Grumblers musing

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"These items were attempts to push the game engine in JTCS 1.03 right? 1.03 came out in 10.7.2008 and even ever since I have not seen a single scenario using them, so they are not a very valid point IMO."

O.K. enough. This is you "superior" comeback? You got to be kidding.

Does that mean if you invalidate the second sentence in my point "two" that, then, I do not have a valid point at all.
Please stop. The hole you are digging will be used to bury you.
Maybe the scenario designers saw it as out of scale and refused to use it? Who knows and who cares? It is still part of the game, is it not?

Now if you are telling me that the ME air model will be ported over, and I am fine with it.
Though, I did have tanks assault a helicopter, at high level, in ME. At least you will have time to remedy that, before you port it over?



HSL

[Otto von Blotto]

There has been a few things about this thread that have made me a bit uneasy, I was going to stay out because I have no dog to run with the new games your developing, they don't interest me in the slightest and I won't be buying them, but it seems history is being rewritten to suit a cause and it also looks like the team is going to mess with the old games in the coming years so I feel the need to put my case.

These items were attempts to push the game engine in JTCS 1.03 right? 1.03 came out in 10.7.2008 and even ever since I have not seen a single scenario using them, so they are not a very valid point IMO.

Really I've had to put up with a few of these turkeys, other useless ideas that to me have added nothing to the game have been the supply bases, the navel units, subs, someone even tried to shove in medical units at one stage. Sorry my friend, couldn't resist.

Then there is the constant and passionate debate over extreme assault and the role of half-tracks.  I love EA because I personally think its more realistic than the surround disrupt and overrun of the assault routine it replaced.  Nobody is "forced" to use it, but there are still folks that howl about it even being optional. 

Now hang on, if you think back, the EA rule is only optional because it was argued for by the players, in 1.03 it was imposed upon us mandatory and implemented very wrongly (some of the results were farcical rather than more realistic) in fact it was a mess and it was only though the players showing were it was wrong time and again that the development team looked at it again, it was only when it was complained about that the revised 1.04 patch made it work better and optional if we had not have complained it would have been left hard wired and non optional.

As it stands I can take it or leave it, it balances some games and skews others but at the time it was a joke, some very strong players will still not touch it because of the problems it caused.

Separation of the games for WW2 CS are more about our manpower and resources.  We are few and each on the team brings a unique skill set to the production.  None of CS was developed as individual games and essentially are still individual games with a menu overlaid on it.  As each game has its own unique code, we are developing it separately as that is the only way to manage it effectively.  We could keep it together, but then the next update would be in about 2035.  Somewhat exaggerated, but I think you get my point.

Funny I thought the first thing berto did in 2013 was to unify the code base.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3347982

now it's going to be split again. ?

and finally

Thunderbolts hovering above Axis player at Normandy, observing every moment? Yes, I would like to see that.

Thunderbolts, hovering, err Petri you may want to rephrase that flying maybe but not hovering, this ones not digging really, just a bit of fun.

[Crossroads]

"These items were attempts to push the game engine in JTCS 1.03 right? 1.03 came out in 10.7.2008 and even ever since I have not seen a single scenario using them, so they are not a very valid point IMO."

O.K. enough. This is you "superior" comeback? You got to be kidding.

Does that mean if you invalidate the second sentence in my point "two" that, then, I do not have a valid point at all.
Please stop. The hole you are digging will be used to bury you.
Maybe the scenario designers saw it as out of scale and refused to use it? Who knows and who cares? It is still part of the game, is it not?

Now if you are telling me that the ME air model will be ported over, and I am fine with it.
Though, I did have tanks assault a helicopter, at high level, in ME. At least you will have time to remedy that, before you port it over?



HSL

???

I am not sure I understand your comment. The silly aircraft that you mention have been now cut out of the game, they are not in CSME are they?

As for JTCS 2.x, I don't believe any of the Dev Team is not too keen on them either. But we don't just remove stuff from the game, as that would break existing scenarios. Albeit like said I have not seen any. So there they stay. If one person in the world likes them then fine, let him. I do not miss them for a second in CSME. 

As for the bug report, yes I saw your post in the Matrix forum but unfortunately I can't repeat the behaviour. Do you still have the save file for this available, if so please email to me at krazykat dot theblitz at gmail dot com. 

[Crossroads]

@Otto von Blotto

LOL, I guess hovering is not the word to be used. As for Med Evac teams, yes I tried the idea with Leaders, and came to realisation they would need their own specific unit type to function the role without silly side effects.

@all

Then, the going forward statement we've made. JTCS 2.0 saw the codebase merged as OvB stated. At the stage when we put the JTCS2.x codebase baseline aside and started building CSME, it was our intent to be able to port back to JTCS any and all new features developed.

But with the new 2D zoom levels and the plethora of graphics required, the new platoon database format, and so forth, it became evident there's no going back to JTCS 2.0 and upgrading it. Rather, we need to build each of the game from anew, with a significant effort to come with the new graphics and unit data format and so on.

JTCS2.x will stay as it is. There's no changes to be brought to it, so no one needs to worry about that. The game works with W10 we've tested it so its longevity as such is saved.

As for the new CS series titles, CSWF CSEF CSPacific included, they will be created a new in the coming years, should the titles have the commercial interest to remain in the M/S store front. And so far the reception of CSME has been quite positive so it definitively is a case of so-far-so-good.

Finally, for the Extreme Assault discussion not on my watch, for the Toolbar Icon size discussion on my watch, but the former especially. The point regarding the foul play with EFOW is often made like it would have taken ages and a grand rebellion to remedy the new rule as an optional one, yet the team at the time seems to have responded really quickly, given the fact there needs to be a M/S release timetable to be agreed as well:

JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v101.zip 11.0 MB 13.6.2007
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v103.zip 214 MB 10.7.2008
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v104.zip 214 MB 12.9.2008
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v200.zip 181 MB 19.2.2014
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v201.zip 189 MB 3.6.2014
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v202.zip 208 MB 21.8.2014

Two months and two days from 1.03 to 1.04. Again, not on my watch, but still: not too bad for creating a new version, testing it thoroughly, and then having it put to public by the game company.

[Crossroads]

I saw your post in the Matrix forum but unfortunately I can't repeat the behaviour. Do you still have the save file for this available, if so please email to me at krazykat dot theblitz at gmail dot com.

FYI: Your post at Matrix JTCS forum has been moved to CSME Tech Support forum.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"Finally, for the Extreme Assault discussion not on my watch, for the Toolbar Icon size discussion on my watch, but the former especially. The point regarding the foul play with EFOW is often made like it would have taken ages and a grand rebellion to remedy the new rule as an optional one, yet the team at the time seems to have responded really quickly, given the fact there needs to be a M/S release timetable to be agreed as well:

JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v101.zip 11.0 MB 13.6.2007
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v103.zip 214 MB 10.7.2008
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v104.zip 214 MB 12.9.2008
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v200.zip 181 MB 19.2.2014
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v201.zip 189 MB 3.6.2014
JohnTillerCampaignSeries-UpdateDR-v202.zip 208 MB 21.8.2014

Two months and two days from 1.03 to 1.04. Again, not on my watch, but still: not too bad for creating a new version, testing it thoroughly, and then having it put to public by the game company."

Yes, companies and people do work faster and better when they screw something up to the point where all would have walked away and a potential cash cow would have dried up.
And, before I get the argument that it is not a cash cow, I know they are not all going to retire on what they make from the Campaign Series.
My point is, (because some people do not understand analogies), that all revenue streams benefit a company. They paid money for the rights to own the game and needed to recoup that prior to really making any "profit". When the tinkerers almost brought the game down and fractured "the base" I know (for a fact) that there was a concern over losing money. Hell, it still may be losing money, I dunno.

As for your other comments. Don't assume we all know what is "in" and what is not in. Don't really try and use the excuse "it will effect some scenarios and we did not want to remove it".
Well, you put in bridge building and effected every scenario that had an engineer in it? You put in extreme assault and effected ever scenario (especially those not designed for it).
You are going to put in the LOS rules from ME into the other games?

I'm just sayin' that some people believe their babies are beautiful and can do nothing wrong. I'm on the outside and see that the baby has some flaws.



HSL

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"As for the bug report, yes I saw your post in the Matrix forum but unfortunately I can't repeat the behaviour."

Well. As for this comment I got this message with a game turn from my opponent: "I over ran a LZ with that pesky bazooka team & an commando(?)unit & a HIND". Oops!

And, to think that the only time my Helos touched the ground was to disembark troopers on the other side of the map. To see it happen once from the AI in charge and then to an opponent in a PBEM game?

I have the download version and purchased a hard copy. What do I do? I really do not feel like removing and then reinstalling the game.



HSL

[PawelM]

2cent from me. I am very strongly rooted in Ww2, and will not be getting any other games not related to that period. However, I am of opinion that updates and improvements are needed. If they do not happen the game will not attract new blood with younger generation disregarding it as outdated (not that we this old are we?).

I am for instance still reluctant to part with a mouse, but my kids are so into touchscreens and touchpad. Does it mean I should ridicule touch technology? I have a choice to stick with my beloved mouse.

Also if someone does not like me features they are welcome to stick with their flavour/ version of choice. I for instance have 3 parallel installs of cs from 1.04 to 2.02. this is due to some long games that did not catch up with updates. So, in this way there is compromise to suit both contradicting opinions in this thread. In this way,those who would like game to evolve would upgrade it and other cod stick to the classic one they love. Nothing would stop some to mix and enjoy both.

Only downside I see is further fragmentation of the community, but it is already to some extent present with some optional rules.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"I am for instance still reluctant to part with a mouse, but my kids are so into touchscreens and touchpad. Does it mean I should ridicule touch technology? I have a choice to stick with my beloved mouse."

Who is ridiculing technology? If they made voice command for the game I probably would not use it, I too like the mouse. It would be cool.
What I object to is the casual and flippant attitude of "if you don't like it, don't play it" and "we do not care what you want, we are going to put the 'cool' things from ME into the WWII games".

What if the cool things are not so cool?

As you stated, all the options have fractured the community.

And, as I have stated, if they make changes that take the fun out of playing I will find other things to do with my time. Also, I will simply give away my disks to whomever would contact me first (once I offered them, of course).

Wash my hands of it and walk away.

HSL

[PawelM]

"I am for instance still reluctant to part with a mouse, but my kids are so into touchscreens and touchpad. Does it mean I should ridicule touch technology? I have a choice to stick with my beloved mouse."

Who is ridiculing technology? If they made voice command for the game I probably would not use it, I too like the mouse. It would be cool.
What I object to is the casual and flippant attitude of "if you don't like it, don't play it" and "we do not care what you want, we are going to put the 'cool' things from ME into the WWII games".

What if the cool things are not so cool?

As you stated, all the options have fractured the community.

And, as I have stated, if they make changes that take the fun out of playing I will find other things to do with my time. Also, I will simply give away my disks to whomever would contact me first (once I offered them, of course).

Wash my hands of it and walk away.

HSL

Why give away discs? Any changes in new versions of ww2 CS, putting you off, will not affect your install of 2.02 and should not affect the experience of play? just curious....

If I disliked any new updates, I do not see anything stopping me to keep my earlier version. I am sure there would be people (I base it on the posts in this thread) who would stick with classic version... If changes to new version of the game were as divisive in the community, then personally I think I would most likely keep 2.02 alongside new version to be able to play with wider player spectrum.

For instance, at this stage I play any options EA off or on, AF on or off... it just makes the game a bit different. I am just this person in the middle

So, you can keep your disks and be assured I can oblige offering you a PBEM game in whatever is your version of choice