Assault rule changes

John Tiller's Campaign Series 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. We are working together with original programmer John Tiller to bring you this updated edition.

Moderators: Jason Petho, Peter Fisla, asiaticus, dogovich

Post Reply
User avatar
MrRoadrunner
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by MrRoadrunner »

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Do you play the game? Have you played the game? Have you spent hundreds of hours playing against the AI or Human opponents?
In the few days, I've played, with Variable Visibility and in the last two days of Close Assault, I have seen my PBEM experience radically changed. And, not for the better.

Ok, we're now getting somewhere. Can you please give me some specific examples from your play in the last few days, other than the single one you've posted so far, where these rules radically changed your gameplay in a negative way? Seriously, this feedback would be very valuable for everyone and far more likely to have results than general comments.

Ugh! This is going beyond specious and tedious.
I am playing Red Steel at Fedorovka. Variable visibility has taken the game to a visibility level of three. Quite favors the Soviets. The game plays to a point where the overwhelming numbers of Soviets can be beaten back by the range and firepower of the German armor. The Soviets can still win the game by holding four or five victory hexes located in towns. obviously moving forward to accept losses from the better opportunity fire rules (better from ambush) to move into the towns, hoping to be helped by the better armor protection of the German armor.
Then through all the losses and fighting into the teeth of Soviet strengths the new assault rules make it more difficult for the Germans to assault and overrun. I'm not just talking surround and capture. I'm talking just to push Soviet armor back.

I've seen this similar occurance in four or five other games where close assault in the later part of the game are winning solutions, and always have been.

In one I whittled down a German engineer taking it from a five to a one strength, I then attempted to assault it with three platoons of infantry and numerous tank platoons from multiple hexes. Surrounded and disrupted these stalwarts managed to hold the hex and kill two full tank platoons. Realistic, who knows? Not much was added to the game by doing it?

Lastly, because I am tired of typing. I had a situation where my opponent placed a half tack mover (non-combat) in a town/victory hex. I shot at it and did nothing. But, curious, I started the game manual to manual and repeated the placing of the non-combat vehicle in the town/victory hex, while moving my scout into position. I then moved forward and assaulted, twice, the non-combat unit for two no effect. I ended the turn and started the next, ending it and assaulted the non-combat unit three times to no effect.
Realism, right! [8|]

I'm done. It's now up to you guys to determine which direction I go in.

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
User avatar
MrRoadrunner
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by MrRoadrunner »

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

I look forward to new scenarios with all the new units and features. I've had my share of PBEM with people that have played the old ones so many times that they can beat me with their eyes closed.

Believe me Junk, I was too.
I cannot play most in my sleep, but I can probably get there because I know where to go. [;)]

I had to put a tournament on hold because every custom scenario designed for the tournament would no longer be "balanced" because of the new rules.
It represented hundreds of hours of work up to this point and I was going to spend a few more hours before starting so I could see what effect the new rule changes would do. Running tournaments are enough of a pain in the butt that I little needed this kind of change.

Now I'm thinking that I just do not want to waste my time putting in the effort. I designed the scenario's with CS in mind. I am not sure how they will work in this "new game" we have been given.

It's just my honest opinion.

“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
User avatar
junk2drive
Posts: 12856
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Arizona West Coast

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by junk2drive »

If you need a tester for the tourney scenarios, let me know. As long as they are not huge monsters. I have a short attention span.
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."
osiris_slith
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:24 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by osiris_slith »

HI Erik

I will try to be clear as I can as to why as a scenario designer why variable visibility is not the best comprimise in the world.

Variable Visibility

1: The original stock scenarios were not designed with this feature so the designers made no adjustments for the changes in visibility. These are really good scenarios, they dont need any changes.

2: The LCG I designed for JTCS was never meant to be played with variable visibility, a change invisibility of 2-3 hexes can be devestating. One scenario simulating a meeting engagement between tanks on a plain (no trees to hide in). I made the visibility 8. The reason being it would simulate a hazy day and the german panthers could not use their long range gunnery to full effect and it would allow the russian tanks to close in (most russian tanks 99% can shoot only up to 6-8 hexes). Now the visibility switches to 9-10..even for 1-2 turns, that extended visibility on a open plain will let the opposing player devestate the Russian units or drops to 6-7 where russian tank guns in this game start to cause damage..now the german player is toast..the game balance is gone. As you can see even a change of 1 in variable visibilty can have a huge impact

Had I known variable visibilty was to be a future feature I would have adjusted the visibilty to a or even a 5-6 so that it never got above the 8..but 5-6 means the german player is dead because the russian player will just swarm the german player..so it becomes harder to design scenarios..and if variable visibility drops to a 4..well game over for the german side

I hope this clears it up a little more. As a designer of scenarios I want control over the visibility. If I set variable visibility to 6 and I know it will only will fluctuate between 5-7..maybe..I can work with that. Hence my suggestion of restricting variable visibility to even a more restricted set of numbers is probably the most realistic suggestion I can give you and well within the parameters of the feature.

Why not make visibility a scale if I set it at 6, it will fluctuate by 1 hex up or down? A change of 2-3 hexes wont work too big!

My 2nd suggestion of giving variable visibility an on-off button with off being default is protecting the stock scenarios. New scenarios can be made but the stock scenarios need to be left alone. Can you imagine the Omaha beach scenario, visibility set to 10 drops to 8 or 7 (german player will lose cause allies get to sneak into the beach, or increases to 12, german player wins cause now the 88s and 75 mm can blast the Allied units at full range.

My 3rd suggestion of tossing variable visibility it is based on simple argument:
In what was another heated and emotional post on the blitz, check it out should still be their: Matrix will have to sit down with a bunch of designers and figure out the scale for this game..the 6 minute scale is dead! If the distance infantry can move move in one turn did'nt already kill it than variable visibility has all but ensured that. Why not pull it altogether and make a solid commitment to a day night functionality in patch 1.04..people will still play even with variable visibility gone.

This feature was added because it was neat. I understand why it was done..to make things different and spice them up..Nobody had a serious discussion about its implications on game play (in particular stock scenarios) and finally nobody had a discussion about scale.

Assault:
I have no particular issues with this. Im all for tougher assaults. Just get the bugs out. Trucks are trucks and tanks are tanks. Trucks die including leaders when they are around and when they run into tanks. If this is a bug great it can be fixed but if its by design..it needs to go. As I explained any player with any sense will just stack hexes with trucks and leaders thus ruining the playability of the game.


I hope this helps. I'll be happy to answer more. Im approaching this problem as a designer, not as a player so the biggest issue for me is variable visibility.

Rene/Osiris





User avatar
HobbesACW
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:36 pm
Location: UK

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by HobbesACW »

A few examples of how gameplay has been affected by the 1.03 visibility change :-

Fixed units coming under fire before they have a chance to unfix.
AT guns in particular positioned to ambush being destroyed by artillery, the 1.03 visibility change makes their position open to spotting. The ability to move units without being spotted as the scenario designer intended is now down to luck - if the visibility has changed you may not be able to pull off that surprise attack.

I have seen all these problems in just 2 turns of the scenario I am playing. If it wasn't a scenario I made myself I wouldn't know there was a problem but the scenario would be unbalanced without the player realising it.

I make a scenario as historical as I can but also spend 20 or 30 hours tweaking it with one eye on how the game will play.
It is a game and it should be fun for the players. Taking visibility into account during the tweaking is very important.

I await for the major changes to be made optional - especially visibility and I look forward to making some new scenarios with some of the great additions that have been made.

Thanks, Chris
User avatar
BAL
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: West of the Missouri

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by BAL »

Two thoughts - and I promise to keep the bad cliches to a minimum.
 
I like the new assault rules.  More realistic IMO.
 
Go back to the original visibility rules, or make them optional, if that is possible. 
I'll try being nicer if you try being less stupid. - anon
User avatar
Jason Petho
Posts: 17406
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:31 am
Location: Terrace, BC, Canada
Contact:

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by 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
Attachments
assaultt..astFront.zip
(27.74 KiB) Downloaded 40 times
Bioman
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:59 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by Bioman »

I just finished the first scenario of a DCG that I started awhile back with 1.02. I am now upgraded to 1.03. Here are some of the observations that I have noticed:
1- Artillery fire is devestating. Seldom saw a no effect result but always had at least 1 SP in casualties.
2- Some German trucks have their 3D picture changed when they unload.
3- Assualt rules seemed to work just as they always have. Surround and assault then the units are captured.
4- German infantry and tank fire also devestating. Many full strength Russian MG squads eliminated when fired     upon for first time. Never had a no effect combat result from any direct fire from either Germans or Russians. Most attacks on 3SP units or less resulted in elimination and not a reduction of SP's.
5- Having Russian 45mmAT guns fire and not be sighted worked very well. Although it was annoying.
 
Since I started this in 1.02 I don't know if this had anything to do with the results that I got.
 
Nick
cromlechi
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:30 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by cromlechi »

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


I've tried this out quickly and I think it's huge improvement over the old rules, this has been born out, so far, in my games I'm playing too. Just to be contrary I fear that if the new rules are to be optional then it would cause a lot of disagreement. Those attacking would probably prefer the option off because they would lose the herding sheep capability. I imagine most Soviet players would prefer it on given their assault troops. It's made the game more realistic in my opinion and is a definite improvement. I can't see that the change is radical either. I'm sure people will get used to it and a few tweaks are all that's needed to sort out the bugs.

Adam
User avatar
Schlonz
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:10 am

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by Schlonz »

I've installed the update a few hours ago and played some Bootcamps and a little selfmade test scenario.
I really like the new features and units, but I'm not happy with the modified assault rules either.

For example:
Assault 1: 6 SP Inf Pltn vs. 6 SP empty Wagons, open; assault failed, Wagons suffered 3 SP loss and disruption.
Assault 2: 6 SP Inf Pltn vs. 5 SP disrupted horses, forest; horses withdrew with 1 SP loss.

I wouldn't call this an improvement towards realism. Wagons should be what they are supposed to be: transport and
- in case of an assault - victims and not a blocking force.
When you're playing a large scale armored battle in the vast Russian steppes, you might not notice the changes but
when it comes to infantry battles, especially in forest or djungle areas, the new rules will hamper gameplay, IMHO.
I'm afraid, many RS scenarios - where assaults are a main element - are not worth playing anymore. Instead of thrilling
assaults and counter-assaults the battles will be dominated by boring long wild-west style firefights without much effect.
"I've got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
- Blackadder
StrykerHB
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:13 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by 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
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39641
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by Erik Rutins »

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.
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.
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
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

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

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Huib
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Nederland

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by Huib »

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
Legionaer
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:38 am
Location: Mainz, Deutschland

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by Legionaer »

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: 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.
User avatar
MrRoadrunner
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by MrRoadrunner »

ORIGINAL: Huib

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. [X(]
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.

“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
StrykerHB
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:13 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by StrykerHB »

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
User avatar
kool_kat
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:10 pm
Location: Clarksville, VA.

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by kool_kat »

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!

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein
User avatar
MrRoadrunner
Posts: 1323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:25 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by MrRoadrunner »

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. [X(]

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
User avatar
Schlonz
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:10 am

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by Schlonz »

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.
"I've got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
- Blackadder
osiris_slith
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:24 pm

RE: Assault rule changes

Post by osiris_slith »

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



Post Reply

Return to “John Tiller's Campaign Series”