Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question for Jason

 
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 >> Question for Jason Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question for Jason - 2/15/2009 12:57:04 AM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline 		Everyone:

The infamous "Odds and Ends" thread has been moved the the JTCS Support Pages!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=449

< Message edited by mwest -- 2/16/2009 1:55:39 PM >

_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein
Post #: 1
RE: Question for Jason - 2/15/2009 1:40:25 AM   
hadberz


Posts: 1629
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Moncks Corner, SC
Status: offline 		Are you talking about the one in support forum?

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 2
RE: Question for Jason - 2/15/2009 2:28:46 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		It was moved, as halberz noted.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 3
RE: Question for Jason - 2/15/2009 8:46:33 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by mwest -- 2/16/2009 1:56:04 PM >

_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 4
RE: Question for Jason - 2/15/2009 8:52:37 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

And I asked WHY it was moved - not WHERE it was moved.

Still not sure WHERE it was moved either.

But, first things first...


The reason is in the thread.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 5
RE: Question for Jason - 2/15/2009 8:53:55 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

And I asked WHY it was moved - not WHERE it was moved.

Still not sure WHERE it was moved either.

But, first things first...


The reason is in the thread.

Jason Petho


Got it.


< Message edited by mwest -- 2/15/2009 8:54:12 PM >

_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 6
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 3:36:22 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		When conducting an assault, there's also a counterassault.  What's the thinking behind that?  I always thought that was curious.  Why would the defenders counterassault?  Wouldn't that frequently be disadvantageous to the defender?  I would think the defender would simply try to withstand the assault and, if the defender wanted to, the defender would counterassault during his own turn -- especially if he lost the hex.

Have the combat results tables been modified?  I'm talking about attacks, not assaults.

_____________________________


(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 7
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 4:52:02 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

When conducting an assault, there's also a counterassault.  What's the thinking behind that?  I always thought that was curious.  Why would the defenders counterassault?  Wouldn't that frequently be disadvantageous to the defender?  I would think the defender would simply try to withstand the assault and, if the defender wanted to, the defender would counterassault during his own turn -- especially if he lost the hex.


They counterassault is within the same hex, essentially fighting for the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Have the combat results tables been modified?  I'm talking about attacks, not assaults.


For attacks, no they haven't.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 8
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 5:19:47 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding the counterassault, the defender is effectively forced to assault the hex it occupies.  That's what confuses me.  I picture an assault as units getting up and running toward an objective.  The defender already has the objective, so I don't understand why the defender would be getting up and running anywhere. 

I guess the thinking is that the assaulter occupies the contested hex for at least part of its portion of its turn, and then the defender counterassaults to push the assaulter back out of the hex.  I would think if the assaulter failed to take the hex, it would back out or fall back, and I would think the defender, if it wasn't particularly good at assaults (like machinegun platoons), would simply hang on rather than counterassault.  I would think a machinegun platoon, if given the choice of assaulting or falling back, would fall back every time simply because they are not designed for assaults.  Their assault values reflect very poor assault abilities. 

Conceptually I've never really understood why the counterassault was added to the equation.  I would think the counterassault would break the back of the defenders more frequently than the initial assault.  It kind of looks like a sucker punch.  If a defensive unit has good defense abilities but poor assault abilities, you would assault it not with hopes of winning the assault but with hopes of winning the counterassault.

I'm not complaining.  I have just always found the counterassault counter-intuitive.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 9
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 5:47:03 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
I'm not complaining.  I have just always found the counterassault counter-intuitive.


The counter-assault hasn't been added, it's always been there as part of the assault equation, ever since EF 1.00.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 10
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 5:59:45 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:


The counter-assault hasn't been added, it's always been there as part of the assault equation, ever since EF 1.00.

Jason Petho


Correct. The counterassault was present in the Talonsoft versions as well. The counterassault was something Talonsoft wanted, and I've never understood well the reason why.

I'm wondering if the counterassault is what left the regular assault rules so favorable to the assaulter. Disrupted units cannot assault during their half of the turn, but I think they do counterassault at reduced values. This could lead to some seriously imbalanced odds. Units use their defensive values when resisting an assault (and presumably when resisting a counterassault), but they use their assaulting values when counterassaulting, and, by and large, most units' assault values are inferior to their defensive values.

The counterassault is still there. What's the attraction? What's the selling point? Is the counterassault part of the problem?

Although this thread is addressed to Jason, I'd welcome comments from anyone.


_____________________________


(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 11
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 10:18:19 PM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
The counter-assault is an attack on the CRT using the defending units assault strength versus the attackers defence strength. Terrain plays no role. The CRT has no detrimental effects on the attacker. Thus, the defenders counter-assault is a freebie for teh defender with no downside.

umbro

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 12
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 10:34:48 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks, Umbro.

Does the counterassault have its own CRT?

If the counterassault uses the same CRT as the assault, does that mean the assault is a freebie too?  Or for purposes of the counterassault, are the adverse results disabled?

Under the regular assault, the only adverse result I remember for the assaulter was a disruption.  Then again, I wouldn't assault with bad odds.  I'm not familiar with the CRT for assaults.  I know you can access a CRT for attacks within the game.  Is there one for assaults as well?

So a defender can receive and adverse result during the assault and negate that negative result during the counterassault?  It wouldn't negate a SP loss, but would it negate a retreat result?  It kind of sounds like the counterassault was designed to give the defender a freebie at keeping a hex it would have otherwise lost during the assault.

_____________________________


(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 13
RE: Question for Jason - 4/28/2009 11:08:58 PM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:


Does the counterassault have its own CRT?

I do not believe so.

quote:


If the counterassault uses the same CRT as the assault, does that mean the assault is a freebie too?  Or for purposes of the counterassault, are the adverse results disabled?

The cost of the assault is 20APs and the potential for a negative result when the counter-assault is resolved. The CRT has no results that impact the attacker.

quote:


Under the regular assault, the only adverse result I remember for the assaulter was a disruption.  Then again, I wouldn't assault with bad odds.  I'm not familiar with the CRT for assaults.  I know you can access a CRT for attacks within the game.  Is there one for assaults as well?

The CRT used for resolving assaults/counter-assaults is the same for direct fire (just with different combat strengths and terrain effects). The disruption result you saw was the effect of a counter-assault by the defenders initiated by your assault.

quote:


So a defender can receive and adverse result during the assault and negate that negative result during the counterassault? 

No, all results are applied (except retreats). In the original assault rules if the attackers had any undisrupted units left in the assaulting force after all counter-assaults were resolved, and all defenders were disrupted after all assault results were applied then the attackers would enter the hex and the defender was forced to retreat. If no path of retreat exists the the unit is captured. Unlike direct-fire results application there is no chance that the unit(s) in question can retreat into an enemy ZOC.

Under Extreme Assault rules there is a separate phase of the assault process. After all assault and counter-assault results have been applied there is a "Morale Saving Throw" for the defenders. The defenders morale is compared to a D10(-1) roll, if the roll is above the morale of the unit the unit fails and is forced to retreat, otherwise it stays in place. The units' morale benefits from terrain and leaders and is further modified positively or negatively depending upon whether it "won" the assault or not. Whether it "won" the assault is determined according to an unpublished table.

quote:


It wouldn't negate a SP loss, but would it negate a retreat result?  It kind of sounds like the counterassault was designed to give the defender a freebie at keeping a hex it would have otherwise lost during the assault.

The counter-assault was really designed to make assaults more costly to attackers than simply plugging away from a distance. Under the original assault rules most assaults occur against disrupted units (whose assault strength is halved) and thus posed little threat to most attackers.

umbro


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 14
RE: Question for Jason - 4/29/2009 3:03:51 AM   
scottintacoma

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline 		I always figured the counter assualt was the defenders portion of the fight. Where they could inflict losses on the attacker. The attacker does the damage in the Assualt pahse, the defender in the counter assualt.

(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 15
RE: Question for Jason - 5/1/2009 4:37:05 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Currently engineers can blow a hole in a high wall so units can move through.  For low walls, wheeled vehicles can't pass, so, on occasion, it'd be nice to be able to blow a hole in a low wall as well.  I don't think the game is currently designed to do that.  Would that be something worth adding?

Also regarding high walls, you can see through them one hex, and you can fire through them one hex.  I would think a high wall would block visibility into the hex immediately behind it, and I would think it would block direct fire into the hex immediately behind it.  Is this just something the game engine can't do, or is this really the way it should be?

_____________________________


(in reply to scottintacoma)
Post #: 16
RE: Question for Jason - 5/1/2009 6:56:27 PM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
1925frank

I think the concept here is that the "high wall" is supposed to block LOS into hexes beyond it but not for units manning it.

umbro

P.S. the TEM of a high wall is listed as - in the manual, but it seems to offer a 0.5 in actual use.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 17
RE: Question for Jason - 5/1/2009 7:32:29 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Yes, the manual shows the TEM as "-" for high walls (or at least that's the way I remember the manual), which means the high wall provides no defensive benefit whatsoever and that the hex the units are in (behind the high wall) determines any defensive benefits.  That's what I find incongruous.  If the units are on the high wall, the hex behind it shouldn't matter.  Plus trucks and wagons behind the wall are subject to direct fire.  I've thought about rationalizing it as the units being on the wall too, but it's not a good fit.

Low walls have an effect on TEM, as do hedges.  Perhaps the manual is wrong about high walls providing no reduction in the effectiveness of fire into the hex behind the high wall.

_____________________________


(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 18
RE: Question for Jason - 5/1/2009 7:36:02 PM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		I am pretty sure that the manual is wrong (unless something else is protecting those bastards defending the Salerno landing grounds!)

umbro

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 19
RE: Question for Jason - 5/2/2009 3:26:47 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding high walls, I had a unit in an orchard behind a high wall that was fired upon.  The orchard made the effectiveness .9, but the combat result display showed .45.  The high wall might halve the normal hex TEM.

_____________________________


(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 20
RE: Question for Jason - 5/2/2009 7:53:22 PM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		Similarly, I fired on a unit in a village behind both a low stone wall and a high wall (yes they stack!) and the attack was at 28% (.7*.8*.5 for village.stone wall.high wall)

umbro

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 21
RE: Question for Jason - 5/2/2009 10:22:27 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		In the map scenario editor, if you plop one hex over another, it overwrites the first one.  At least, that's what I think.  I haven't verified. 

Is that true too with hexsides?  If I decide I want to change a hexside, do I first have to remove the original hexside or risk having multiple hexsides for movement and defensive purposes?  You can have a high wall and a road, and the road works through the high wall.  And Umbro just described having a low wall and a high wall on the same hexside with both of them working functionally.  I'm inclined to think hexsides don't overwright but accumulate for map editing purposes.

_____________________________


(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 22
RE: Question for Jason - 5/2/2009 10:40:28 PM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
In the map scenario editor, if you plop one hex over another, it overwrites the first one.  At least, that's what I think.  I haven't verified. 


I misspoke, hexsides only stack if one is a water feature like hexside (river, stream, gully) and the other a wall, hedge, etc. I was thinking of placing escarpment or cliffs in flat open terrain - they do exist you just can't see then in 3D mode, turn on 2D mode et voila!

Having tested High Wall it is 50% TEM

Now I just have to figure out how a high wall and village is (having checked again) 24%.

Sorry for the confusion.

umbro

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 23
RE: Question for Jason - 5/8/2009 1:32:10 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		I'm trying to create a Rising Sun scenario.  I get this message:

Failure to create bitmap surface:  C:\Matrix Games\John Tiller's Campaign Series\Rising Sun\icons1d38.bmp

I just did a generic map, did OOB with two countries to see if they were Axis or Allied (I knew Nationalist China was Allied but I didn't know about Warlords, which turned out to be Axis), and did a scenario file.  I then pulled up the game to see whether the units could fire at one another (and they could), and that's when I get the above message.  I don't know if that's because the scenario is so rudimentary or whether I have a more serious problem.  I don't want to go to a lot of work building a scenario if there's a fundament problem.  The problem may be that I don't have VP hexes or something else simple.

_____________________________


(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 24
RE: Question for Jason - 5/8/2009 1:52:17 AM   
umbro

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		Looks like your install is missing icons1d38.bmp (I know mine is)

Try copying icons1d25.bmp and pasting it calling it icons1d38.bmp

Then re-launch

umbro

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 25
RE: Question for Jason - 5/8/2009 4:10:23 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		I checked for file "icons1d38.bmp" as well and confirmed it wasn't there.  It's not in East Front either (or West Front -- I forget which one I compared).

I copied "icons1d25.bmp" into another folder, renamed it "icons1d38.bmp," and copied it back into Rising Sun.  I now get a message the same as the earlier one, except now "running3d38.bmp" instead of "icons1d38.bmp."

There's also a second message that appeared (and which appeared previously):  "Failure to stretch bitmap surface"


_____________________________


(in reply to umbro)
Post #: 26
RE: Question for Jason - 5/8/2009 5:03:09 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		I turned my computer off.  After I rebooted, it doesn't do it anymore.

_____________________________


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Question for Jason Page: [1]
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

1.793