Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Assault rule changes

 
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 >> RE: Assault rule changes Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:15:40 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline 		Just one final message to ensure clarity:

The upgrade is really nice. I like the new units and the graphics. The little graphic bugs can be easily fixed with small patches along the way.
That said, the Variable Visibility and new Assault Rules have fundamentally changed the game. In my opinion for the worse, obviously.

Whoever thought that changing this game was the way to go "missed the mark". Improving the game would have been a much better road to take.
I'm saddened to see that some do not know the difference and ask us, the players who support the game, to just put up with things as they are.
Sorry, when I see a wrong I try to right it. When I am told that I have to be silent and all will work out, when I know it will not, I will shout it to the top of my lungs.
If I see a man beating his wife on the sidewalk I will step in, even if it means that I will have to accept some blows from both parties.
I knw what is right and I know what is wrong. If the crowd I hang with thinks that right is wrong and wrong is right, I will not hang with that crowd anymore.

It's who I am. It's why I am.
When I believe I stand on solid ground it is impossible to move me.

To any and all who think I am nuts for posting my beliefs about the game or are insulted by what I type, it was not my intention. I just have strong beliefs about what is going on here and I feel the need to express them most strongly.

Ed

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 61
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:16:27 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Ed,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I'll be the voice in the wilderness. I will stand up for the game. I will walk away from what they think they can force down our throats. It's the last real "free will" freedom that I have?


With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole and there's no need for it. The update has only been out for a couple of days now, we're waiting to get a good sense of the feedback before deciding on the next course of action. We're all reading and listening, be assured your point of view (and the others) has been heard and is being considered.

Everyone working on the JTCS team wants the best for the game and the series. These are dedicated folks that put a lot of work, thought and testing into these releases for the benefit of the community. We want everyone in the community to be happy with each release.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 62
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:19:56 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I'm saddened to see that some do not know the difference and ask us, the players who support the game, to just put up with things as they are.
Sorry, when I see a wrong I try to right it. When I am told that I have to be silent and all will work out, when I know it will not, I will shout it to the top of my lungs.
If I see a man beating his wife on the sidewalk I will step in, even if it means that I will have to accept some blows from both parties.
I knw what is right and I know what is wrong. If the crowd I hang with thinks that right is wrong and wrong is right, I will not hang with that crowd anymore.


I haven't told you to be silent, but a little less melodrama would be appreciated. Comparing your concerns regarding two features in this update to someone beating their wife is simply beyond the pale. When I suggested you relax and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, it was because of this kind of tone.

Your feedback will be 1000x more valuable if instead of making these kinds of comparisons, you play with v1.03 a bit more and post some more specific examples of how the assault or visibility rules are causing problems with gameplay for you. The more specific feedback like that we have, the better a decision we can make.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 63
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:21:40 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
Matrix, you've got a 'world of experienced' JTCS 'experts' out there, I'd use them! But its just my opinion and as they say, opinions are like.........


We are certainly interested in hearing from you all and we always keep your concerns in mind, but as I just posted to MrRoadrunner, the most valuable feedback for the team if you have a problem with any of the changes is to post some specific examples where it doesn't work for you rather than just general feedback.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 64
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:24:11 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ed,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I'll be the voice in the wilderness. I will stand up for the game. I will walk away from what they think they can force down our throats. It's the last real "free will" freedom that I have?


With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole and there's no need for it. The update has only been out for a couple of days now, we're waiting to get a good sense of the feedback before deciding on the next course of action. We're all reading and listening, be assured your point of view (and the others) has been heard and is being considered.

Everyone working on the JTCS team wants the best for the game and the series. These are dedicated folks that put a lot of work, thought and testing into these releases for the benefit of the community. We want everyone in the community to be happy with each release.

Regards,

- Erik


Erik,

Again, please read my message that is immediately above you post?
Don't paint my car yellow and say I'm going to love it once I get used to it. I did not buy a yellow car?

You fundamentally changed the game. Regardless of the hard work that was done, the game has changed and not improved.
Hundreds of people sweating to build a bridge to nowhere only accomplished building the bridge. If it's destination was "nowhere" then what was accomplished?

If you do think that players expressed their desires and it was to fundamentally change the game with the variable visibility and assault rules hard wired and not optional, then you are sorely mistaken and you will be hard pressed to find those, other than in the "cabal", who did?

It's still a snake in the bath water, even if it is days later and the bathwater is cold?



_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 65
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:25:08 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Osiris,

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris
Variable visibilty
Number 1 and biggest issue for me with 1.03 is variable visibilty. I know some adjustments were made but it has a huge impact on the game. I can now only design scenarios outside of the 15 hex and what ever the other number is. Understand my logic here. I want day to night functions but not variable visibility. I really think and I have said this before, variable visibilty should have been tossed in favor of patch 1.04 for a proper day to night functionality. You dont need variable visibilty if you have a proper day to night function..so in essence variable visibilty is a comprimise and not a good one until day-night functions are introduced with 1.04. That leaves 3 options:
  • variable visibilty needs to adjusted to a even more restricted set of numbers
  • make it optional..a on off switch..default being off so that stock scenarios ARE NOT AFFECTED since they were not designed with this function.
  • toss it altogether and put the energies towards a proper day to night function in 1.04


I'm not sure I clearly understand the issue here. Could you be more specific on where this is causing you problems?

quote:


Close assault changes
Playing SPWAW I can understand what matrix wanted to do here. But more testing should have gone into one of the key functions of the game. Close assaults are one of the key ways of resolving combat in CS..the bugs really needed to be cleared out of this one particular function before it was released because it effects playability immediately. Last time I played SPWAW trucks die when they run something with a gun. It sounds what has happened with a truck and a commander holding of tanks is a bug..that needs to be fixed because any player with half a functioning brain is going to fill the hexes with trucks and leaders. Finally double dispersal or as was earlier suggested by another player routed/broken morale with no chance of morale recovery should be considered.


Have you tested this yourself yet? Which scenarios or situations did you have a problem with the new rules in? Apart from the issue with 0 Assault units, have you seen any other problems?

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 66
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:28:05 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Ed,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Again, please read my message that is immediately above you post?
Don't paint my car yellow and say I'm going to love it once I get used to it. I did not buy a yellow car?


I've never told you to love it, take it or leave it, etc.

What I do ask is for some more specific feedback rather than general complaints and analogies which are not actually helping point out any issues that are bothering you. Apart from the problem with assaulting 0 Assault units, is anything else about the new assault rules, in your testing, a problem?

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 67
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:31:01 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
Matrix, you've got a 'world of experienced' JTCS 'experts' out there, I'd use them! But its just my opinion and as they say, opinions are like.........


We are certainly interested in hearing from you all and we always keep your concerns in mind, but as I just posted to MrRoadrunner, the most valuable feedback for the team if you have a problem with any of the changes is to post some specific examples where it doesn't work for you rather than just general feedback.

Regards,

- Erik



How about this for specific?
Make the variable visibilty and assault rules optional choices to made. They changed the fundamental way the game is played. It's not one thing here, or a graphic problem there, or an engineer entering a minefield with another platoon stopping the non-engineer platoon from being attacked by the minefield.
It's not the little things that can be easily fixed. It is the large fundamental changes that effect every scenario and every campaign, in a game that all of us were quite content to play as is, as long as the minor issues were fixed.
Variable Visibility and the new Close Assault rules change the entire game so much that no specific "little" fixes can repair what has been done that changes the game into something that looks like the Campaign Series but is not the Campaign Series.

I must apologize if I am not coming across clearly.

Ed

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 68
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:33:13 PM   
TJD

 

Posts: 294
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

the most valuable feedback for the team if you have a problem with any of the changes is to post some specific examples where it doesn't work for you rather than just general feedback.




I'll be happy to post specific feedback in the coming days, but I would like to make a general point about these changes. CS is a classic. One way to define a classic is that it's something that can't really be improved in its fundamentals despite its flaws. Tweaking may be desirable, but you've got to respect the essential integrity of the thing.

I held off buying the game until the 1.03 update came out. This change is such that had I known of it I would not have bought it. I'd've stuck with my Talonsoft originals.

My biggest worry is for Rising Sun. I don't think the bulk of the scenarios in that game will be playable any longer with these new assault rules. You'll never get the Japanese out of a -9 Pillbox now.

Please give us the option to revert to the old system.

/TJD

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 69
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:34:54 PM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline 		Let me just say that I changed from being sceptical about the assault change, to being positive about it in a day's time playing. I have had no examples in my ongoing PBEM games were anything unrealistic happened. Apparently my opponents feel the same way as they are not complaining but enjoying the game.
It would really be a pity if the assault rules would be rolled back because some refuse to play with them or refuse to change a gamey style of playing.
I am interested in examples were it is clear that the new rules are less realistic than the old ones were you could assault with a ridiculous minority as long as the other side was disrupted.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 70
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:41:41 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ed,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Again, please read my message that is immediately above you post?
Don't paint my car yellow and say I'm going to love it once I get used to it. I did not buy a yellow car?


I've never told you to love it, take it or leave it, etc.

What I do ask is for some more specific feedback rather than general complaints and analogies which are not actually helping point out any issues that are bothering you. Apart from the problem with assaulting 0 Assault units, is anything else about the new assault rules, in your testing, a problem?

Regards,

- Erik


And, I never said that you did. But, more than one member of the "team" has done that very thing. I am not too pleased about that, but, I am willing to have the franker discussions with them.

Do you play the game? Have you played the game? Have you spent hundreds of hours playing against the AI or Human opponents?
In the few days, I've played, with Variable Visibility and in the last two days of Close Assault, I have seen my PBEM experience radically changed. And, not for the better.

I cannot express how pleased I was to have Matrix support CS. I was impressed by the quality of work done in most of the patches, bug fixes, and add ons.
Where I am not pleased is in the addition of both variable visibilty and close assault. It changed the whole game and not just small bits of it. So, I cannot relate small bits that can be "patched up" it's too fundamental.

Love it? Take it or leave it? That's up to me now, isn't it?
Like my example of the "turd/hot dog", if you serve it to me I can get up from the table.
That will be my choice, even if you did not specifically say it?


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 71
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:52:47 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline 		I look forward to new scenarios with all the new units and features. I've had my share of PBEM with people that have played the old ones so many times that they can beat me with their eyes closed.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 72
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:58:33 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Ed,

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
How about this for specific?
Make the variable visibilty and assault rules optional choices to made. They changed the fundamental way the game is played. It's not one thing here, or a graphic problem there, or an engineer entering a minefield with another platoon stopping the non-engineer platoon from being attacked by the minefield.
It's not the little things that can be easily fixed. It is the large fundamental changes that effect every scenario and every campaign, in a game that all of us were quite content to play as is, as long as the minor issues were fixed.
Variable Visibility and the new Close Assault rules change the entire game so much that no specific "little" fixes can repair what has been done that changes the game into something that looks like the Campaign Series but is not the Campaign Series.


That's not specfic, sorry.

We've already decided to add options in the future, but what I'm looking for now is not just a comment to "take these out" but some specific examples why. Because we have feedback from people who have played them and report them a good improvement, I'd like to get some specific reasons why they are not.

The problem with attacking 0 Assault units is effectively a bug that can be tweaked. Apart from that, what else is a problem for you as far as the new assault rules and variable visibility. How have these negatively impacted your game play? If you can give us specific scenarios and instances where they caused problems for you, then we can look at those and decide what to do.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 73
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 2:59:14 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib

Let me just say that I changed from being sceptical about the assault change, to being positive about it in a day's time playing. I have had no examples in my ongoing PBEM games were anything unrealistic happened. Apparently my opponents feel the same way as they are not complaining but enjoying the game.
It would really be a pity if the assault rules would be rolled back because some refuse to play with them or refuse to change a gamey style of playing.
I am interested in examples were it is clear that the new rules are less realistic than the old ones were you could assault with a ridiculous minority as long as the other side was disrupted.


Herr Huib,

I appreciate your comments. I have not had the same "happy moment of change" that you have. I'm about to offer my opponents in ten different PBEM matches a victory because I cannot accept the way close assault and variable visiblity has changed the game.
Remember my posts about Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader, the old board games from Avalon Hill? Squad Leader was a solid fun to play game. Advanced Squad Leader turned it into a droll and tedious game for the sake of "realism". I was willing to spend hundreds of dollars buying the additions to SL. I spent not one dime on ASL.
If you think that it is realistic that a scout car platoon cannot overrun and capture a non-combat half track transport platoon because it is in a town, then I think realism went the way of the dinosaurs. If you think multiple infantry and armor platoons attacking a leader, alone and in the open, get no effect result is realistic then I have a bad view of realism. If you think that three infantry platoons and five armored platoons attacking from different hexes, a disrupted and weakened engineer in trenches that not only suffer a no effect but, two of the armor platoons have one disrupted and the other destroyed is realism, then I do not know what is real.

You know you have my respect and I honor you for all you do for the game. I just will not be able to accept the close assault rules and variable visibility rules as anything but optional. If someone does not want to play me because of those preferences, I can have that option.
It would be similar to the armor facing rules?
At least then I would have a choice? I've even played opponents with the armor facing rules "off", though I prefer them on.

And, so all that know, out of the fifteen PBEM games that I have ongoing, eight have been placed on hold by my opponents wishes, because of the close assault rules. The other opponents are continuing to play to see what effect these changes have made.

As I stated, over and over, the new rules fundamentally change the game to something that I do not recognize as CS.
Sad but true. It's not a haircut or a new pair of shoes. It's become a totally new "person".

I see by some of the posts and from some personal messages that I may eventually be forced out the CS game. It's really O.K. by me. I am sure my family will either love it or hate it .... depending.

Ed


< Message edited by MrRoadrunner -- 7/13/2008 3:00:36 PM >

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 74
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:00:16 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD
I'll be happy to post specific feedback in the coming days, but I would like to make a general point about these changes. CS is a classic. One way to define a classic is that it's something that can't really be improved in its fundamentals despite its flaws. Tweaking may be desirable, but you've got to respect the essential integrity of the thing.


I hear you and agree - I've already discussed with Jason and we've agreed to add an "option" switch to these for the future, but we'd like specific feedback now to help with other decisions on tweaking and the way to proceed.

quote:

My biggest worry is for Rising Sun. I don't think the bulk of the scenarios in that game will be playable any longer with these new assault rules. You'll never get the Japanese out of a -9 Pillbox now.


Have you actually tried any of these yet?

It's very important to me to separate feedback based on what other posters have said from feedback based on actual gameplay, since we also have a fair amount of positive feedback based on actual gameplay rather than assumptions.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to TJD)
Post #: 75
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:02:13 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Do you play the game? Have you played the game? Have you spent hundreds of hours playing against the AI or Human opponents?
In the few days, I've played, with Variable Visibility and in the last two days of Close Assault, I have seen my PBEM experience radically changed. And, not for the better.


Ok, we're now getting somewhere. Can you please give me some specific examples from your play in the last few days, other than the single one you've posted so far, where these rules radically changed your gameplay in a negative way? Seriously, this feedback would be very valuable for everyone and far more likely to have results than general comments.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 76
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:05:00 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you actually tried any of these yet?

It's very important to me to separate feedback based on what other posters have said from feedback based on actual gameplay, since we also have a fair amount of positive feedback based on actual gameplay rather than assumptions.



In case this is a specific "shot" at me. I have sited examples of how the new variable visibility and assault rules have effected games that I am playing currently.
You can read them. Most are in this thread?
I just grow weary of having to type in specifics when it is actually the fundamental change to the entire game that you have done, without making it optional, that is the problem.

Erik, if it is a glancing shot at me, I honestly expected better.

Ed


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 77
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:05:48 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
If you think that it is realistic that a scout car platoon cannot overrun and capture a non-combat half track transport platoon because it is in a town, then I think realism went the way of the dinosaurs. If you think multiple infantry and armor platoons attacking a leader, alone and in the open, get no effect result is realistic then I have a bad view of realism.


These are the only problems I'd heard from you before specifically. These are both part of the same one issue, which is effectively a bug with 0 Assault that can be tweaked. I agree completely that these are not realistic results and this is an issue that needs to be corrected.

quote:

If you think that three infantry platoons and five armored platoons attacking from different hexes, a disrupted and weakened engineer in trenches that not only suffer a no effect but, two of the armor platoons have one disrupted and the other destroyed is realism, then I do not know what is real.


Ok, that's the first time I heard that example - can you post a save file or more specifics as to scenario and situation?

Regards,

- Erik



_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 78
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:06:55 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
In case this is a specific "shot" at me. I have sited examples of how the new variable visibility and assault rules have effected games that I am playing currently.
You can read them. Most are in this thread?
I just grow weary of having to type in specifics when it is actually the fundamental change to the entire game that you have done, without making it optional, that is the problem.
Erik, if it is a glancing shot at me, I honestly expected better.


That was not a shot at you.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 79
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:19:26 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Let me be clear on something - we've already discussed internally and agreed that in the long run, these should be optional rules, but the work still has to be put into actually implementing that (and it may be a fair amount of work) and thus may not be a short term solution for those who preferred the old rules.

Making the final v1.02 update available again is certainly fine with us and you'll still find it out on the web if you want to stay at that version for now, despite all the great fixes and new content that v1.03 has to offer. Since the update has only been out a few days, we are still in information gathering mode and would very much like to hear more feedback regarding actual gameplay with these changes.

We've heard both positive and negative feedback and we accept both but the most valuable feedback is that which is based on gameplay results. So far on the assault rules the negative is outweighing the positive, but a lot of this is very general and we want to make sure everyone has actually tried these in actual gameplay before passing judgement. Also, the issue with 0 Assault units is recognized as an issue to be corrected - apart from that, how are the new rules working for you?

Our focus is on specific feedback on how the new rules can be improved. We respect the integrity of the game, but we also want to improve it so we're aiming for the best of both worlds. Let's discuss specific examples where the new rules are not working ideally for you (or instances where they are working better than the old rules) and the JTCS team can take that feedback and improve them so that hopefully we'll all be happy with them in the future.

I think even the folks who loved the old rules have to admit that they also had some "corner cases" where they could cause unrealistic results. The common goal we should all have is just to make JTCS the best it can be for all players.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 80
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:19:40 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Do you play the game? Have you played the game? Have you spent hundreds of hours playing against the AI or Human opponents?
In the few days, I've played, with Variable Visibility and in the last two days of Close Assault, I have seen my PBEM experience radically changed. And, not for the better.


Ok, we're now getting somewhere. Can you please give me some specific examples from your play in the last few days, other than the single one you've posted so far, where these rules radically changed your gameplay in a negative way? Seriously, this feedback would be very valuable for everyone and far more likely to have results than general comments.



Ugh! This is going beyond specious and tedious.
I am playing Red Steel at Fedorovka. Variable visibility has taken the game to a visibility level of three. Quite favors the Soviets. The game plays to a point where the overwhelming numbers of Soviets can be beaten back by the range and firepower of the German armor. The Soviets can still win the game by holding four or five victory hexes located in towns. obviously moving forward to accept losses from the better opportunity fire rules (better from ambush) to move into the towns, hoping to be helped by the better armor protection of the German armor.
Then through all the losses and fighting into the teeth of Soviet strengths the new assault rules make it more difficult for the Germans to assault and overrun. I'm not just talking surround and capture. I'm talking just to push Soviet armor back.

I've seen this similar occurance in four or five other games where close assault in the later part of the game are winning solutions, and always have been.

In one I whittled down a German engineer taking it from a five to a one strength, I then attempted to assault it with three platoons of infantry and numerous tank platoons from multiple hexes. Surrounded and disrupted these stalwarts managed to hold the hex and kill two full tank platoons. Realistic, who knows? Not much was added to the game by doing it?

Lastly, because I am tired of typing. I had a situation where my opponent placed a half tack mover (non-combat) in a town/victory hex. I shot at it and did nothing. But, curious, I started the game manual to manual and repeated the placing of the non-combat vehicle in the town/victory hex, while moving my scout into position. I then moved forward and assaulted, twice, the non-combat unit for two no effect. I ended the turn and started the next, ending it and assaulted the non-combat unit three times to no effect.
Realism, right!

I'm done. It's now up to you guys to determine which direction I go in.

Ed


_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 81
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:39:10 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

I look forward to new scenarios with all the new units and features. I've had my share of PBEM with people that have played the old ones so many times that they can beat me with their eyes closed.


Believe me Junk, I was too.
I cannot play most in my sleep, but I can probably get there because I know where to go.

I had to put a tournament on hold because every custom scenario designed for the tournament would no longer be "balanced" because of the new rules.
It represented hundreds of hours of work up to this point and I was going to spend a few more hours before starting so I could see what effect the new rule changes would do. Running tournaments are enough of a pain in the butt that I little needed this kind of change.

Now I'm thinking that I just do not want to waste my time putting in the effort. I designed the scenario's with CS in mind. I am not sure how they will work in this "new game" we have been given.

It's just my honest opinion.



_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 82
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:50:11 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline 		If you need a tester for the tourney scenarios, let me know. As long as they are not huge monsters. I have a short attention span.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 83
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 4:28:17 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 240
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		HI Erik

I will try to be clear as I can as to why as a scenario designer why variable visibility is not the best comprimise in the world.

Variable Visibility

1: The original stock scenarios were not designed with this feature so the designers made no adjustments for the changes in visibility. These are really good scenarios, they dont need any changes.

2: The LCG I designed for JTCS was never meant to be played with variable visibility, a change invisibility of 2-3 hexes can be devestating. One scenario simulating a meeting engagement between tanks on a plain (no trees to hide in). I made the visibility 8. The reason being it would simulate a hazy day and the german panthers could not use their long range gunnery to full effect and it would allow the russian tanks to close in (most russian tanks 99% can shoot only up to 6-8 hexes). Now the visibility switches to 9-10..even for 1-2 turns, that extended visibility on a open plain will let the opposing player devestate the Russian units or drops to 6-7 where russian tank guns in this game start to cause damage..now the german player is toast..the game balance is gone. As you can see even a change of 1 in variable visibilty can have a huge impact

Had I known variable visibilty was to be a future feature I would have adjusted the visibilty to a or even a 5-6 so that it never got above the 8..but 5-6 means the german player is dead because the russian player will just swarm the german player..so it becomes harder to design scenarios..and if variable visibility drops to a 4..well game over for the german side

I hope this clears it up a little more. As a designer of scenarios I want control over the visibility. If I set variable visibility to 6 and I know it will only will fluctuate between 5-7..maybe..I can work with that. Hence my suggestion of restricting variable visibility to even a more restricted set of numbers is probably the most realistic suggestion I can give you and well within the parameters of the feature.

Why not make visibility a scale if I set it at 6, it will fluctuate by 1 hex up or down? A change of 2-3 hexes wont work too big!

My 2nd suggestion of giving variable visibility an on-off button with off being default is protecting the stock scenarios. New scenarios can be made but the stock scenarios need to be left alone. Can you imagine the Omaha beach scenario, visibility set to 10 drops to 8 or 7 (german player will lose cause allies get to sneak into the beach, or increases to 12, german player wins cause now the 88s and 75 mm can blast the Allied units at full range.

My 3rd suggestion of tossing variable visibility it is based on simple argument:
In what was another heated and emotional post on the blitz, check it out should still be their: Matrix will have to sit down with a bunch of designers and figure out the scale for this game..the 6 minute scale is dead! If the distance infantry can move move in one turn did'nt already kill it than variable visibility has all but ensured that. Why not pull it altogether and make a solid commitment to a day night functionality in patch 1.04..people will still play even with variable visibility gone.

This feature was added because it was neat. I understand why it was done..to make things different and spice them up..Nobody had a serious discussion about its implications on game play (in particular stock scenarios) and finally nobody had a discussion about scale.

Assault:
I have no particular issues with this. Im all for tougher assaults. Just get the bugs out. Trucks are trucks and tanks are tanks. Trucks die including leaders when they are around and when they run into tanks. If this is a bug great it can be fixed but if its by design..it needs to go. As I explained any player with any sense will just stack hexes with trucks and leaders thus ruining the playability of the game.


I hope this helps. I'll be happy to answer more. Im approaching this problem as a designer, not as a player so the biggest issue for me is variable visibility.

Rene/Osiris







< Message edited by osiris -- 7/13/2008 4:45:35 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 84
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 4:32:21 PM   
HobbesACW


Posts: 419
Joined: 2/20/2004
From: UK
Status: offline 		A few examples of how gameplay has been affected by the 1.03 visibility change :-

Fixed units coming under fire before they have a chance to unfix.
AT guns in particular positioned to ambush being destroyed by artillery, the 1.03 visibility change makes their position open to spotting. The ability to move units without being spotted as the scenario designer intended is now down to luck - if the visibility has changed you may not be able to pull off that surprise attack.

I have seen all these problems in just 2 turns of the scenario I am playing. If it wasn't a scenario I made myself I wouldn't know there was a problem but the scenario would be unbalanced without the player realising it.

I make a scenario as historical as I can but also spend 20 or 30 hours tweaking it with one eye on how the game will play.
It is a game and it should be fun for the players. Taking visibility into account during the tweaking is very important.

I await for the major changes to be made optional - especially visibility and I look forward to making some new scenarios with some of the great additions that have been made.

Thanks, Chris

(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 85
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 5:42:34 PM   
BAL


Posts: 222
Joined: 9/1/2002
From: West of the Missouri
Status: offline 		Two thoughts - and I promise to keep the bad cliches to a minimum.

I like the new assault rules.  More realistic IMO.

Go back to the original visibility rules, or make them optional, if that is possible. 

_____________________________

I'll try being nicer if you try being less stupid. - anon

(in reply to HobbesACW)
Post #: 86
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 5:50:54 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		Here is a quick and dirty TEST scenario for testing out your assaulting abilities.

It's NOT fancy at all, but will give you a good opportunity to test out the assaulting abilities.

It is for EAST FRONT.

Play as AXIS.

Average for capturing all of the Russian forces is turn 6 of 10.

Jason Petho

Attachment (1)

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to HobbesACW)
Post #: 87
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 7:10:30 PM   
Bioman

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		I just finished the first scenario of a DCG that I started awhile back with 1.02. I am now upgraded to 1.03. Here are some of the observations that I have noticed:
1- Artillery fire is devestating. Seldom saw a no effect result but always had at least 1 SP in casualties.
2- Some German trucks have their 3D picture changed when they unload.
3- Assualt rules seemed to work just as they always have. Surround and assault then the units are captured.
4- German infantry and tank fire also devestating. Many full strength Russian MG squads eliminated when fired     upon for first time. Never had a no effect combat result from any direct fire from either Germans or Russians. Most attacks on 3SP units or less resulted in elimination and not a reduction of SP's.
5- Having Russian 45mmAT guns fire and not be sighted worked very well. Although it was annoying.

Since I started this in 1.02 I don't know if this had anything to do with the results that I got.

Nick

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 88
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 7:14:35 PM   
cromlechi

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/24/2008
Status: offline 		I
quote:

It's NOT fancy at all, but will give you a good opportunity to test out the assaulting abilities.



I've tried this out quickly and I think it's huge improvement over the old rules, this has been born out, so far, in my games I'm playing too. Just to be contrary I fear that if the new rules are to be optional then it would cause a lot of disagreement. Those attacking would probably prefer the option off because they would lose the herding sheep capability. I imagine most Soviet players would prefer it on given their assault troops. It's made the game more realistic in my opinion and is a definite improvement. I can't see that the change is radical either. I'm sure people will get used to it and a few tweaks are all that's needed to sort out the bugs.


(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 89
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 7:39:36 PM   
Schlonz


Posts: 51
Joined: 8/26/2007
Status: offline 		I've installed the update a few hours ago and played some Bootcamps and a little selfmade test scenario.
I really like the new features and units, but I'm not happy with the modified assault rules either.

For example:
Assault 1: 6 SP Inf Pltn vs. 6 SP empty Wagons, open; assault failed, Wagons suffered 3 SP loss and disruption.
Assault 2: 6 SP Inf Pltn vs. 5 SP disrupted horses, forest; horses withdrew with 1 SP loss.

I wouldn't call this an improvement towards realism. Wagons should be what they are supposed to be: transport and
- in case of an assault - victims and not a blocking force.
When you're playing a large scale armored battle in the vast Russian steppes, you might not notice the changes but
when it comes to infantry battles, especially in forest or djungle areas, the new rules will hamper gameplay, IMHO.
I'm afraid, many RS scenarios - where assaults are a main element - are not worth playing anymore. Instead of thrilling
assaults and counter-assaults the battles will be dominated by boring long wild-west style firefights without much effect.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Assault rule changes Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.719