Assault rule changes
Moderators: Jason Petho, Peter Fisla, asiaticus, dogovich
Assault rule changes
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'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
RE: Assault rule changes
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
Huib
- junk2drive
- Posts: 12856
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Arizona West Coast
RE: Assault rule changes
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.
We'll see how this change works. I need to master banzai attacks too and see if this has changed.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
RE: Assault rule changes
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.
RE: Assault rule changes
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:
I'm assuming that the last, all caps sentence wasn't meant to be included. What does it mean, exactly?
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:
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?
RE: Assault rule changes
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 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.
- Jason Petho
- Posts: 16617
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:31 am
- Location: Terrace, BC, Canada
- Contact:
RE: Assault rule changes
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:
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
- Jason Petho
- Posts: 16617
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:31 am
- Location: Terrace, BC, Canada
- Contact:
RE: Assault rule changes
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
RE: Assault rule changes
A new lesson: Disrupted units lose rather their VP´s! [X(]
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.
RE: Assault rule changes
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.
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.
RE: Assault rule changes
ORIGINAL: Jason Petho
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:
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.
RE: Assault rule changes
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
That could not be done so far at all?
H.Balck
- MrRoadrunner
- Posts: 1323
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm
RE: Assault rule changes
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. [&:]
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
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
- MrRoadrunner
- Posts: 1323
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm
RE: Assault rule changes
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! [8|]
“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
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
RE: Assault rule changes
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
- MrRoadrunner
- Posts: 1323
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm
RE: Assault rule changes
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?
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
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
RE: Assault rule changes
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
On the other hand you are right that unit with 0 assault value should be easily overrun ...and from my test it works
RE: Assault rule changes
And one more tip, George Forty: Tank Warfare of WWII
a lot of witness accounts, for example tank destroyed by 81mm mortar hit [;)]
a lot of witness accounts, for example tank destroyed by 81mm mortar hit [;)]
RE: Assault rule changes
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.
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
RE: Assault rule changes
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 [&o][&o][&o]
I like the news, but that´s my view ... and playable is the game also. The best and realistic CS i´ve ever played! [:D]
Regards,
Stefan
I like the news, but that´s my view ... and playable is the game also. The best and realistic CS i´ve ever played! [:D]
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.