Theater_of_War_-_über_patch

On 29 jan, 11:27, von Schmidt <von_schm... DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 7:39 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> >http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/patch.html
>
> > 1.2 Gig - I think that's a record for wargaming
>
> > Greetz,
>
> > Eddy Sterckx
>
> My whole DOS and win95/98 wargaming collection fits in under 1.2 Gb.
> How times change... etc etc
>
> I think this might actually be in the top 5 largest patches for *any*
> genre. Anyone know of bigger patches?

IIRC the patches and additional official map packs for Warhammer 40K
Dawn of War are of the same order.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 29 jan, 11:34, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I think this might actually be in the top 5 largest patches for
> > *any* genre. Anyone know of bigger patches?
>
> I remember the gargantuan 600+ MB patch 1.2 for Medieval II: Total War, but
> this one is beyond grasping.

The reason why is quite simple - it's compiled Java code morphed and
wrapped into a standalone runtime environment which has to be
redistributed with the patch.

> Well, in 2012 we will laugh about it "How times change etc..."

Yeah, by then we'll be laughing our lower backsides off because the
activation server will generate a 404 error

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 29 jan, 11:42, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... DeleteThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I remember the gargantuan 600+ MB patch 1.2 for Medieval II: Total War,
> > but this one is beyond grasping.
>
> > Well, in 2012 we will laugh about it "How times change etc..."
>
> Well, you cannot say that those Russians are not commited to the game :>

Yup, now they're even committed to including building entry and
popping smoke ... in their next game ... for another $50

> Hmmmm, might try again ToW one of these days...

They've now promised a new demo - I'm sure to download it and give it
a go again.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On Jan 29, 10:36 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 jan, 11:27, von Schmidt <von_schm....RemoveThis@mail.com> wrote:

> > I think this might actually be in the top 5 largest patches for *any*
> > genre. Anyone know of bigger patches?
>
> IIRC the patches and additional official map packs for Warhammer 40K
> Dawn of War are of the same order.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

According to the Patches Scrolls, Dawn of War 1.41 weighs in at a mere
299Mb (http://dlh.net/cgi-bin/dp.cgi?lang=eng&ref=ps&sys=pc&cap=w).
This might exclude the maps you mentioned, but I would not define a
map pack as a patch anyway.

The same site shows a handful of 2007 patches breaking the gigabyte
barrier, excluding a few updates which contain the MP server for the
title:

City Life upgrade to City Life 2008 [2.11GB]
Medal of Honor: Airborne version 1.2 [1.3GB]
Company of Heroes chinese version 2.101 [1.6GB]
Two Worlds russian service release 1.5 [1.1GB]

None in 2008 so far, apart from ToW, or in 2006.

Regards,

-von Schmidt

On 29 jan, 12:38, von Schmidt <von_schm....DeleteThis@mail.com> wrote:

> According to the Patches Scrolls, Dawn of War 1.41 weighs in at a mere
> 299Mb (http://dlh.net/cgi-bin/dp.cgi?lang=eng&ref=ps&sys=pc&cap=w).

> This might exclude the maps you mentioned, but I would not define a
> map pack as a patch anyway.

My bad - I simply recalled that my final download tally for that game
was huge - and patch 1.41 wasn't the last one as you need 2 additional
ones to get it up to 1.51

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On Jan 29, 2:47 pm, "Bloodstar" <george.washing....TakeThisOut@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> And we already had debate about Theatre of War. I admit that there are many
> issues in that game but Russian programmers are more capable than that guy
> who programmed Commander: Europe at War where bloody loading time takes
> forever. And you voted that game for the GOTY

Theatre of War english 1.10.0.81 [1.2GB]
Commander - Europe At War 1.04 (3152 Kb

Yeah, those Russians are really good, tight developers.

Regards,

-von Schmidt

On 29 jan, 17:11, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Why? If we're using Battlefront's offerings as our examples, it's
> > apparent that developers publishing their own products leads to
> > *shitware*, not something worthwhile.
>
> The truth is in they Eye of The Beholder
>
> For example there are threads in Battlefront.com forums that goes like
> "Combat Mission: Shock Force, best wargame ever" and something like that.

Which got the reaction "Battlefront Posters Blow Beyond Legal Limit"
in the main Combat Mission forum *not* controlled by Battlefront

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72525

I'll let the audience decide which "eye of the beholder" is most
likely to contain the truth in this matter.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 29 jan, 17:26, "Bloodstar" <george.washing....TakeThisOut@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> I have read numerous times when people were objecting something just to be
> silenced with lackeys and sycophants. So nothing new here.
>
> In that regard they are all pretty same.

Agreed. So basically it comes down to this :

If you want to know the truth about a game, go to the forums *not*
controlled by the owners of that game.

Applying the above : what are the posters in here, at SimHQ, at The
Wargamer and at GameSquad telling you about this game called ToW ?

Over at The Wargamer forums I'm busy arguing with one of the
developers of ToW, I guess he needs a bit of your help because he's
heavily outnumbered there versus lonely me and no moderator in sight.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 29 jan, 18:38, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... DeleteThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, hey Eddy, Jim Rose and Norm Koger send you a thanks for finding out
> about that site who managed to crack DG.

"Find" is a big word - it was in plain sight on their own tech support
forum - maybe they just don't read it much ...

> They thanked me but you deserve more credit here

I'd rather you take the credit for it, you deserve something for the
money you spend on their game.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

> nor Matrix produced a game.  

And yet, we have...

On 30 jan, 03:06, "HR" <H....TakeThisOut@horizon.net> wrote:
>
> Oh I read battle generator. They said that was sort of impossible with the
> way the AI was coded.

AI ? coded ? Now you have me confused

The AI in that game is totally scripted - in other words : the
reactive behaviour of the AI is determined by a script in the
scenario. Generating a scenario on the fly AND put a decent script in
there is indeed a tall order.

> I wonder is they still have waves of space invaders.

Wanna bet ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 29 jan, 18:23, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster....RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Over at The Wargamer forums I'm busy arguing with one of the
> developers of ToW, I guess he needs a bit of your help because he's
> heavily outnumbered there versus lonely me and no moderator in sight.

.... and true to form Mario came charging in over there.

<insert Hollywood movie where the cavalry arrives two days too late
and is so confused they forgot to take their bullets along for the
ride>

A day ago this Indian would have closed the trap he had set there for
you, but after waiting so long he got bored and went home to play a
real wargame.

Advanced Tactics arrived in the mail - do not disturb.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 30 jan, 11:47, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <eddyster....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:89fa43a3-31cb-4dd9-ab52-9372b97acfd2@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 29 jan, 18:23, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster....RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Over at The Wargamer forums I'm busy arguing with one of the
> >> developers of ToW, I guess he needs a bit of your help because he's
> >> heavily outnumbered there versus lonely me and no moderator in sight.
>
> > ... and true to form Mario came charging in over there.
>
> > <insert Hollywood movie where the cavalry arrives two days too late
> > and is so confused they forgot to take their bullets along for the
> > ride>
>
> And strictly *for the ride*, that they could be useful in the battle too was
> not even considered.
>
> Anyway, I followed the one-sided battle from the bed (the flu is more
> bearable if you have a new wireless connection at home), and I do seem to
> understand that ToW *still* hasn't infantry popping smoke or going into
> houses (or popping houses and going into smoke - sorry, its the fever).
>
> I wonder what that "originally this was an engine for long distance
> engagements" thing meant. Were they trying to simulate *only* engagements
> between Jadgtigers and JS-2?!

That part was a bold-faced lie by the developer. As everyone who saw
early screenshots of this game can attest it was originally developed
as a standard RTS game where shooting distances were like 5 times the
length of a tank's barrel. He got called on that lie, so I let it
rest, but it convinced me that developer was not there to get the low-
down on what was needed to make his game workable, but to convince
another bunch of gamers to trust him and not their own lying eyes. I'm
not playing that game. When I see a tactical WWII game with grass and
houses I expect that long grass stops LOS (it didn't) and that
infantry can enter houses (they don't) - if those things are not
possible they're better left out altogether, unless you go for the eye
candy crowd, which is ok, but don't call it a serious tactical wargame
then.

The reason I feel so strongly about this is probably because I was so
heavily disappointed by it. From the screenshots and previews it all
sounded like this was going to be the ultimate WWII tactical wargame.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx