RE: 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

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 > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:26:48 PM

sztartur2

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legionaer

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?)

Dear Legionnaer,

Let us do a little math:

Terrain: town hex, no improvment.
On German side:
-3 squads, maybe around 30 men.-All disrupted.
On british Side:
-9 squads, cca 90 men
-4 Armoured cars cca 8 vehicles
-1 Firefly company 11 Firefly tanks with very good soft target attack.

The brits had 3:1 odds in infantry and enough support to shoot the brown stuff out of the Fritz before going in...

Is this adequate explanation for you ;). Those who also play Combat Mission or Steel Panthers can feel the difference in capability I am sure...

Artur.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Legionaer)

Post #: 31

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:41:45 PM

osiris_slith

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

HI All

I havent played much yet but I think the new assault rules resemble SPWAW in many ways.

The defending unit being close assaulted in SPWAW actually gets to shoot back and defend it self in a close assault situation..you really need to have firepower around to take it out...

I think what they may want to do for 1.04 is what was done for Pzblitz and leader...double disruption or DD result. This means a good slog of firepower should generate a second level of disruption after which a close assault/overun is going to be 90% successful..

The new program in 1.04 could reflect this:
Turn 1
a unit hit attacked generates a dispruted result
chances of a overrun low

Turn 2
same unit which fails a morale check and remains disrupted is attacked again and this generates a second disrupted result
unit is now double dispersed: chances of morale recovery slim and chances of a successful overun/close assault high..

its a simple yet realistic fix..

A double dispersal represents a unit so disorganized by combat that it cannot function effectively as a cohesive formation and is essentially wiped out as a fighting organization

osiris

(in reply to sztartur2)

Post #: 32

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:46:40 PM

Legionaer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

Is this adequate explanation for you ;). Those who also play Combat Mission or Steel Panthers can feel the difference in capability I am sure...

Artur.

Yes Sir. But don�t forget, we don�t talk about CM or SP, it�s the CS Board and that is another game with an another engine. I�m sure you know that, but i wondering why so often different games will be compared with another. I think a lot of scenarios should be revised (Turns, Victory Values) and the new rules appears in another light.

Ok, send me your turn, we should "test" it. I play the Brits! My mailadress is stefan0164@web.de

_____________________________

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 #: 33

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 2:54:58 PM

osiris_slith

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

HI

an extra 1 or 2 levels of disruption can be included in this game...

dispersed, double dispersal

or

dispersed, double dispersal, broken and routed

its well within the game mechanics

soft target like empty trucks when shot at go to automatic double dispersal, or broken routed
loaded trucks when shot at, unload their infantry and the fight goes on from their

osiris

< Message edited by osiris -- 7/12/2008 2:58:15 PM >

(in reply to Legionaer)

Post #: 34

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 3:09:47 PM

sztartur2

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Legionaer

quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

Is this adequate explanation for you ;). Those who also play Combat Mission or Steel Panthers can feel the difference in capability I am sure...

Artur.

Yes Sir. But don�t forget, we don�t talk about CM or SP, it�s the CS Board and that is another game with an another engine. I�m sure you know that, but i wondering why so often different games will be compared with another. I think a lot of scenarios should be revised (Turns, Victory Values) and the new rules appears in another light.

Ok, send me your turn, we should "test" it. I play the Brits! My mailadress is stefan0164@web.de

It was the Market Garden campaign first scenario. It was the squad in the southernmost town with 10 pts. I have no save, I finally managed to win it (ok it is not the hardest scenario I know...). Just play around with hte game and you will experience many cases like that.

I liked this game very much until now, but now I am considering whether to go on or leave it. I hope Matrix people will tweak the whole stuff. I do not mind if assault is somewhat harder than it was but not too much harder. If someone managed to encircle and disrupt my units he/she should take the credit and glory...

Artur.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Legionaer)

Post #: 35

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 3:47:32 PM

MrRoadrunner

Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
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,

I am honestly trying to hold back both anger and tears. I fell in love with the original TS CS. It was sustained through all the years of non-support when Talonsoft went down the tubes and Take2 took it over.
When Matrix purchased it and really wanted to develop it I was thrilled. I thought I would be playing this game into the future, from a comfortable bed in a nursing home.

Now I am ready to mail back my hard copy, (no I do not want a refund) and delete my files from my computer. Yes, the changes to visibiluty and assault have done that.
There are no minor tweaks here. There is no extra realism that has been added.

Don't get me wrong.
I liked the new units. I don't care if there will be hundreds more. They can be used as scenario designers see fit.
I appreciated that coding was done to fix many of the "bug" issues that caused the game to lock up or crash.
I love the new graphics and any little bugs in the graphics can be fixed in a future minor patch.

What you do not seem to understand is in the area of variable visibility there was an added unrealism that changed every scenario previously played?
You may have thoughts, "Oh, this is minor and is really cool to have visibility change each turn." But, in fact it seriously changed every aspect of play since the first scenario was developed by the original designers.
The same holds true of the new Assault rules. I watched a scout car unable to overrun a soft target half track that was unloaded. That's realism?
Tiger888 wrote: "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?" That's realism?

I sadly must say that the new variable visibility, and assault rules, have changed the game into a game that is not Campaign Series. It is not the game I love. And, if it stays in it's current format, it will be a game that I will not play.
The product that came out of the 1.03 official patch/upgrade is not my Campaign Series game. It is some other game that looks like CS but, it is truly not CS.

Minor tweaks or smoothing out rough edges will only work if they return the game back to the way it was.
Until then I am seriously in the balance. I just finished playing six PBEM games that felt like I was not playing the same game or opponents. I'm about to offer all my opponents their victory's and just move one.

I did have great hopes. But, was sadly dissappointed in the crew, and Matrix staff, in their releasing a product that changed the whole game and made it unplayable as the game I grew to love and support.
You guys so ruined something.
Defending or downplaying what you did will not bring me back.

_____________________________

�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 #: 36

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 3:58:15 PM

R.E.LEE

Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline

im not sure about the variable day night yet but the assualt rules i wish were left alone.its very much not real imo.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 37

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 4:12:12 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

When you have a driver hold off a scout car platoon, or a single Leader hold off a company of infantry supported by SP/AT, where is the realism.

As for visibility? Say you are playing the Germans. Some simple tactics play to the strength of the German armor. They can hit targets at range and can take hits at range.
You base a defense around that idea. As the game progresses the visibility of ten goes down to three. Suddenly you are fighting masses of Soviet armor at ranges where they can hit and do damage.
Now for the "purest", if it was in the 10th turn that means visibility was reduced by 1750 meters in one hour. Without the benefits of weather reports or foreknowledge whatsoever.
Luckily you have the new assault rules that will most likely allow a single disrupted Panther to hold off three or four T-34 companies, especially if there is a heroic Kraut leader in the hex? Sorry about the other lost Panthers.

The new rules for Variable Visibility and Assault have changed everything. In my opinion for the worse. It makes a whole new game? Every campaign or scenario ever played has been altered. It's not the same game anymore.

Ed

< Message edited by MrRoadrunner -- 7/12/2008 4:16:55 PM >

(in reply to R.E.LEE)

Post #: 38

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 6:19:59 PM

awc

Posts: 33
Joined: 9/21/2006
Status: offline

Gentlemen, I'm sorry but i too have had my hat handed to me when trying to assault hexes. Just assaulted a hex wooded only with no fortifications and was creamed. The space only had a russian anti tank unit in it. First assault with a 3 and a 4 strenth infanty platoons and lost 1 platoon in the assault. Second assault nothing doing, then i fired at it twice to kill it. That is so unrealistic and a complete frustation to me. Ihope you will return the game i used to love back to its original condition.

(in reply to Legionaer)

Post #: 39

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 6:56:07 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

This crap could so easily have been avoided if the assault rules were made optional like the armor facing rules?

Then again I heard whispers that armor facing may be a thing of the past too, Wow! Just what the players wanted? No armor facing rule, even if we want it.

No optional visibility, even if we don't want it. New forced assault rules that alter the game, forced upon us when we don't want them?

Please crew of Campaign Series "changers", can you answer the question of armor facing as an option?
You'll help me make decisions faster if I know that visibility, assault style, and armor facing are not going to be optional.

Since there were toggle buttons for optional use of some rules why weren't the visibility and assault changes offered as options? In PBEM opponents can establish which style they want to play and can refuse if they don't like to play in the old style? Gosh, if I started to run out of opponents I may be forced to use it. But, I'd rather it come upon me like that, then in a royal dictate from a few.
Making part of the game engine with no option just stinks. I heard these assault rules were part of the original EF game. When EFII/WF/RS were made they changed the rule to improve it in the game. Now you fall back?

Are people who play versus the AI all that numerous?

I'd like to see a show of hands next time the Beta cabal takes a vote on something.

_____________________________

�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 awc)

Post #: 40

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 7:10:39 PM

Erik Rutins

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

RoadRunner,

I'm sorry this change has upset you, please do not overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Have you tried the new assault rules much beyond the one unusual situation you had? We've had reports from quite a few others that they are working well overall. Since you're unhappy with them, the best way to give us feedback is to give us some specific examples from your play (in addition to what you already posted) where they don't meet your expectations. Or if you prefer, play v1.02 while the assault rule changes shake out and any necessary tweaks are made.

Your request regarding adding options toggles to some of the changes makes sense to me and I'll inquire to see what's possible, but let's give these new rules a chance first and see what the consensus is. I've heard from a lot of folks that really like the new rules as well.

Regards,

- Erik

< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 7/12/2008 7:12:33 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 41

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 8:19:04 PM

sztartur2

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

I replayed the same campaign with the Beta version of 1.3 where the new assault rules were not included yet-it was the first version of 1.3 published to forum members. Same situation in the same town. 4 sections of armored cars assaulted and overran the inf squad without any infantry and armor support. That may be also irrealistic but from the other side. Too easy. So Matrix designers please make something in between the current status and what it was before adding the new assault rules.

Artur.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 42

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 9:02:04 PM

Legionaer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur

I replayed the same campaign with the Beta version of 1.3 where the new assault rules were not included yet-it was the first version of 1.3 published to forum members. Same situation in the same town. 4 sections of armored cars assaulted and overran the inf squad without any infantry and armor support. That may be also irrealistic but from the other side. Too easy. So Matrix designers please make something in between the current status and what it was before adding the new assault rules.

Artur.

The sword has (mostly

)two sides. I think the Bug (Chance of survival of unarmored units and leaders) will fixed in the next Update.

_____________________________

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 #: 43

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 9:18:47 PM

TAIL GUNNER

Posts: 1152
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline

quote:

Making part of the game engine with no option just stinks. I heard these assault rules were part of the original EF game.

Ah, I remember in the original EF you could actually overrun undisrupted units!
Happy memories of blitzing Russki troops on the open steppe.....

Then Talonsoft said "Oops, we coded assaults wrong!" and "fixed" it in a patch.....which made it impossible to assault anything....

After much insult throwing and death threats, Talonsoft compromised and gave us the assault rules we had until the recent 1.03....

I haven't played enough with the new 1.03 to form an opinion yet, but what a feeling of deja-vu!

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to sztartur2)

Post #: 44

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 9:28:49 PM

R.E.LEE

Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline

Im thinking that Eric,Jason and the boys have got the message.I mean they want the best for us ,matrix always has done the rite thing.so rest assured they will make everything ok,i know this.The problem is it wont be till 2011 rite Jason.

(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)

Post #: 45

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 9:52:57 PM

HobbesACW

Posts: 419
Joined: 2/20/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

RoadRunner,

I'm sorry this change has upset you, please do not overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Have you tried the new assault rules much beyond the one unusual situation you had? We've had reports from quite a few others that they are working well overall. Since you're unhappy with them, the best way to give us feedback is to give us some specific examples from your play (in addition to what you already posted) where they don't meet your expectations. Or if you prefer, play v1.02 while the assault rule changes shake out and any necessary tweaks are made.

Your request regarding adding options toggles to some of the changes makes sense to me and I'll inquire to see what's possible, but let's give these new rules a chance first and see what the consensus is. I've heard from a lot of folks that really like the new rules as well.

Regards,

- Erik

RR has certainly made it clear how he feels about the changes to the game. I'm glad he has as I feel the same way although I am happy to play an earlier patch for the next year or so if some of these changes could be made optional.

It may be said that players still have the option of playing 1.02 or the Talonsoft version but we know that if nothing is changed 1.03 will eventually be the game that 90% of people play - we don't want to lose the game and the community we have loved for so many years. I've never played a game for more than 2 or 3 years - CS almost 10 years now.

Chris

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 46

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 10:17:15 PM

TJD

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

I have to agree with those who dislike the new assault rules.

I'm an old player of the Talonsoft games and I've lurked on these boards for months waiting for the new update. I'm sorry that my first post is a complaint but I'm stunned by this change. It seems to me that they were designed primarily with East Front in mind. No one so far seems to have commented much on the terrible effect these changes will have on Rising Sun. Many of the scenarios in RS are wholly dependent on the old assault rules -- the whole "blowtorch and corkscrew" approach is now out the window, and with all the advantages now going to the defense you'll never be able to dig the Japanese out of their positions. All of those great scenarios by D. Bevard are now unplayable. I just gamed one and for God's sake I can't even assault a lone leader with a Marine platoon in plain terrain. WTF?

Sorry to run on but I just don't understand why these changes were brought in at the last minute. So far as I can see, there was no widespread clamor for a change in the assault rules. It weren't broke, so why fix it?

I'm solidly in favor of a return to status quo ante. I'm hoping for Patch 1.03b.

/TJD

< Message edited by TJD -- 7/12/2008 10:21:27 PM >

(in reply to Tiger88_slith)

Post #: 47

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 11:17:45 PM

R.E.LEE

Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline

iM WAITING TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE that their 4sp tiger got destroyed by one of the civilian charachters it attacked.

(in reply to TJD)

Post #: 48

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/12/2008 11:32:08 PM

osiris_slith

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

Hi

Unfortunately I dont have the option of going back to version 1.02b? Can matrix put the 1.02b patch back on the site and give people some options till things are sorted and settled down...I really liked it when you kept all the archived patches around on your site. I found patch 1.02 off site but cant find 1.02a and 1.02b

rene

(in reply to R.E.LEE)

Post #: 49

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 1:53:41 AM

Huib

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris

Hi

Unfortunately I dont have the option of going back to version 1.02b? Can�matrix put the 1.02b patch back on the site and give people some options till things are sorted and settled down...I really liked it when you kept all the archived patches around�on your site. I found patch 1.02 off site but cant find 1.02a and 1.02b

rene

I thought you were a designer, then you would surely want to stick with 1.03 instead of going back to 1.02.

(in reply to osiris_slith)

Post #: 50

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 3:52:01 AM

MrRoadrunner

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

RoadRunner,

I'm sorry this change has upset you, please do not overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Have you tried the new assault rules much beyond the one unusual situation you had? We've had reports from quite a few others that they are working well overall. Since you're unhappy with them, the best way to give us feedback is to give us some specific examples from your play (in addition to what you already posted) where they don't meet your expectations. Or if you prefer, play v1.02 while the assault rule changes shake out and any necessary tweaks are made.

Your request regarding adding options toggles to some of the changes makes sense to me and I'll inquire to see what's possible, but let's give these new rules a chance first and see what the consensus is. I've heard from a lot of folks that really like the new rules as well.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

Upset, who me? For months I was telling anyone who would listen that you should not "paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa". I joyously downloaded the "upgrade" and found that my Mona Lisa has a moustache. Upset. Yes sir. I'm upset sir.
I expected upgrades that added to the game. I got updates that changed the game and for the worse. The new assault rules are the ones similar to Talonsoft's old EF game prior to disgarding them in the Campaign Series.

We, the players did not get upgraded. We got a great looking game that is not the game we have played for years.
And, as far as throwing out the baby with the bathwater? If someone switched my "baby" with a snake, I'd throw the snake out and make sure it was dead. Then I would go back and look for my baby.
Go back to version 1.02. Sadly, I think I may go back to the original Matrix release, that was a rehash of Talonsoft and then beg some patches off players who may have them.

Who in their right mind would think that adding things that changed the game, not improved it, would have not met with "opposition"?
Why would such expansive changes be made mandatory?

I was told by a friend that there was a vote and it was the vote that got the new assault rules added to this game. Well, the small amount of voters got it wrong. The election sucked.
You changed a game that had a loyal following for all the years after it went unsupported. There is a whole group out there that you have not heard from?
My God, resetting the assault rules back to ones that were rejected when the game was improved by the original designers? And, then not thinking that every scenario and campaign would be altered by it?

It is not like it was not said on numerous occasions. I've heard from two of the inner circle. One said that it is just tough and I should curse if I want to. The other said that anyone that did not like the update are a bunch of babies if they complain about it.

I've burned the tips of my fingers off typing about this. It feels almost as stupid as the time I wasted being a devoted follower of the game. I am not going to change to be a devoted follower of the new game that looks like the Campaign Series that I used to play. It looks more like the snake in the bathwater.

I'll continue to be a voice in the wilderness.

Ed

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 51

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 4:43:28 AM

dgk196

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline

I can't believe that I am about to do this, mostly because of his unwarranted personal attacks on individuals, but here goes........

I am in a 'conditional' agreement with 'RR'! I'm going to burn in he++ for that, I just know it!

But, maybe we should let the 'dust' settle for awhile?

However it works out, I think all can agree, that some of these unilateral changes would be better received if there were an 'optional' function available. Especially when some fundamentals about either the function of the game or the effects on play would result!

Don't want to 'pee in anybody's wheaties' but the implementation for 1.03 (and any future upgrades) changes should all have been 'optional'. Then as time went by and feedback came in you could see what could be made permanent and which sort of thing(s) should remain in the optional category. Then based on actual user feedback their 'permanent' or optional status could be determined and implemented! With the optional function 'users' could have 'flipped' back and forth to make comparisons and given those details, on this site, about what they experienced, which could be incorporated in future editions. You guys had (have) a lot of chances here!

I'm not pointing the finger here...... reliance on a small 'inner circle' never works...... to few people with to finite a selection of points of view...... its the same reason 'doctors' can't operate on relatives, to close to the situation for objective decision making! I'd give 'it' to people on the 'outside' have them evaluate it and then present that to the people responsible to make it work!

Just from a 'philosophical' point of view, isn't it always better to let the 'community' decide? If you would have incorporated these with an optional function.......

Few if any complaints, the 'status quo' is there for all who want it.

The discussions about the updated options would have gone on in a process in this forum more along the lines of, 'have you tried it', 'did it work for you', 'these are the things I've noticed.......and so on. Instead, you've already got people scrambling for the old upgrades, not a good sign!

I'm holding out on as much as I can (indirect artillery effectiveness against armor not withstanding) and I'll be watching this site for insights.

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.........

Dennis

< Message edited by dgk196 -- 7/13/2008 5:10:21 AM >

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)

Post #: 52

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 4:50:18 AM

XLVIIIPzKorp

Posts: 224
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

Well said Dennis.

Someone needs to make a movie about you.

and you're not gonna burn anywhere, Ed's okay, just a loyal "grognard".

< Message edited by XLVIII Pz. Korp -- 7/13/2008 4:51:25 AM >

(in reply to dgk196)

Post #: 53

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 5:19:35 AM

Dan K

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

I'd rather see ten patches with a little change each, rather than one big update with a lot of problems.

(in reply to XLVIIIPzKorp)

Post #: 54

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 5:58:21 AM

dgk196

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline

"I'd rather see ten patches with a little change each, rather than one big update with a lot of problems. "

I couldn't agree with you more!

Now I can bore everybody with my 'war-stories'.

The planes would 'come back'. Each of them had a dozen problems! What to fix first?

Complaint one: the pi$$ tube is too short! Complaint two: engine quits when pulling more than 3G's!

Which do I work on first?

If I asked the pilot, who experienced the effects of hurtling at the ground, out of control, at Mach 2.0, and had already pi$$ed himself,I think I could guess what his priority would be!

By the way, 'complaint one' was always signed off as 'checked okay by an enlisted man'! The complaining officer was never allowed to forget it! By his fellow officers!

Some things were not 'flight inhibiting' and as such 'stayed' in the book for a time when they could be addressed without interfering with the 'critical' problems!

Never, never did I send anyone out there with more than one 'gripe' to fix! I quickly learned that if you tried to fix all the problems at once, you rarely, no make that never succeeded! I went out there with all the 'gripes'! I would prioritize the problems, assign the personnel, see that they do the work according to expectations. Thats what we did, every mission series, every day!

In short, generally, if you try to fix everything at once, you may have limited your chances for success!

Just my opinion!

Dennis

(in reply to Dan K)

Post #: 55

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 6:28:50 AM

Fierce

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline

I agree with TJD,
Changing such a fundamental rule like assault has repercussions that could render existing scenarios unplayable, change balances, etc. Unless the scenario was written and tested with the new changes it should remain an 'option only' in older scenarios. A single problem like this can turn all of your hard work into trash.

Now I understand that these things need to be ironed out over time but how long do we have to wait?
Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJD

I have to agree with those who dislike the new assault rules.

I'm an old player of the Talonsoft games and I've lurked on these boards for months waiting for the new update. I'm sorry that my first post is a complaint but I'm stunned by this change. It seems to me that they were designed primarily with East Front in mind. No one so far seems to have commented much on the terrible effect these changes will have on Rising Sun. Many of the scenarios in RS are wholly dependent on the old assault rules -- the whole "blowtorch and corkscrew" approach is now out the window, and with all the advantages now going to the defense you'll never be able to dig the Japanese out of their positions. All of those great scenarios by D. Bevard are now unplayable. I just gamed one and for God's sake I can't even assault a lone leader with a Marine platoon in plain terrain. WTF?

Sorry to run on but I just don't understand why these changes were brought in at the last minute. So far as I can see, there was no widespread clamor for a change in the assault rules. It weren't broke, so why fix it?

I'm solidly in favor of a return to status quo ante. I'm hoping for Patch 1.03b.

/TJD

_____________________________

After all these years I still love the old tactical games.

(in reply to TJD)

Post #: 56

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 6:35:30 AM

osiris_slith

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

Hi Huib

I did not design patch 1.03..in fact I had no input at all into it. I do want patch 1.03 to work but I have said this over and over again in my posts..sometime less is more and this is where we are today..we have a bunch of upset people who are unhappy campers and some of them are die hard fans of this game and they probably know it better than I do.

So im going to try to put forth a few logical solutions, I just hope someone listens cause Im just a little scenario designer in this whole scheme of things:

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

Graphics updates:
Kudos to Jason and others�for the graphic upgrades while some are�outstanding there are�2 that are�not good for�or functional reasons.

Trucks in 1.03 are a mess..a loaded german truck goes dark grey and canvas on top..so anyone playing PBEM is going to know those are loaded.�I can make a local fix for that but it should be a community wide fix.

SSPzgd 44 platoon graphic, a number of people have already said its hard to see and doesnt highlight�with green borders. Again its a minor fix but again it needs to be a community wide fix.

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.

I do want patch 1.03 to work...I can make do with minor changes and bug fixes to�last 2 issues I brought up but with the first issue variable visibility it has a huge a bigger effect on the game than I think anyone realized. Thats why I would like the option of retaining patch 1.02b.

No offence meant by any of this

Osiris

< Message edited by osiris -- 7/13/2008 6:39:28 AM >

(in reply to Dan K)

Post #: 57

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:30:31 AM

cromlechi

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arkady

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.

Arkady

Is there a description of the mechanics of this somewhere? I think it's a good change as Russian submachine gun infantry often get a raw deal.

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 58

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:31:03 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cromlechi

Is there a description of the mechanics of this somewhere? I think it's a good change as Russian submachine gun infantry often get a raw deal.

Go to the sticky thread at the top of this forum titled:

v1.03 UPDATE is released and Full Change List

Description of the new assault rule is the first thing described in the thread.

(in reply to cromlechi)

Post #: 59

RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 1:52:44 PM

MrRoadrunner

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

I can't believe that I am about to do this, mostly because of his unwarranted personal attacks on individuals, but here goes........

I respectfully disagree with this comment. I've made comments against the post and not the poster. With one exception, a certain East German who thought that writing filthy attack private messages and e-mails would endear himself to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I am in a 'conditional' agreement with 'RR'! I'm going to burn in he++ for that, I just know it!

But, maybe we should let the 'dust' settle for awhile? However it works out, I think all can agree, that some of these unilateral changes would be better received if there were an 'optional' function available. Especially when some fundamentals about either the function of the game or the effects on play would result!

I'm willing to let the dust settle. But, why did there have to be dust in the first place?
When I was told that "all you little generals" should just stop whining and "accept the game as is this is the direction it is going", I got insulted. I don't want the turd put in front of me, call it a hot dog, and then be forced to eat it. Would you?
Then I read a posted message that said, "the official 1.03 upgrade is now available, let the cursing begin". Kinda gives some forecast that the developers knew that they made a major change to the game that might be seen as changing it into a game that "purest" would just love to hate, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I'm not pointing the finger here...... reliance on a small 'inner circle' never works...... to few people with to finite a selection of points of view...... its the same reason 'doctors' can't operate on relatives, to close to the situation for objective decision making! I'd give 'it' to people on the 'outside' have them evaluate it and then present that to the people responsible to make it work!

I call them the "cabal". Quite of few I counted as friends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
The discussions about the updated options would have gone on in a process in this forum more along the lines of, 'have you tried it', 'did it work for you', 'these are the things I've noticed.......and so on. Instead, you've already got people scrambling for the old upgrades, not a good sign!

Discussions don't work when a small few have a direction they want to go, blinders on, and the "pedal to the metal". How many times I said, "don't paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa, don't force major changes on the players, visibility variability should be optional, and don't change the game into something it was not intended?

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?

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 dgk196)

Post #: 60