RE: Assault rule changes (Full Version)

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



Message

Jason Petho -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/18/2008 8:06:55 PM)

Sending it to Matrix today or tomorrow.

Jason Petho



blue jay -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/19/2008 1:14:30 AM)

Excuse a dumb question,

Having only installed patch 1.03, will 1.04's optional 'assault rules' require an earlier patch as well e.g 1.02?
thanks
Jay

ps: how big is patch 1.04? Not on broadband here [:(]



Arkady -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/26/2008 6:28:03 AM)

Is 1.04 patch supposed to fix bug with 0 assault value units ?

blue jay: patch is 225.54 mb



Jason Petho -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/26/2008 1:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Is 1.04 patch supposed to fix bug with 0 assault value units ?


Yes, it does.

Jason Petho



Jason Petho -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/26/2008 1:57:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blue jay

Excuse a dumb question,

Having only installed patch 1.03, will 1.04's optional 'assault rules' require an earlier patch as well e.g 1.02?
thanks
Jay


The 1.04 UPDATE is cumulative. It includes all updates.

Jason Petho



junk2drive -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/26/2008 2:20:32 PM)

I thought the 1.04 Beta at 200+mb was cumulative and the 1.04 Official at a few mb's was not?



Jason Petho -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/26/2008 2:50:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

I thought the 1.04 Beta at 200+mb was cumulative and the 1.04 Official at a few mb's was not?


At this point, the 1.04 UPDATE will be cumulative as to not to cause confusion with the various UPDATES. That's what I was told by Matrix.

Jason Petho



Arkady -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/27/2008 7:08:28 AM)

ok I checked it on second install, read document about assaulting...it seemsthat it works as designed

alone AT gun was overrun 8 times out of 10
two succesfull tank assaults was needed to wipe out battery of 122mm howitzers
0 defend and 0 assault units was overrun without problem

mortars was hardest to beat in assault, 0 assault value but defense 3 and they were able repulse two waves of infantry, they got disrupt status though and were eliminated in third assault

....
and one experience from current 1.03

surrounded stack of german units in chateu hex, 2 commanders, 1 disrupted battalion HQ, 1 undisrupted MG (with lowered morale), 1 disrupted MG and 2 disrupted rifle platoons (at half the original strength) and 1 disrupted engineer platoon(strength cca 4SP) captured by two full canadians infantry platoons with Commander (level 3), I don't think that this assault could had chance to succeed in Talonsoft's version of assaults




TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Assault rule changes (8/27/2008 7:24:53 PM)

quote:

and one experience from current 1.03

surrounded stack of german units in chateu hex, 2 commanders, 1 disrupted battalion HQ, 1 undisrupted MG (with lowered morale), 1 disrupted MG and 2 disrupted rifle platoons (at half the original strength) and 1 disrupted engineer platoon(strength cca 4SP) captured by two full canadians infantry platoons with Commander (level 3), I don't think that this assault could had chance to succeed in Talonsoft's version of assaults



there was a bug in 1.03 where units with leaders present in the hex were easily steamrolled, regardless the condition of the defending unit(s).



1925frank -> RE: Assault rule changes (9/2/2008 3:59:38 PM)

I finally downloaded and installed 1.04, and I reviewed the article by Jason and Wyatt on how the new assaults work. 

I remember in the old Talonsoft manuals, an author recommended you'd probably be better off with two assaults at 2-to-1 odds than one assault at 4-to-1 odds.  I think that'd be even truer with the new assault rules than with the old assault rules. 

If I understand correctly, 25 percent of the time the assault result will be completely independent of the odds.  Fifteen percent of the time the attacker has a chance of winning regardless of the odds, and ten percent of the time the defender has a chance of winning regardless of the odds.  If this is true, then an attacker takes a risk of putting all his eggs in one basket, because in 1 out of 4 instances, the superiority of the assaulting force is irrelevant.  The assaulting force is probably better off making a couple assaults at lower odds or perhaps even multiple assaults at unfavorable odds.

I've read posts where players have tried desperation assaults and won much to their surprise, and I've read posts where players have been thoroughly frustrated because there was no conceivable way the assault should have failed. The above would explain both.



borsook79 -> RE: Assault rule changes (9/2/2008 10:13:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I finally downloaded and installed 1.04, and I reviewed the article by Jason and Wyatt on how the new assaults work. 

I remember in the old Talonsoft manuals, an author recommended you'd probably be better off with two assaults at 2-to-1 odds than one assault at 4-to-1 odds.  I think that'd be even truer with the new assault rules than with the old assault rules. 

If I understand correctly, 25 percent of the time the assault result will be completely independent of the odds.  Fifteen percent of the time the attacker has a chance of winning regardless of the odds, and ten percent of the time the defender has a chance of winning regardless of the odds.  If this is true, then an attacker takes a risk of putting all his eggs in one basket, because in 1 out of 4 instances, the superiority of the assaulting force is irrelevant.  The assaulting force is probably better off making a couple assaults at lower odds or perhaps even multiple assaults at unfavorable odds.

I've read posts where players have tried desperation assaults and won much to their surprise, and I've read posts where players have been thoroughly frustrated because there was no conceivable way the assault should have failed. The above would explain both.

But is this really a good idea? Should there be a chance to win the assault no matter what? I am not really sure whether this makes sense... esp at such a high chance.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875