RE: Assault rule changes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

Schlonz -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 12:26:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cromlechi

Have you actually played a game with the new rules? I'm playing Hill 239 which requires the Axis player to make many assaults. The game is balancing nicely and the Axis player has made good progress without any complaints.



I must admit that I haven't played a stock scenario yet, only the bootcamps and some little tests, including
Jason's "Assault Test". But from what I've experienced in this battles, I'm not happy about the changes.
A full PzIV pltn needed two attempts to clear an open/unpaved hex from unloaded motorcycles,
two full strenght PzGr pltns failed to assault a village hex with a disrupted 2-SP ATR pltn, etc.
When you're playing the offensive role, a delaying battle could turn into a nightmare, if you need to
call in arty strikes and assemble a complete Inf coy to get rid of a single Partisan or AT gun pltn
hidden in the trees along your axis of advance.

Sorry, but this is not the game I've been used to play.



e_barkmann -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 1:03:56 PM)

quote:

Sorry, but this is not the game I've been used to play.


But as you have admitted, you haven't played it yet [:)]



Schlonz -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 2:17:47 PM)

OK, you get a point, Chris [;)]



Matto -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 3:15:11 PM)

I must say, that I´m happy with new assault rules ... Is maybe too hard capture distupted enemy in good position, but it is mutch more better then old rules ...



Miamieagle -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 5:19:06 PM)

Its probably going to get fine tune in the Future. Probably with patch 104.Let just wait! We can always wait and play with patch 102b instead. It was fine patch. So far I have no major complain. I hope I do not have to eat my words.LoL



osiris_slith -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 5:28:38 PM)

Hi

Ive played the assault rules and I really like them..they require more planning then just surrounding a unit..now you actually have to have a firefight and really plough a unit down before you can do a close assault..I really do enjoy those firefights..

That being said as I have mentioned in previous posts..Eds bug has been found and even Matrix, Jason are surprised its there..there are some other bugs no doubt but it seems the bugs are in the units themselves..and maybe in the rules... Some units can assault trucks and unloaded motorcycles and others cant..so matrix has a lot of rechecking to do because I think they need to check each and every unit.

I think if were going to help matrix out is best to tell them what units cant assault empty trucks and motorcycles

The assault rules will work fine once all the kinks are out.

osiris




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 7:08:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: awc

gentlemen, I can't speak to much on the variable visibility, but as for the assault change and the artillery effectiveness i can. All i want is for the game realism to return. Having to assault a russian anti tank gun multiple times with no effect is not realism. losing my tanks to 81mm mortars is not realism that the old game had. firing point blank on russian tanks with no result is not reality. I have to speak up and say these changes to my game play stink,period. I hope others that have been experiencing the same problems as me speak up and do not sit back on the bench and throw up your hands, instead get involved in the discussion for everyones sake. thank you all and i hope that this is all that goes wrong with this great effort.


Actually we are being told that the new assault rules were added for more realism. Right?

Sadly, what they did was reverse and go back to a similar assault system that was in the original East Front game. Even though Talonsoft changed the assault rule that is what helped preserve the game for all thes years, someone has seen fit to go back and made a pendullum swing that is more ridiculous than the assault rules that we have been playing.

I had great hopes for improvements. I did not want such a radical change. But, we are also told that this is similar to what they did in Steel Panthers? Yes, and I see that a lot of the original Steel Panthers players still play the original game because they did not like the change.

It irks me that a small group of people got together to change this game. Not improve it. Yes, there are those who will enjoy the new assault rules. There will be those who hate the new assault rules.
In the end it will be who wants to have crap forced upon them and who will not that will determine the future of this game?

Just like in baseball three strikes and you are out. For CS it is three votes and anything is in? Saying they will fix glitches and bugs that will make the new assault rules work correctly is a farce. The old assault rules worked fine. These suck.

Sad that they have done this and wish to foist the crap on us and make us try to eat it.



Arkady -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 8:31:21 PM)

well, I actually see just small group of people compaining about this change... ;)

most people are silent and there are few who like the change and said it [8D]



dgk196 -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 8:36:50 PM)

So, I give it another try...........

Borodino '41........ my Pz III platoon has caught up with a Russian HQ..... I blow away his jeeps....... the 'general' hot-foots it toward the nearest Russian unit, 1K away, in the open the whole way.

I 'assault' 'him', the 'general' retreats to the next hex, no other effect........ I assault him again...... no effect!

The fat old ba%tard has dodged two assaults by all of the tanks, and he has managed to sprint 250 meters while under constant fire! No wonder he's a 'general'!

Dennis [:)]



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 9:15:55 PM)

I will give the assault rules another look. But, I am supremely dissappointed at what we have been given. Too many opponents have stopped until there is a fix, others I have surrendered to,  from the impossible position I was in, with not being able to assault non-combat units.
I believe that the game itself has been changed. I do not think for the better. But, I hope I can one day see if and how far to the worse. Or, it is just changed.
I have about six games still going, with the thoughts of seeing what the new rules bring. Each turn is an adventure. I do not watch replays so I get a blindman's view of the aftermath.

Whatever has to be done to fix the glitches, please do?
I'll wait but, I must admit I do not like the direction you have taken.





Jason Petho -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 9:29:58 PM)

Thanks for the chance, Mr.RoadRunner.

The glitch will be fixed ASAP.

Jason Petho



scottintacoma -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 11:01:43 PM)

So far I have had no problems with assaults. Enemy comander assualted, with 1 platoon of tanks, retreated once, surrenderd the second time.

Scott in tAcoma




Tiger88_slith -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 11:03:09 PM)

Jason and Matrix Crew - if the assault rules can be fixed for the non-combat units - I too am willing to give this another shot and learn the new routines - I really am and look forward to re mastering this new tactic of assaulting. I also look forward to defending against the assault - I have begun to think thru this one!

I do appreciate the fact that the matrix crew is listening to some of us hardened vets about the new rules and adopting a possible change.

Speaking of the "change" - can you tell us what you all are looking at?

PS - my two turns will be forthcoming tonight!



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 11:39:57 PM)

Tiger88 I had thoughts of putting out a screen of wagons, trucks, schleppers, and leaders while keeping my combat units back. They'd never be able to overrun the non-combat units and have a much harder time with the ones that were made for combat.
I'd be pinning a lot of medals on the donkey teams? And, Herr General you held off that company of Panther tanks brilliantly. [8D]
Circle the wagons boys, don't let them get at our T-34's? [;)]

I think I was overwhelmed by how all the glitches came together in almost all the games I was playing. It stunningly changed each game and not to the good.
Especially when the leader that held off three assaults from Panthers and PzKwIV's, while all alone and in the clear! [8|]



1925frank -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 11:56:05 PM)

MrRoadrunner, you're making a mockery of one of my finest moments in CS PBEM playing. I'll remember that leader for a long time. He held off three assaults and succumbed only on the fourth. That wasn't luck. That was tactical brilliance on my part. Talk about sour grapes! My only chagrin is he didn't take out one of your Panthers with him.

(In the absence of smiley faces, the above comments are sarcasm.)



big dawg -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/14/2008 11:56:13 PM)

Hi Jason/Erik,

I have heard from those that believe the Talonsoft EFII assault rules favored the attacker because disrupted units could be easily over run.

The new v1.03 Matrix rules are more in line with the original assault rules found in the original EF game that make assaulting disrupted units not an automatic victory.

Is there any middle ground ?  Thank you.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 1:03:21 AM)

Frank actually your leader saved more than you might think?

That was lot of action points wasted trying to wax his butt? I could have better used them shooting up more of your T-34's? [:'(]



1925frank -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 1:18:43 AM)

Precisely. You probably sacrificed five opportunities to shoot at my tanks. My leader was initially with a 1 SP T-34 in an orchard. In the initial assault, the T-34 was eliminated, but the leader survived and held the hex. I think you then tried one platoon, two platoons, and two platoons thereafter, and it was the last one that succeeded. This is the type of result that would suck the fun out of the game for you, and from my perspective, I got a monumental and undeserved windfall (my tactical brilliance aside -- which has to be put into question by the fact my leader was exposed in that way in the first place).

Under the old rules, I'm fairly sure the leader would have been captured at the same time the T-34 was destroyed, you would have taken the hex, and you could have proceeded from there to blast away at me with the other APs.

Shortly after that, MrRR had 2 SP Panthers disrupted in an orchard. I initially tried to assault them with 3 SP T-34s with no luck. I then tried 6 SP T-34s and still no luck. From that point forward I just shot.



SGT Rice -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 4:57:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD
… 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.


This was very well said; I sympathize with RR and all those who take issue with changes they feel have violated the integrity of a treasured classic which they have invested themselves in; not only playing the games, but also introducing new players to the game, designing scenarios, running tournies, moderating forums, etc..

I can also relate to those who see flaws in the game, have tried to take a shot at correcting them, and are willing to listen to feedback on how to improve their efforts.

It would be a shame for the community of CS devotees to become balkanized over a new version of the game, with different groups of players settling into Talonsoft, Matrix pre-1.03, Matrix 1.03+ subgroups, or any such devolution of the community.

Many players (myself included) came to appreciate the 'classic' nature of CS by playing the 'classic' scenarios. Much has been made here of the hazards inherent in spoiling the balance of existing scenarios. If these scenarios were somehow made unplayable by rules changes, were no longer the superbly balanced, quintessential slugfests that hundreds of gamers have refought thousands of times, that would indeed provide evidence that the integrity of the game had somehow been compromised.

Here's a suggestion for how to begin reconciling some of these multiple, valid points of view. The Blitz has a database of CS games played; the outcome of every CS ladder game on the Blitz is recorded there, indexed by scenario. Below is a list of 'classic' scenarios, based on the following criteria: the top 10 scenarios (in terms of # of games played) for EF2, WF2 and RS in which the win % of each side is between 45-55%.

Over on the Blitz there were over 40 players signed up for a tourney using v1.03; we've been primed and ready for several months now awaiting the patch. I'm sure most of those gamers (again including myself) really want to rumble, really want to support the community, and really want CS to be the best it can be. But the major rules changes in v1.03 have created enough dissension that many long-time players and pillars of the community are opting out of the tourney, or opting out of playing CS entirely.

My proposal is this: would Jason or someone else on the beta crew be willing to host a different Blitz tourney; let's play some or all of the 'classics' with tourney points given for speed of play, screenshots, AARs, rules commentary, in addition to wins/losses. Then we could definitively document - in a very open forum - what fundamental changes may have been wrought by things such as variable visibility, assault morale, artillery effectiveness vs armor, etc.

If this idea finds favor perhaps Matrix could help us out with a quick patch to v1.03 that eliminates any obvious bug with leaders/transports winning melees?

THE "CLASSICS"

Title________________________Date____________Games____Allied____Axis____Draws_____All%/Ax%
EF

Tank Graveyard at Minsk___ ___07/02/1944_________476___ __206______206______64_______50 / 50
Storm Five-Five-Five__________06/25/1944_________366___ __152______170______44_______48 / 52
The Battle is Joined___________06/25/1941_________270_____128______103______39_______55 / 45
Playing w/ the "Death's Head"__01/19/1945_________254___ __121_______95______38_______55 / 45
Bukrin Bridgehead_______ ____09/24/1943_________189____ __91_______73______25_______55 / 45
Counterstroke at Ilovaysk__ ___02/28/1943_________185____ __75_______90______20_______46 / 54
First and Last Stand_______ ___04/17/1945_________163____ __78_______70______15_______52 / 48
8th Panzer to the Rescue______11/28/1942_________160_______48_______58______54_______47 / 53
Crisis on The Oder________ ___03/22/1945_________153_______66_______66______21_______50 / 50
Holding the Bear at Demyansk__01/12/1942_________143_______63_______56______24_______52 / 48

WF

Kucher's Ragtag Circus________04/09/1945_________248__ ___110______116______22_______49 / 51
First Clash at Carpiquet_____ __06/07/1944_________243__ ___ 97_______91______55_______51 / 49
Still Full of Fight______________04/10/1945_________241_____109______111______21_______50 / 50
When Big Cats Come to Play_ __11/18/1944_________169___ ___68_______84______17_______45 / 55
Kidney Ridge________________10/27/1942_________156___ ___62_______79______15_______45 / 55
A Small Bridge_______________07/30/1944_________100__ ____42_______46______12_______48 / 52
Heavy Metal Thunder_______ __03/21/1945__________85___ ___40_______37_______8_______52 / 48
Fighting Frenchmen________ __05/12/1940__________41______15_______18_______8_______46 / 54
Hugh Is Coming_____________12/23/1944__________34______13_______15_______6_______47 / 53
Cracking a Tough Nut_________12/17/1944__________32______15_______16_______1_______48 / 52

RS

Hurricane on Biak____________05/28/1944_________158__ ____78______70_______10_______53 / 47
Breakout at Pemienta_________01/29/1945__________98____ __41______49________8_______46 / 54
The Battering Ram______ _____02/28/1945__________75______36______29_____ __10_______55 / 45
Struggle for Shoestring_______11/24/1944__________59__ ____25______29______ __5_______47 / 53
On Hallowed Soil________ ____04/11/1945__________53__ ____19______23_____ __11_______46 / 54
Battling Bastards________ ____04/06/1942__________45__ ____18______19________8_______49 / 51
Race to Monywa_________ ____05/01/1942__________29______14______15________0_______48 / 52
Line of Departure: Tarawa_ ____11/20/1943__________28______12______10________6_______54 / 46
Cracking the Gin Drinkers' Line__12/10/1941__________21_______8_______7________6_______52 / 48
Raider's Ridge_______________09/13/1942__________19_______9_______9________1_______50 / 50



junk2drive -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 5:15:05 AM)

My experience with some classics rated at the blitz is I got my butt kicked by being a newbie to all this and my opponents had played them over and over.

Playing with another newbie gave better results. I still stink though.

I'd like to play some newly designed scenarios with the new rules and units and see how the game plays. IMO some of the complainers want to continue to play those scenarios that they have mastered and now don't work out the same.



SGT Rice -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 5:29:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
IMO some of the complainers want to continue to play those scenarios that they have mastered and now don't work out the same.


I seriously doubt that. All of the names I recognize are folks who are ready to play any scenario, any time; several of them are scenario designers. Please; let's tone down the invective.



dgk196 -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 5:36:06 AM)

All right, particulars aside............ because that will / can go on forever.........

The 'new' assault procedures / rules result in a 'different' outcome from the previous version!

If it didn't, what was the point of doing it? And if it doesn't, how about letting 'us' know! Be specific (you ask everyone else)!

Assuming it does, then all of the previous comparisons and 'balances' are negated! Not maybe, are! Subtle changes in such games turn out to be not so subtle in the long run!

So, some part, or (worst case) all of my downloaded scenarios have just been rendered irrelevant!? And 'unplayable'! Don't know all of the who, what, when, where or why, but it 'bombed'! To think of the years of work compromised, by how many dedicated individuals, for what? To take this game into the 'arcade' category!?

Do I get to spend the next year, two years, figuring which scenarios have and have not been effected and to what level? Figuring out how to balance the 'victory conditions'!? Reading endless posts about variations and opinions about the particulars of each and every scenario, until 1.04 comes out? All because the 1.03 'particulars' wasn't made optional, and therefor comparative?

This cannot be what you had in mind, was it? Please tell me at least that!

But, its what you did!!!!

I'm sorry to be so straight forward, but the effects and implications of this are almost beyond reason! Some may not see it yet, but, they will!
You guys have been superior to virtually all other game companies in your support, but now............

And believe me, I hate, repeat... hate having to post like this.........because it puts me in the 'complainers' group, not what I wanted!

Dennis [:-]



junk2drive -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 5:51:08 AM)

That's why I stated "IMO" and "some".



dgk196 -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 6:06:13 AM)

I hear you! I tell you, this makes me sick to my stomach!

What makes it worse, it wasn't necessary!

Absolutely no reason for this to have happened, in my opinion, for what that's worth!

But I won't give up my game and the hope that all this gets straightened out!

Dennis [:)]

...I used to spend a lot of my money on whiskey and women......
...the rest I just wasted!



sztartur2 -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 7:21:56 AM)

I would suggest to make the 1.3Beta version public again until the fix of the current situation is implemented. I have that file and keep it like a treasure :).

Artur.




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 8:09:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

I'm sorry to be so straight forward, but the effects and implications of this are almost beyond reason! Some may not see it yet, but, they will!
You guys have been superior to virtually all other game companies in your support, but now............

And believe me, I hate, repeat... hate having to post like this.........because it puts me in the 'complainers' group, not what I wanted!

Dennis [:-]



I still stand with you Dennis, even if you do not want to stand with me! [;)]

We were promised upgrades that would make the game better. We were told that we were going to get more realism. We were told we would like the changes, "just wait and see"!

Well, my firm belief is that we did not get upgraded or more "realism".
We got a changed game, that is as much unreal as the previous.

Variable Visibility, Close Assault Rules, Artillery Rules, Engineers and Wreck Clearing, etc.

They sucked the fun right out of a game that existed long after it was unsupported and had bugs, the old assault rules, and "hard" visibility set by the scenario designer.

There was no improvement. Just change. [8|]



Arkady -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 9:15:28 PM)

Well I don't like the bug that 0 assault unit can not be over run but overall, new assault rules ARE improvement. I've played 100+ PBEM games on the blitz ladder (and another hundred outside) and revios asault version was terrible! Yes, I was used to it but combats where just two tanks overrun three disrupted infatry platoons in the villafe was insane.

Now you really need use combat tactic, setup fire support, supress the enemy and then storm the position with force...

Did you try Jasons's assault training scenario ? And you result ?



Schlonz -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 9:50:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Now you really need use combat tactic, setup fire support, supress the enemy and then storm the position with force...




Well, from this point of view, the assault rule changes seem to be a brilliant idea.
Unfortunately, each and every single scenario that have been designed so far,
was designed and playtested according to the old assault rules.
Assaulting a hex now will require more time, something you don't have in most
scenarios - at least, when you're playing the attacking side.
The lack of infantry units (for urban/forest assaults) in some armored scenarios
is another problem which could effect the outcome of a battle.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 10:12:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Thanks for the chance, Mr.RoadRunner.

The glitch will be fixed ASAP.

Jason Petho


Here's one that I do not think is a glitch but, it sure is not realistic either:

I am not sure how many times I'm supposed to assault or how many troopers I need?

I'm playing a game where a disrupted and out of supply engineer got whittled down to two strength points. The engineer retreated into a town hex that had a trench. Fully surrounded. He remained disrupted for two more turns and I attacked him with multiple units from multiple hexes over the course of three turns. The engineer undisrupted on the third turn, three shots to disrupt and reduce it to one strength point. It took the next turn to take out the disrupted one strength point engineer, after three assaults. That is attacking and assaulting over five turns. In a twenty turn averaged size game that is a quarter of the time hunting out a really tough "flea"?
Realism is a concept that I no longer understand. ;-)
If I recall correctly, I used between seven and ten tank platoons and eight to ten infantry platoons, plus indirect bombardment each turn.
Now you may find a "real life" isolated example or two like this, but the real life outfit surely was not disrupted, and out of supply, surrounded and many hexes away from it's nearest combat unit or leader.
This is an example to me that the new assault rules are surely not adding realism to the game, and that they are effecting the total play of the game, while changing the balance a little?

Ed



Jason Petho -> RE: Assault rule changes (7/15/2008 10:22:13 PM)

One could also ask how important those 6 Victory Points (10 VP if it was a German Engineer Platoon) were? Did they need to be assaulted, or could they have been bypassed?

A combination of units work best in assaulting. Using three rifle platoons with a leader is ideal. Don't forget that armour suffers a penalty when assaulting into a town/village/city hex.

Leaving an escape route may also be a good thing, have the engineer retreat out of the hex if a successful assault happens. Don't forget a retreat usually means a point of morale is lost, making it easier to assault!

Jason Petho



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75