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  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 7:40:48 PM   
StrykerHB

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 7/13/2008
Status: offline
Hello, I just wanted to post that I totally agree with Mr Roadrunner on this issue and have seen similar ridiculous assault outcomes, this (and other things brought up on the blitz message boards previously)has ruined the game for me too (variable visibility? over 6 minutes? Bridge building, mine laying? in 6 minutes? do me a favour)... it has also split the CS community as to which patch to use, whether to go back to the old version, wait for a patch, patch gets taken down - new patch arrives, game changes.. etcetera etcetera...

I don't want to get into specifics in this post, it seems the changes are welcomed by the majority so that's fine, I also agree that making things optional isn't really a way forward as some may struggle to find opponents who wish to play by the same rules....

Personally, I have already cancelled all my PBEM games as they are ruined, I will check back in a couple of months to see how it all ends up and decide if I want to come back to it.

I have no animosity at all toward Matrix games, it's not their fault that I don't like the new game.

Paul... aka Stryker@theblitz

(in reply to cromlechi)
Post #: 91
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 7:54:07 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33958
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrykerHB
Hello, I just wanted to post that I totally agree with Mr Roadrunner on this issue and have seen similar ridiculous assault outcomes, this (and other things brought up on the blitz message boards previously)has ruined the game for me too (variable visibility? over 6 minutes? Bridge building, mine laying? in 6 minutes? do me a favour)... it has also split the CS community as to which patch to use, whether to go back to the old version, wait for a patch, patch gets taken down - new patch arrives, game changes.. etcetera etcetera...


I don't frequent the Blitz or read the message boards there, but I'm certainly concerned about splitting the community. However, I would encourage anyone who's unhappy with the changes to simply stay at one of the previous patch versions while continuing to give us feedback. No new update is mandatory and there's certainly always room for discussion. I definitely understand that some folks want the game to stay as it always was, that is a concern I understand. We do want the game to grow, but we don't want to split or damage the community in the process.

quote:

I don't want to get into specifics in this post, it seems the changes are welcomed by the majority so that's fine, I also agree that making things optional isn't really a way forward as some may struggle to find opponents who wish to play by the same rules....


That really doesn't make a lot of sense to me - I don't see how options can be a bad thing.

quote:

Personally, I have already cancelled all my PBEM games as they are ruined, I will check back in a couple of months to see how it all ends up and decide if I want to come back to it.


Why not just complete them in the same version you started them with?

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to StrykerHB)
Post #: 92
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:04:36 PM   
Huib


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrykerHB

Hello, I just wanted to post that I totally agree with Mr Roadrunner on this issue and have seen similar ridiculous assault outcomes, this (and other things brought up on the blitz message boards previously)has ruined the game for me too (variable visibility? over 6 minutes? Bridge building, mine laying? in 6 minutes? do me a favour)... it has also split the CS community as to which patch to use, whether to go back to the old version, wait for a patch, patch gets taken down - new patch arrives, game changes.. etcetera etcetera...

I don't want to get into specifics in this post, it seems the changes are welcomed by the majority so that's fine, I also agree that making things optional isn't really a way forward as some may struggle to find opponents who wish to play by the same rules....

Personally, I have already cancelled all my PBEM games as they are ruined, I will check back in a couple of months to see how it all ends up and decide if I want to come back to it.

I have no animosity at all toward Matrix games, it's not their fault that I don't like the new game.

Paul... aka Stryker@theblitz


Paul,
Don't you honestly think the old assault rules were ridiculous as well, eventhough you were accustomed to them: Like 2 StuGs capturing a 6sp infantry (or more) unit in a city?
It's a bit over the top to say that now suddenly all ongoing games are ruined, isn't it. That may be true for one or two games but certainly not for all. My expericience was that my ongoing games were actually improved.

Huib

(in reply to StrykerHB)
Post #: 93
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:23:55 PM   
Legionaer

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Mainz, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Here is a quick and dirty TEST scenario for testing out your assaulting abilities.

It's NOT fancy at all, but will give you a good opportunity to test out the assaulting abilities.

It is for EAST FRONT.

Play as AXIS.

Average for capturing all of the Russian forces is turn 6 of 10.

Jason Petho

I tried it and it´s possible in 5 turns.


_____________________________

I create and revise: Order of Battles, Table of Equipments, Weapon Values for Modern Wars (in work: DG Lebanon War ´82 -´85, DG First Indochina War ´48 -´54 and again CWE!)

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 94
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:36:03 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1086
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrykerHB

Hello, I just wanted to post that I totally agree with Mr Roadrunner on this issue and have seen similar ridiculous assault outcomes, this (and other things brought up on the blitz message boards previously)has ruined the game for me too (variable visibility? over 6 minutes? Bridge building, mine laying? in 6 minutes? do me a favour)... it has also split the CS community as to which patch to use, whether to go back to the old version, wait for a patch, patch gets taken down - new patch arrives, game changes.. etcetera etcetera...

I don't want to get into specifics in this post, it seems the changes are welcomed by the majority so that's fine, I also agree that making things optional isn't really a way forward as some may struggle to find opponents who wish to play by the same rules....

Personally, I have already cancelled all my PBEM games as they are ruined, I will check back in a couple of months to see how it all ends up and decide if I want to come back to it.

I have no animosity at all toward Matrix games, it's not their fault that I don't like the new game.

Paul... aka Stryker@theblitz


Paul,
Don't you honestly think the old assault rules were ridiculous as well, eventhough you were accustomed to them: Like 2 StuGs capturing a 6sp infantry (or more) unit in a city?
It's a bit over the top to say that now suddenly all ongoing games are ruined, isn't it. That may be true for one or two games but certainly not for all. My expericience was that my ongoing games were actually improved.

Huib


Better that kind of ridiculousness than the wagon unit, in a woods, that held off three Soviet ski platoons?
Realism? We were told realism was the reason that the new assault rules were given to us?
I've got to go back to reading my WWII history? I want to see how they made those donkey's and crews fight so well.
I know I've read of armor blasting away as it quickly drove into villages and caused the demoralized troops to surrender.
I've never read where a wagon train stopped armed troops from attack it. Maybe in the American West, but, not in WWII, on the Russian front.

And, yes that is one of the outcomes today in a game I am playing. It totally ruins the play even though some cannot figure out why PBEM players are stopping their games until a fix is given.
Hell, we cannot delete our games and then patch up to version 1.02B because they are not available.
Those of us that got stuck on the "1.03 improves the game" and we downloaded the official patch with joy, should have been told that the new assault rules do not improve the game, they changed it? And, there is no more access to 1.02 or 1.02b unless some individual saved it and you can get it from them?

Herr Huib, I know you have not experienced what I have in the past couple days. But, I have and it is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.
I'm sick of being told, "oh it's great, if you don't like it go back to the original". And, I am very sick of being told, "you'll just hate the new assault rules but you'll have to get used to them."

And, my friend, I am not angry with you.
I'm mad as hell against those who forced this on us. In your and my example's above they swung the pendullum from one side to the other, and there is no middle ground.

Some may say the old assault rules were unrealistic and really stunk. Some now may say that the new assault rules are unrealistic and really stink.
What did we get in the end? A game that stinks because we cannot play the old way we were used to?
That is the clear reality of it.
Trading realism for fun has just ruined the game that most of us have loved and supported for so long in it's original form. And, to top it all off we got a game that was changed and just as unrealistic?

I'm for the old CS game. I am not for the new game that I just downloaded.

I hope that the boys are willing to get back and look at what they did and find a middle ground answer to the assault dilema.
I can see being happy with something in the middle, but not the stuff we got. If they cannot find middle ground then I need my old assualt rules back.



< Message edited by MrRoadrunner -- 7/13/2008 8:39:19 PM >


_____________________________

“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 #: 95
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:41:51 PM   
StrykerHB

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 7/13/2008
Status: offline
Hi Erik,

Unfortunately, I only play against Human opponents and I upgraded, so my opponent has to upgrade too, some did, some didn't. Same goes for options.. if I don't like the new assault rules, I have to find someone who also doesn't want to play with them, most people seem to like them so that may be difficult.

Huib, yes the old assault rules were silly at times but I was used to them, I would like to have seen them improved. In my opinion, they are now worse, and of course, I am not used to them so my tactics no longer work when dealing with them, I don't want to have to try new tactics during an ongoing PBEM, so I cancelled them..my bad I guess..

I may be looking a little silly here, I nearly didn't post but wanted to give some support to Mr Roadrunner because I agree with him, my decision to cease playing at the moment is to allow some time to pass, get the game changed/patched or not and see what the community is doing in a few months... if I like it - I'll rejoin, if I don't I won't.. didn't really want to make a huge deal out of it.

with regards

Paul

(in reply to Legionaer)
Post #: 96
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:43:59 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 553
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline
I've just returned to CS (after about a year absence) and got back into playing Rising Sun.

I had not been back more then a few weeks (using ver. 1.02) when ver. 1.03 was released. Great I thought! CS ver. 1.03 has some good looking additions, bug fixes, new scenarios, units, etc. I down loaded and installed ver. 1.03. Currently, I am playing a PBEM Rising Sun "Bougainville" as the Japanese. So far, game mechanics seem to be working correctly - at least I have not noticed any strange or unrealistic occurances. My opponent has not mentioned to me any unusual events. Maybe after we get a few more turns into it, we may notice some differences. Anyway, I am excited to be playing CS again with new scenarios and units!

It seems to me that the best course of action for us gamers is to work with Matrix Games staff to identify and document specific problems with variable visibility, assault and any other game mechanics that look to be strange or generating unrealistic outcomes.

Give Matrix Games time to analyse the documented feedback and let them come back with suggested fixes and time tables to implement them.

I believe it is time for everyone to take a deep breath, relax and let's work together with Matrix to better CS!



< Message edited by mwest -- 7/13/2008 8:53:07 PM >


_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 97
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 8:46:19 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1086
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: online
Amen brother! Amen.
Thanks for your support.

Though I wanted to make a big deal out of it.
Because it is a very big deal?
And they would have slipped this change in quietly and we would have all accepted it without someone standing up and speaking out.

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 StrykerHB)
Post #: 98
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 9:02:41 PM   
Schlonz


Posts: 32
Joined: 8/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib

Don't you honestly think the old assault rules were ridiculous as well, eventhough you were accustomed to them: Like 2 StuGs capturing a 6sp infantry (or more) unit in a city?
It's a bit over the top to say that now suddenly all ongoing games are ruined, isn't it. That may be true for one or two games but certainly not for all. My expericience was that my ongoing games were actually improved.

Huib

Well, the "old" assault rules weren't perfect, but all scenarios have been created according to this rules,
and now the balance or even the playability of many scenarios is in question.

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 99
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 9:31:28 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
HI Erik and Guys!

I have an idea that might make all happy and it keeps variable visibility in the game..heres what I suggest

Variable visibility

Im not so concerned about variable visibility for scenarios designed after patch 1.03.

Stock scenarios on the other hand do need to be protected for variable visibilty.
Designers of scenarios recommend if armor facing rules should be turned on or off
Designers of scenarios recommend if a scenario should be played against humans or AI

So keep variable visibility as it is but give it an on and off switch. Let the designers and players decide how they want to play the game.

Can this be done as an interim patch? Keep patch 1.03 and issue a fix for the assault bugs against, trucks, wagons, probably horses and motorcycles too, clean up the german trucks and a on off switch for variable visibility..

Can we move into a solution phase now??

Rene/osiris




(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 100
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 10:28:43 PM   
R.E.LEE


Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
Agreed its so simple make variable light optinoal-assult rules tone down a little,BUT make sure lone leaders and non combat trucks and wagons etc can easily be smashed with no resistance.I mean am i the only one who sees how simple the answers are.And for those that are sceptical about assault,well by the middle of the war ALL sides were tough veterans,ALL starving tired and most disrupted,but when in a defencive area ie fortified or village etc,they defended usualy to the death.and so were very hard to dislodge ,just read your history.
quote:

ORIGINAL: osiris

HI Erik and Guys!

I have an idea that might make all happy and it keeps variable visibility in the game..heres what I suggest

Variable visibility

Im not so concerned about variable visibility for scenarios designed after patch 1.03.

Stock scenarios on the other hand do need to be protected for variable visibilty.
Designers of scenarios recommend if armor facing rules should be turned on or off
Designers of scenarios recommend if a scenario should be played against humans or AI

So keep variable visibility as it is but give it an on and off switch. Let the designers and players decide how they want to play the game.

Can this be done as an interim patch? Keep patch 1.03 and issue a fix for the assault bugs against, trucks, wagons, probably horses and motorcycles too, clean up the german trucks and a on off switch for variable visibility..

Can we move into a solution phase now??

Rene/osiris






(in reply to osiris_slith)
Post #: 101
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 10:34:40 PM   
cromlechi

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/24/2008
Status: offline



quote:

Well, the "old" assault rules weren't perfect, but all scenarios have been created according to this rules,
and now the balance or even the playability of many scenarios is in question.



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


(in reply to Schlonz)
Post #: 102
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:01:34 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1086
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: online
Amen Schlonz.
Did we get a plethora of new scenarios with the upgrade? More than currently exist with the former game?

I think not. We got a change to a new game and all the old scenarios, regardless of if you count the grass in them or not, are now thrown way out of balance.

It was what I was trying to explain, even when told that I should not judge the new upgrade. It just changed the way the game was played, and as I said earlier, it just changed the "unrealism" with different "unrealism".

I for one, do not like it. I hope they can find a solution that can make the old scenarios playable again?

_____________________________

“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 Schlonz)
Post #: 103
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:06:22 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1086
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: cromlechi




quote:

Well, the "old" assault rules weren't perfect, but all scenarios have been created according to this rules,
and now the balance or even the playability of many scenarios is in question.


quote:

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


Uh, Laddie, I've just had half my PBEM opponents take a step away from playing until the game is fixed. I've seen three or four "events" due to the assault rules and one or two "events" due to the variable visibility rule that changed the games.
I am very happy that you have found the new rules have not changed the game for you, in the one that you are playing, of course.
If I remember Hill 239, I must say that if Soviet trucks in the woods do not give you fits and when the Soviets have visibility that is ideal for them to shoot you and then it changes to favor them again in your turn, you may not be experiencing what the rest of us have?

Just a thought. I know I have been the most vocal here. But, I think the players who say they see no ill effects from the new "upgrade/game" patch, are not playing enough games.


< Message edited by MrRoadrunner -- 7/13/2008 11:08:29 PM >


_____________________________

“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 cromlechi)
Post #: 104
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:08:26 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
HI Erik and others!

I jst tested a bunch of panthers against trucks..with leaders and no leaders and they all died a terrible death..the panther platoon (4) doesnt even have a scratch on it..I noticed they dont die right away like before..they lose strenght points as you assault them and I think thats a good point and a great change ..Whats the problem here? I dont see any..not even a bug! They died just as fast as in the 1.02b..theres nothing wrong with the assault rules..

I surrounded the trucks on 2 sides and they died just like same old same old..I can see where with combat units you may need to do 2 assaults to kill them but thats real..Units will fight it out if cut off..especially on the eastern from where prisioners were not taken too often

Cromlechi is right! The close assault changes work fine..keep it as is!

Matrix may want to do a test but as far as I can see it works fine..the horses died too ..having played SPWAW this makes more sense this change..Its a go for me!

That leaves variable visibility the biggest issue and it is a major issue for me and some minor graphics glitches as key issues to resolve.

Im all for with 1.03 but variable visibility needs to be addressed.

osiris

< Message edited by osiris -- 7/13/2008 11:17:42 PM >

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 105
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:14:56 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1086
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: online
Rene, I beg to differ.
How do you explain Soviet ski troops assaulting unarmed wagons in the wood and failing each time?
How do you explain the lone engineer strength point standing for a turn against multiple assaults and even killing two entire enemy tank platoons in the process?
How do you explain a Soviet scout platoon not being able to move a transport half track schlepper from a village? With three attempts. Not just overrun. I mean, not move it at all.
Were your tests in all kinds of terrain, including towns?
Mine were in all kinds of terrain from woods to towns, with and without leaders, in supply and out of supply.
I have not been able to come anywhere near duplicating what you have done.

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 osiris_slith)
Post #: 106
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:35:57 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1086
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Alex Fiedler
A positively huge update now available for the WWII turn-based wargaming classic
Matrix Games and Campaign Series Legion are thrilled to announce the release of a major new update for the acclaimed WWII tactical turn-based hit, John Tiller’s Campaign Series. This comprehensive 1.03 brings many fixes and manual additions along with far too many improvements and new features to be listed here. A full change list is available in this forum post.
The update addresses many longstanding community issues especially dealing with the dynamic campaign feature and the “Cave bug” found in Rising Sun. A few of the many new notable features include 16 new scenarios to West Front, 8 new scenarios to East Front, varying visibility factors (including night and day operations), massive OOB expansions and revisions, new units for the US Army, Germans, and Soviets, and new engineer capabilities (bridging, mining, construction). Also included are new, more realistic assault rules. The update is quite large (164 MB) and it is recommended that all Campaign Series owners install this great new update.
David Heath, Director of Operations at Matrix Games, said “Many issues and problems that have pestered the community since Talonsoft release the game have been addressed and it’s truly gratifying to see such a great game get that much better!”
The John Tiller's Campaign Series compilation exemplifies tactical war-gaming at its finest by bringing you the entire collection of TalonSoft's award-winning campaign series. Containing TalonSoft's West Front, East Front, and Rising Sun platoon-level combat series, as well as all of the official add-ons and expansion packs, the Matrix Edition allows players to dictate the events of World War II from the tumultuous beginning to its climatic conclusion.
Reinforce your countrymen at the Western Front. Swarm Japanese strongholds on your way to their homeland. Crush the enemy on the Eastern Front. Protect the U.S. coast from Japanese invasion. March into Germany standing victorious with your allies. This exclusive compilation proudly offers more than 350 scenarios, fought by more than 35 countries stretching from France to the American coast.
Get more information on John Tiller’s Campaign Series from its product page. This update is comprehensive and will bring the game up to version 1.03.
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/318/downloads/John.Tiller%27s.Campaign.Series



An interesting read if you stand back and then look at what has been written here?

Slipped in the variable visibility factor as if it would not change anything?
And, added the new assault rules for "realism"? More like bovine excreta to me.

The old ones were far more "real", and accepted (which kept the game going for so long) in my book.


_____________________________

“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 MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 107
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:43:57 PM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
Hi Ed

Well the panthers had no problems..none at all.

I tested SS Infantry against 3 Guards Assault engineer platoons (all set to 1 and undispersed)

I assaulted the 1st engineer with a SSPzGd 44 platoon SP 6..it stopped the first assault and died on the 2nd..and I mean did not retreat

I than assaulted the 2nd Guards assault engineer platoon with SSPz44 mg Platoon..this was a little harder..the MG couldnt do it..so after 2 assaults I brought in a SSPz Gd 44 platoon and that engineer died too

the 3rd engineer caused 1sp loss to a 44 SSPzgd platoon and than died a horrid death after 2 assaults

I cannot replicate what happened to you. The assault rules work fine.

It is entirely possible that there may be a bug in the particular units that you used..like the ski platoon..

What scenario did you play??

osiris

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 108
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/13/2008 11:55:54 PM   
R.E.LEE


Posts: 257
Joined: 12/14/2006
Status: offline
Played well, the reds have no chance.i think some trucks and lone leaders would be a good test,what you presented here played pretty realistic as far as my limited knowlage of this game go,however i did find in real senerios the (tough trucks )all in my way and using there horses to fight to the death seem to mabey be more of a concern.I never did or will have much of an issue with units in villages putting up a tough defence.(TO A POINT)i mean if hit from several sides and outnumbered 3 or 4 to one they do need to get run over.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Here is a quick and dirty TEST scenario for testing out your assaulting abilities.

It's NOT fancy at all, but will give you a good opportunity to test out the assaulting abilities.

It is for EAST FRONT.

Play as AXIS.

Average for capturing all of the Russian forces is turn 6 of 10.

Jason Petho



< Message edited by R.E.LEE -- 7/13/2008 11:56:35 PM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 109
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 12:24:53 AM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
Hi

I played Jasons test scenario for assaults. I can see where if Ive been playing EF 2 for a certain way for a while this may be very frustrating the new assault rules..that being said..the changes are quite good..

It seems the units can resist 1 assault for sure sometimes as many as 3..

So it requires some adjustment for sure..all I can say this about doing close assaults now...plan more, bring lots of firepower and lots of ammo and your assaults will work fine

Osiris


(in reply to R.E.LEE)
Post #: 110
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 1:09:42 AM   
Krec


Posts: 548
Joined: 3/9/2001
From: SF Bay Area
Status: offline
First off,  thanks for all the work on the patch and i am sure the game will be just fine when things shake themselves out.
Love 90% of the changes with the exception of the truck/horse/leader thingy.  Ive always hated those trucks from day one and the easier they die the better. 
The game has a hard core following and changes to mechanics will get a rise outta vet. players.  The optional idea is a good way to handle any changes.
Erik,  hang in there,  your doing great stuff here your work is appreciated.


_____________________________

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Patton


(in reply to Schlonz)
Post #: 111
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 1:24:25 AM   
awc

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 9/21/2006
Status: offline
gentlemen, I can't speak to much on the variable visibility, but as for the assault change and the artillery effectiveness i can. All i want is for the game realism to return. Having to assault a russian anti tank gun multiple times with no effect is not realism. losing my tanks to 81mm mortars is not realism that the old game had. firing point blank on russian tanks with no result is not reality. I have to speak up and say these changes to my game play stink,period. I hope others that have been experiencing the same problems as me speak up and do not sit back on the bench and throw up your hands, instead get involved in the discussion for everyones sake. thank you all and i hope that this is all that goes wrong with this great effort.

(in reply to Krec)
Post #: 112
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 1:58:56 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
I first saw this game with the "Europe in Flames" edition, which must have been in 1998 or 1999, and I've played it ever since, but until last Fall, I only played against the AI, where assaults played only a minimal role. It wasn't until I started playing PBEM last Fall that I realized I was missing a whole facet of the game that was critically important when playing against someone other than the AI, and it wasn't until I started reading the posts that I realized there was some dissatisfaction with the way assaults worked. I wouldn't know what's realistic and what's not. For what's it's worth (which probably isn't much), here are my observations:

Regarding the artillery thing, if we're talking about blowing treds, would there be any way to make the tank "fixed" without losing the VPs? If the tank got disabled in a combat zone, it could still shoot. And if the enemy destroyed my tank in combat, then the loss of VPs wouldn't hurt so much. I wouldn't think the coding would be geared for that though. Another problem with that would be the whole platoon of tanks would be stuck.

I have played Jason's assault scenario, and I found myself trying to flush the Russian infantry into the open, where my tanks could assault them. For the most part, the tank assaults overran disrupted units in the open, although once there was a "no result." When I assaulted infantry in village or suburb hexes, I didn't use tanks, and I'd get defender SP losses more frequently than before without taking the hex, and on other occasions I'd take the hex. I was able to overrun a hex with a Russian leader and another Russian unit in it. I generally tried to assault with 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or 4 to 1 odds, unless it was a village or suburb hex, in which case I wouldn't attempt an assault with 2 to 1 odds. Because I played with the fog of war on, I was never quite sure about the odds. I also found myself more intent on killing the enemy with a firefight than by assault.

In a PBEM game, my opponent assault a hex with one disrupted tank and a leader in it. The disrupted tank was eliminated but the leader held the hex. My opponent assaulted the hex on three other occasions, and the leader held it until the third assault, after which he was eliminated. So I've experienced this bug -- to my benefit, but my opponent is probably furious.

< Message edited by 1925frank -- 7/14/2008 3:26:24 AM >

(in reply to awc)
Post #: 113
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 3:36:05 AM   
Destro

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 5/31/2008
Status: offline
I just played a scenario in RS that involved caves. While they were significantly more difficult to overrun than before, I don't think the new rules are worth abandoning the game over.

I simply found that the tactics I had relied on weren't as effective as before, and I made adjustments. Y'know, like in a real war.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 114
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 3:38:22 AM   
R_TEAM


Posts: 72
Joined: 8/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hi,

i musst agree with MrRoadrunner ! (in nearly all parts  )

The assault code musst really be recoded with the errors he write.
And the VV (variable visibility) need to make->

a, optional per random scenario (per DCG)

and

b, adjustable per lodable scenario or LCG from the designer at turn base.

The GFX glitches hurt not much - it is a minor bug that can easy fixed with an little-patch.

But the problem is that both code fixes -VV make optional at first step (the editor handling of
VV come maybe later) and the fix of the assault code - need hard work from the game coder
and will take time ....
And this will split (hopefull only a little time !! ) the members of the great game.
The one half have the patch installed and enoy the 1.03 with the new units, the other stay
at 1.02b because the assault/VV problems.And the Games are not PBEM/NET-Play compatible

So the best sollution is relase a fix-patch that make VV optional (at quick fix for old scenarios/LCG)
and fix the assault bug.( i dont think the new assault Rules shuld make optional, if the errors with
0 AssaultStrengt units fixed it will play nicely)

Make the VV optional sound logical to me.Not all battles have fightet with changing Visibility and
this should at the players choice stay.

And ->Hint-> please bring by changing Visibility a message to the player ->

"... Visibility Have changed from 12 to 13 ... "

I think then all player happy.
The user that play old scenarios/LCG can play this without VV.
The user that like it can play with VV.
And the non-realistic assault happens should gone ....

R_TEAM <Aka R-TEAM>

_____________________________


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 115
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 3:55:59 AM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
With options you will still get a divided group. People can't agree on armour facing now. It will be nice to have options, but won't stop the bickering.

Steel Panthers is similar with SPWW2 and it's patch versions, SPWAW has H2H, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.403, and Enhanced 8.403

(in reply to R_TEAM)
Post #: 116
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 4:30:37 AM   
R_TEAM


Posts: 72
Joined: 8/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hi,

Yes, divided groups you have always, the one prefere RS, the other the EF ...

BUT with VV optional and fixed assault bug ALL players can play with 1.03+ !

At the moment the one doomed with 1.02b and the other with 1.03 ...

And i understand the armour facing bickering

At the scale who one tank bitmap NOT represent ONE tank this is hard to say
is armour facing a good idea or are bad .. a grey Zone i think ..

But VV is NOT all time on all battles (specialy on little battles with not more as 1-2h
playtime ).
So make it optional is sure a logical step .. and here i musst blame Matrix to take it in
permanent ON.
VV IS a nice addition to more realistic battles, but not all time !
-have played EF DCG and in heavy-snow the visibility changes during the battle
from 6 to 4 and to 7 and so one (was with the 1.03 Members ) and i realy feel the
different snow fall
This was nice, but in summer in France, i will maybe not have changes in a 20 Turn
battle.
And for historic scenarios/LCG the VV is a mess !
This shuold realy be thinked by the Matrix guys....

This is a problem with the "Time" in Game too.
It would be nice become with 1.04 or later the Game the ability to make Hex changes
in 1/10 steps.So in one turn you lay 0.20 of an 1SP minefield, or remove in one turn
0.30 wrecks.. and so one ..

The new toys good .. but need to adjust a little bit.
It is good that the Game can still play without this new toys from user that dislike it ATM.

But ATM all user musst play with VV and the assault bug, or stay at 1.02b ...

R_TEAM <Aka R-TEAM>

_____________________________


(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 117
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 5:39:16 AM   
cw58

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Hanford, CA, US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I first saw this game with the "Europe in Flames" edition, which must have been in 1998 or 1999, and I've played it ever since, but until last Fall, I only played against the AI, where assaults played only a minimal role. It wasn't until I started playing PBEM last Fall that I realized I was missing a whole facet of the game that was critically important when playing against someone other than the AI, and it wasn't until I started reading the posts that I realized there was some dissatisfaction with the way assaults worked. I wouldn't know what's realistic and what's not.



For a while there, I thought you were describing me. Especially the part about knowing what's "realistic".

I don't really have an opinion about whether the new assault rules are good or bad (sorry, I'm an AI player) but I do have a question for anyone out there with an answer. Were the new assault rules implemented in the unofficial pre-release or just in the official release of 1.03? Because I've done some assault testing in both versions and the results were vastly different.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 118
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 6:26:01 AM   
osiris_slith

 

Posts: 236
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline
Hi Jason

Check your e-mail..I sent you some files..I found Eds bug..theres a glitch in the wagon platoon and probably the ski platoons as well

Osiris/rene

< Message edited by osiris -- 7/14/2008 6:30:12 AM >

(in reply to cw58)
Post #: 119
RE: Assault rule changes - 7/14/2008 8:19:19 AM   
cromlechi

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

quote:

ORIGINAL: cromlechi




quote:

Well, the "old" assault rules weren't perfect, but all scenarios have been created according to this rules,
and now the balance or even the playability of many scenarios is in question.


quote:

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


Uh, Laddie, I've just had half my PBEM opponents take a step away from playing until the game is fixed. I've seen three or four "events" due to the assault rules and one or two "events" due to the variable visibility rule that changed the games.
I am very happy that you have found the new rules have not changed the game for you, in the one that you are playing, of course.
If I remember Hill 239, I must say that if Soviet trucks in the woods do not give you fits and when the Soviets have visibility that is ideal for them to shoot you and then it changes to favor them again in your turn, you may not be experiencing what the rest of us have?

Just a thought. I know I have been the most vocal here. But, I think the players who say they see no ill effects from the new "upgrade/game" patch, are not playing enough games.




I take it from the posts you have written that you would be happy if all the changes were reversed to suit your opinion no matter what anyone else thinks? Or are you prepared to have an objective and rational discussion about your and others concerns? Everyone who plays this game should have the right to an opinion. I have been playing playing this game since its first inception I don't need to be told I haven't played enough games. In fact the times I haven't played are because of frustration at the exploitation of the gaming system that is blatant and against the spirit of wargaming. At last we have people looking at fixing these problems and improve the game. And what is the reponse? Hysteria.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Assault rule changes Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.186