Assault rule changes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >> Assault rule changes

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 12:57:43 PM

Arkady

Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline

Hi,
I'm really surprised that no one comment this revolution change in CS engine.
It has huge impact on game play, of course especially in PBEM games.
As for now, battle was decided during few turns when someone was able capture a lot of disrupted units.
Now, disrupted unit are able fend off assaults when they occupy good positions.

It also increase combat efficiency of russian infantry, until now poor fire value and inability to win assaults against undisrupted units need great tactical skills to use them.
Now they can with repeated assaults destroy enemy (after several losses though) in human-waves tactic...it is great for more reality in scenarios of first two years of Great Patriotic War.

What I tested so far, it is one of the best changes presented in Matrix version!

I hope for armor 'keep-facing' retreats in next patch and I will be very happy.

Arkady

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 1:06:58 PM

Huib

Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

I am glad you like the new rules. I was confronted with the new rules just prior to release and was quite sceptical about them (even thought it was a bug initially). It takes kind of a different mindset playing with the new rules and I think many players will need some time to get used to them. If all works out as was intended by the developers, it is certainly an improvement. Scenario balance will be affected though, so over time I will look at all my existing scenarios and adjust them if necessary.

Huib

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 2

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 1:27:33 PM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

It can be quite depressing to PBEM against a master of "disrupt, encircle, assault, capture". In fact it can turn you off to playing the game.

We'll see how this change works. I need to master banzai attacks too and see if this has changed.

(in reply to Huib)

Post #: 3

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 1:55:44 PM

1925frank

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

I'm not fully up to speed on the rule changes. I read where using armor to assault infantry in good defensive positions (woods, towns, cities, suburbs) was now a very risky proposition. I'm not sure if armor should never be used to assault infantry in good defensive positions or whether you can still use armor and infantry together to assault infantry in good defensive positions. I think I also read a previous discussion where units that were normally very easy to overrun will no longer be so easy, but that was limited to certain types of units.

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 4

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 2:30:02 PM

Temple

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline

Arkady, I've been away from the game for a while, so could you explain how the new assault rules functions versus the old ones? And for us old grognards who still are trying to grasp this new-fangled "comPooter"

wargaming, maybe give some pointers about how to do a better assault?

Oh, and also I notice that the same (what appears to be an) editorial comment is still in the final 1.03 manual release. Page 62, second paragraph, which reads:

quote:

The Assault Value of a passenger unit on an armored carrier capable of assaulting (such as an SPW 251/1) is halved and added to the Assault Value of the assaulting carrier. However, the Assault Value of an armored vehicle is halved when assaulting into a village, town, or city hex. IS THAT AFTER THE RIDER IS ADDED OR BEFORE?

I'm assuming that the last, all caps sentence wasn't meant to be included. What does it mean, exactly?

< Message edited by Temple -- 7/11/2008 2:33:21 PM >

(in reply to 1925frank)

Post #: 5

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 3:13:27 PM

Legionaer

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Deutschland
Status: offline

Gentlemen,

i tested the EF 2 scenario "Into the city (southern Stalingrad)" with the assaulting germans. There are a lot of strong positions for the russian side. (Excellent test ground!)

My impressions: It�s indeed more realistic and little bit heavier to be successful with the new assault rules. But it�s playable.

The key to success are
... hold down the defenders
... and a combination of the assaulting units.

_____________________________

I create and revise: OoB�s, ToE�s, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (forever CWE!) Working on OoB�s for the new CSCW and scenario playtesting for the Beta Brigade.

(in reply to Temple)

Post #: 6

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 3:19:00 PM

Jason Petho

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Temple

Arkady, I've been away from the game for a while, so could you explain how the new assault rules functions versus the old ones? And for us old grognards who still are trying to grasp this new-fangled "comPooter" wargaming, maybe give some pointers about how to do a better assault?

Oh, and also I notice that the same (what appears to be an) editorial comment is still in the final 1.03 manual release. Page 62, second paragraph, which reads:

quote:

The Assault Value of a passenger unit on an armored carrier capable of assaulting (such as an SPW 251/1) is halved and added to the Assault Value of the assaulting carrier. However, the Assault Value of an armored vehicle is halved when assaulting into a village, town, or city hex. IS THAT AFTER THE RIDER IS ADDED OR BEFORE?

I'm assuming that the last, all caps sentence wasn't meant to be included. What does it mean, exactly?

As I mentioned previously, the 1.03 MANUAL was not adjusted for the final release.

If you are assaulting with a loaded halftrack, the infantry assault value is halved and added to the halftrack. But if the loaded halftrack is assaulting a town, the total assault is halved.

Hypothetically:

Infantry Platoon = 8 assault
Halftrack = 2 assault

Loaded halftrack assaulting = 6

Loaded halftrack assaulting a town/village, etc = 3

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Temple)

Post #: 7

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 3:25:57 PM

Jason Petho

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Hi,
I'm really surprised that no one comment this revolution change in CS engine.
It has huge impact on game play, of course especially in PBEM games.
As for now, battle was decided during few turns when someone was able capture a lot of disrupted units.
Now, disrupted unit are able fend off assaults when they occupy good positions.

It also increase combat efficiency of russian infantry, until now poor fire value and inability to win assaults against undisrupted units need great tactical skills to use them.
Now they can with repeated assaults destroy enemy (after several losses though) in human-waves tactic...it is great for more reality in scenarios of first two years of Great Patriotic War.

What I tested so far, it is one of the best changes presented in Matrix version!

I hope for armor 'keep-facing' retreats in next patch and I will be very happy.

Arkady

I am very happy you are happy with them.

As Huib mentioned, it will take some "relearning" how to assault, but the continuous surrounding, disrupting, assaulting tactic no longer works. (Which I learned over the years the hard way, and became rather skilled at it, but am very pleased with these new rules)

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 8

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 3:40:02 PM

Legionaer

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Deutschland
Status: offline

A new lesson: Disrupted units lose rather their VP�s!

_____________________________

I create and revise: OoB�s, ToE�s, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (forever CWE!) Working on OoB�s for the new CSCW and scenario playtesting for the Beta Brigade.

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 9

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 4:56:24 PM

1925frank

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

Adjusting the assault mechanics sounds like a major accomplishment.� When I first started reading the posts, one of the concerns was dissatisfaction with the mechanics of assaults, because they became too�much like herding cows (or sheep, for our Scottish players).� Being an inexperienced player,�I wasn't sure what that was all about, because assaults did not figure prominently in my�games against the AI, and the AI�doesn't rely heavily on assaults either,�but after playing PBEM for a few months, I soon found out.

If finding the right balance was a challenge originally, I would think tackling this issue required a lot of thought and experimentation.� Fortunately, we now have ten years and a great number of experienced players to draw upon.� I'm looking forward to the changes.

(in reply to Legionaer)

Post #: 10

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 6:48:42 PM

Temple

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

quote:

ORIGINAL: Temple

Arkady, I've been away from the game for a while, so could you explain how the new assault rules functions versus the old ones? And for us old grognards who still are trying to grasp this new-fangled "comPooter" wargaming, maybe give some pointers about how to do a better assault?

Oh, and also I notice that the same (what appears to be an) editorial comment is still in the final 1.03 manual release. Page 62, second paragraph, which reads:

quote:

The Assault Value of a passenger unit on an armored carrier capable of assaulting (such as an SPW 251/1) is halved and added to the Assault Value of the assaulting carrier. However, the Assault Value of an armored vehicle is halved when assaulting into a village, town, or city hex. IS THAT AFTER THE RIDER IS ADDED OR BEFORE?

I'm assuming that the last, all caps sentence wasn't meant to be included. What does it mean, exactly?

As I mentioned previously, the 1.03 MANUAL was not adjusted for the final release.

If you are assaulting with a loaded halftrack, the infantry assault value is halved and added to the halftrack. But if the loaded halftrack is assaulting a town, the total assault is halved.

Hypothetically:

Infantry Platoon = 8 assault
Halftrack = 2 assault

Loaded halftrack assaulting = 6

Loaded halftrack assaulting a town/village, etc = 3

Jason Petho

Thanks Jason for the explanation. I wasn't taking a cheap shot about that last sentence, I really was wondering what it meant. Your statement of "If you are assaulting with a loaded halftrack, the infantry assault value is halved and added to the halftrack. But if the loaded halftrack is assaulting a town [or city or village], the total assault is halved" nicely encapsulates the concept for me.

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 11

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 7:56:17 PM

Dumnorix

Posts: 793
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline

A modest question: Is it now also possible to roll over full correct (no disrupted) units ?
That could not be done so far at all?
H.Balck

_____________________________

My 3D - Community:
http://gunpoint-3d.com
http://www.fallingpixel.com/3d-models/military
http://www.3dcadbrowser.com
http://www.renderosity.com

(in reply to Temple)

Post #: 12

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 8:10:02 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

I personally do not like the new assault rules. They may be more of a frustration for me. It's one of those drastic changes that I do not consider for the good and wish it was optional.

I'm playing a scenario where my opponent is placing empty half tracks (transport, not fighting) and empty trucks in towns/victory hexes. I ran up to shoot one and had nothing happen.
I was curious to see what would have happened if I would have tried to assault the non-combat vehicle. So, I started the scenario versus the AI. I just tested the small Soviet scout assaulting an empty German artillery carrier, sitting alone in a town. Two assaults and two "no effects"! I then started a second turn, three shots a point blank range, with no effect. Then in the next turn two assaults at no effect.
Unless it was bad dice rolls, I have to say that that sucks. Big time!

If it is something I need to "just get over", it just sucks worse.

I can see things like this happening with fighting units. But, not with carriers that are non-combat vehicles. I think the potential future abuse by players in PBEM games will suck the fun right out. You will not need refugees blocking roads, just park the trucks and transport halftracks along the way?

Sorry to be down about this. I'm not really trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a massive change that really will need some getting used to.

_____________________________

�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 Temple)

Post #: 13

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 8:12:36 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dumnorix

A modest question: Is it now also possible to roll over full correct (no disrupted) units ?
That could not be done so far at all?
H.Balck

Heck, in my experience you cannot even roll over a non combat unit with a fully capable combat unit!

_____________________________

�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 Dumnorix)

Post #: 14

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 8:42:21 PM

Huib

Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I personally do not like the new assault rules. They may be more of a frustration for me. It's one of those drastic changes that I do not consider for the good and wish it was optional.

I'm playing a scenario where my opponent is placing empty half tracks (transport, not fighting)�and empty trucks in towns/victory hexes. I ran up to shoot one and had nothing happen.
I was curious to see what would have happened if I would have tried to assault the non-combat vehicle. So, I started the scenario versus the AI. I just tested�the small Soviet scout assaulting an empty German artillery carrier, sitting alone in a town. Two assaults and two "no effects"!�I then started a second turn, three shots a point blank range, with no effect. Then in the next turn two assaults at no effect.
Unless it was bad dice rolls, I have to say that that sucks. Big time!

If�it is something I need to "just get over", it just sucks worse.

I can see things like this happening with fighting units. But, not with carriers that are non-combat vehicles.�I think the potential future abuse by players in PBEM games will suck the fun right out. You will not need refugees blocking roads, just park the trucks and �transport halftracks along the way?

Sorry to be down about this. I'm not really trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a massive change that really will need some getting used to.

Ed,

My initial thoughts were exactly the same as yours and I'm still thinking about it and realizing, I will partly have to re-learn the game and play a number of scns against skilled opponents to be able to make a final judgement on this change.
That will take a while for me at least. No doubt in most cases this change is to the advantage of the defender, and it will tear the balance out of many scenarios. However, the continuous, disrupt, surround, assault tactics were far from ideal as well.
At the moment I think the intention of the change is the right one but I'm not sure if Dogovich programmed the parameters optimal for it. I'm sure the last word is not yet said about this. It's also a complex part of the game system, maybe it needs some adjustments.

Huib

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 15

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 8:56:38 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

Hello Herr Huib,

I understand and appreciate your words.
I'm dissappointed to have to "re-learn" to play a game when it seems to make the game, that I love to play, a totally different game that I may soon not like to play.
If we cannot overrun disrupted units with a relative assurance of success, and cannot overrun non-combat units then what is left?

Ah well. I always wanted to paint, move to the Netherlands, and cut my ear off.

I go back to my original theme that I stated when the un-official patch was released; I just wanted simple upgrades and support for the game. I did not want wholesale changes, ie. variable visibility and assaults that are not longer assaults.
I'm sure I'm going to hear a bunch of crap about how I think we should have stayed with the Model T and not have a speed limit over 20 miles per hour. That is not my argument. You don't take a car and make it a jet? You don't take a boat and make it lemonade stand?
Why, oh why, are these changes made if they do not improve, only change the game?

_____________________________

�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 #: 16

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 11:03:02 PM

Arkady

Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline

Well it takes me a lot of time to master surrond/disrupt/capture tactic but I still don't feel it right.
On the other hand you are right that unit with 0 assault value should be easily overrun ...and from my test it works

_____________________________

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 17

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/11/2008 11:03:03 PM

Arkady

Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline

And one more tip, George Forty: Tank Warfare of WWII
a lot of witness accounts, for example tank destroyed by 81mm mortar hit

< Message edited by Arkady -- 7/11/2008 11:08:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 18

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 8:41:02 AM

sztartur2

Posts: 672
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Budapest,Hungary
Status: offline

Gentlemen,

Wasn't the disrupt/encicrle/assault/capture procedure also done in RL?

I have yet to try the new rules before sating anything more in detail. I Just do not seem to understand the need of changing that. Especially not the trucks resisting combat unit assaults. It will lead to great abuse.

Artur.

_____________________________

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 19

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 12:02:02 PM

Legionaer

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Deutschland
Status: offline

Ver interesting to read the different views. But don�t forget ... the developers followed a target thought about the change for the assault rules in that Update. And i�m sure that was not done in a few hours. Respect

I like the news, but that�s my view ... and playable is the game also. The best and realistic CS i�ve ever played!

Regards,
Stefan

_____________________________

I create and revise: OoB�s, ToE�s, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (forever CWE!) Working on OoB�s for the new CSCW and scenario playtesting for the Beta Brigade.

(in reply to sztartur2)

Post #: 20

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 12:50:35 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legionaer

Ver interesting to read the different views. But don�t forget ... the developers followed a target thought about the change for the assault rules in that Update. And i�m sure that was not done in a few hours. Respect

I like the news, but that�s my view ... and playable is the game also. The best and realistic CS i�ve ever played!

Regards,
Stefan

Sorry to say, I do not think that is quite correct.

We were promised Upgrades, new units, new scenarios & campaigns, and bug fixes?

Instead of simple support for the game, a small group of "developers" decided to change the whole way the game is played, ie the variable visibility and assault rules. Whether they took hours, days, or months to come up with the stupid assault change, it still changed the game. it was not an update or improvement.
This is not simply going to be relearning how to do things, this is learning how to play an entirely new game.

I'm thoroughly disgusted.

And, for the comments (not made by you) about my test; I cannot help if others have not repeated what I was able to do, and see, when I ran my test with assault. But, I did see it happen over the course of three different turns. If it happened for me it will surely happen for me again and for someone else as well. It was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen happen in the game.

I do not know if I even want to continue playing the game. That, is how disgusted I am.

Message to developers and Beta testers; change back to what it was in a near future small patch. Do not make any more changes that CHANGE the entire game and the way it is played.
Correct the bugs and glitches. Give us scenarios and campaigns. Improve the game. Please do not change it.

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 Legionaer)

Post #: 21

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 12:50:38 PM

Tiger88_slith

Posts: 58
Joined: 10/6/2005
Status: offline

Jason and Matrix - I am still on the fence post when it comes to the new assault rules when it comes to fighting units, but unfortunately - when it comes to trucks, wagons, stand alone leaders, mortorcycles and wether or not these units or loaded or unloaded - the assault rules are just not realistic! I have my opponnets leader (standing alone) surrounded by several platoon of soldiers and several M18's and the lone leader is able to fend off the assualt. Do we really think for one minute that this really would have happened? THe assaulting routine needs to be changed somehow so that the non-combat units are not effected by the rules. This really swings the pendulem the other way and is now not very realistic and kinda ruins the game to be honest with you. I am hoping this can be "tweaked"?

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 22

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 12:53:18 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

Hate to say it, but, if that really happened ... the game just sucks now. Especially for PBEM play.

_____________________________

�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 Tiger88_slith)

Post #: 23

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 1:13:41 PM

Tiger88_slith

Posts: 58
Joined: 10/6/2005
Status: offline

Totally true Ed! This is just me and my honest openion now - but the assaulting rules have changed the game for the worse - and I am more than a little upset about this - the assaulting rules if they go as is - I may put this game down for awhile.... totally bummed out!

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 24

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 1:32:11 PM

sztartur2

Posts: 672
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Budapest,Hungary
Status: offline

I also played a campaign battle with the brits. A single disrupted platoon of Germans (ok it was a town hex but not improved) held off many assaults against 3 inf platoons 4 armored car platoons and one full strength Firefly company!!! Of course the german unit was surrounded by every hex! That is not realistic by all means. Please change it back to what it was...

Artur.

_____________________________

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu

(in reply to Tiger88_slith)

Post #: 25

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 1:45:37 PM

Legionaer

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legionaer

Ver interesting to read the different views. But don�t forget ... the developers followed a target thought about the change for the assault rules in that Update. And i�m sure that was not done in a few hours. Respect

I like the news, but that�s my view ... and playable is the game also. The best and realistic CS i�ve ever played!

Regards,
Stefan

Sorry to say, I do not think that is quite correct.
We were promised Upgrades, new units, new scenarios & campaigns, and bug fixes?

Instead of simple support for the game, a small group of "developers" decided to change the whole way the game is played, ie the variable visibility and assault rules. Whether they took hours, days, or months to come up with the stupid assault change, it still changed the game. it was not an update or improvement.
This is not simply going to be relearning how to do things, this is learning how to play an entirely new game.

I'm thoroughly disgusted.

And, for the comments (not made by you) about my test; I cannot help if others have not repeated what I was able to do, and see, when I ran my test with assault. But, I did see it happen over the course of three different turns. If it happened for me it will surely happen for me again and for someone else as well. It was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen happen in the game.

I do not know if I even want to continue playing the game. That, is how disgusted I am.

Message to developers and Beta testers; change back to what it was in a near future small patch. Do not make any more changes that CHANGE the entire game and the way it is played.
Correct the bugs and glitches. Give us scenarios and campaigns. Improve the game. Please do not change it.

Ed

quote:

Sorry to say, I do not think that is quite correct.

Ok Ed, you have another view about this, but that�s what i think!

quote:

We were promised Upgrades, new units, new scenarios & campaigns, and bug fixes?

Ed, there are a lot of news in the new v1.03, after my opinion nearly already too many units. How many units we need still? 100? 1000? or more? Bug fixes ... ok, here i agree with you.

quote:

Instead of simple support for the game, a small group of "developers" decided to change the whole way the game is played, ie the variable visibility and assault rules. Whether they took hours, days, or months to come up with the stupid assault change, it still changed the game. it was not an update or improvement.

Well, but Matrix Games is the owner of the rights and Talonsoft didn�t do a quarter of them for support in a few years what the guys from Matrix done in one year! A negative point is indeed that a lot of Hobby developer can do nothing without the Matrix men.

quote:

This is not simply going to be relearning how to do things, this is learning how to play an entirely new game.

Ok, but it�s possible!

quote:

I'm thoroughly disgusted

Can understand!

quote:

And, for the comments (not made by you) about my test; I cannot help if others have not repeated what I was able to do, and see, when I ran my test with assault. But, I did see it happen over the course of three different turns. If it happened for me it will surely happen for me again and for someone else as well. It was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen happen in the game.

Well, sometimes some members lose respect and fairness or think only they are in right. Or are unable to understand what is meant ... like me

quote:

Message to developers and Beta testers; change back to what it was in a near future small patch. Do not make any more changes that CHANGE the entire game and the way it is played. Correct the bugs and glitches. Give us scenarios and campaigns. Improve the game. Please do not change it.

I�m sure that would be a wrong way! I think we need time to learn to like the new rules. But what i really not understand ... why you are so strong against this news?

Regards,
Stefan

_____________________________

I create and revise: OoB�s, ToE�s, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (forever CWE!) Working on OoB�s for the new CSCW and scenario playtesting for the Beta Brigade.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 26

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 1:51:27 PM

Temple

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline

Well now I am confused. I thought people were complaining because the new rule made assaults too easy. But now it is the opinion of many that assaults have become too hard?

(in reply to sztartur2)

Post #: 27

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:09:03 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Hi folks,

We're watching and listening, be assured that we'll be making tweak to address any unusual cases where the new assault rules are causing issues. The goal of the team in introducing these rules, which they've been testing in another release for a few months, was to reduce some unrealistic aspects of the old rules. With that said, any rough edges will be addressed, we're discussing in the background and watching your 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 Temple)

Post #: 28

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:18:02 PM

Legionaer

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

I also played a campaign battle with the brits. A single disrupted platoon of Germans (ok it was a town hex but not improved) held off many assaults against 3 inf platoons 4 armored car platoons and one full strength Firefly company!!! Of course the german unit was surrounded by every hex! That is not realistic by all means. Please change it back to what it was...

Artur.

Why do you think it�s unrealistic? In the history of war it�s also possible that a few men in strong positions hold against superior opponents. Disrupted or not, now it�s an adventure to assault units in strong positions, because they can still resist ... and thats not historical?

I believe it was announced that infantry especially in towns have now stronger combats values. Of course the german unit was surrounded by every hex! Well, they fight for their lives!

Tanks and other armored vehicles are not weapons to assault infantry in towns now. (I think i read that?)

_____________________________

I create and revise: OoB�s, ToE�s, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (forever CWE!) Working on OoB�s for the new CSCW and scenario playtesting for the Beta Brigade.

(in reply to sztartur2)

Post #: 29

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:20:58 PM

Legionaer

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi folks,

We're watching and listening, be assured that we'll be making tweak to address any unusual cases where the new assault rules are causing issues. The goal of the team in introducing these rules, which they've been testing in another release for a few months, was to reduce some unrealistic aspects of the old rules. With that said, any rough edges will be addressed, we're discussing in the background and watching your feedback.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, that�s the point!

_____________________________

I create and revise: OoB�s, ToE�s, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (forever CWE!) Working on OoB�s for the new CSCW and scenario playtesting for the Beta Brigade.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 30