187
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Calgary, AB, Canada
Status: online

quote:

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


_____________________________

Petho Cartography

Mapping Military History

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 25
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/31/2008 12:12:47 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

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.


< Message edited by Deputy -- 8/31/2008 12:14:07 AM >


_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 26
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/31/2008 1:58:21 AM   
R_TEAM


Posts: 62
Joined: 8/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: online
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>

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 27
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/31/2008 2:49:40 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 5187
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Calgary, AB, Canada
Status: online

quote:

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


_____________________________

Petho Cartography

Mapping Military History

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 28
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/31/2008 1:02:10 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

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.


_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 29
RE: Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS - 8/31/2008 9:28:11 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 446
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

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.



_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series: Abandonware and no longer supported. Whata shame.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> John Tiller’s Campaign Series Support >> Which was more stable Talonsoft or MCS Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141