Assault rule changes

[SGT Rice]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
IMO some of the complainers want to continue to play those scenarios that they have mastered and now don't work out the same.

I seriously doubt that. All of the names I recognize are folks who are ready to play any scenario, any time; several of them are scenario designers. Please; let's tone down the invective.

[dgk196]

All right, particulars aside............ because that will / can go on forever.........

The 'new' assault procedures / rules result in a 'different' outcome from the previous version!

If it didn't, what was the point of doing it? And if it doesn't, how about letting 'us' know! Be specific (you ask everyone else)!

Assuming it does, then all of the previous comparisons and 'balances' are negated! Not maybe, are! Subtle changes in such games turn out to be not so subtle in the long run!

So, some part, or (worst case) all of my downloaded scenarios have just been rendered irrelevant!? And 'unplayable'! Don't know all of the who, what, when, where or why, but it 'bombed'! To think of the years of work compromised, by how many dedicated individuals, for what? To take this game into the 'arcade' category!?

Do I get to spend the next year, two years, figuring which scenarios have and have not been effected and to what level? Figuring out how to balance the 'victory conditions'!? Reading endless posts about variations and opinions about the particulars of each and every scenario, until 1.04 comes out? All because the 1.03 'particulars' wasn't made optional, and therefor comparative?

This cannot be what you had in mind, was it? Please tell me at least that!

But, its what you did!!!!

I'm sorry to be so straight forward, but the effects and implications of this are almost beyond reason! Some may not see it yet, but, they will!
You guys have been superior to virtually all other game companies in your support, but now............

And believe me, I hate, repeat... hate having to post like this.........because it puts me in the 'complainers' group, not what I wanted!

Dennis [:-]

[junk2drive]

That's why I stated "IMO" and "some".

[dgk196]

I hear you! I tell you, this makes me sick to my stomach!

What makes it worse, it wasn't necessary!

Absolutely no reason for this to have happened, in my opinion, for what that's worth!

But I won't give up my game and the hope that all this gets straightened out!

Dennis [:)]

...I used to spend a lot of my money on whiskey and women......
...the rest I just wasted!

[sztartur2]

I would suggest to make the 1.3Beta version public again until the fix of the current situation is implemented. I have that file and keep it like a treasure .

Artur.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

I'm sorry to be so straight forward, but the effects and implications of this are almost beyond reason! Some may not see it yet, but, they will!
You guys have been superior to virtually all other game companies in your support, but now............

And believe me, I hate, repeat... hate having to post like this.........because it puts me in the 'complainers' group, not what I wanted!

Dennis [:-]

I still stand with you Dennis, even if you do not want to stand with me! [;)]

We were promised upgrades that would make the game better. We were told that we were going to get more realism. We were told we would like the changes, "just wait and see"!

Well, my firm belief is that we did not get upgraded or more "realism".
We got a changed game, that is as much unreal as the previous.

Variable Visibility, Close Assault Rules, Artillery Rules, Engineers and Wreck Clearing, etc.

They sucked the fun right out of a game that existed long after it was unsupported and had bugs, the old assault rules, and "hard" visibility set by the scenario designer.

There was no improvement. Just change. [8|]

[Arkady]

Well I don't like the bug that 0 assault unit can not be over run but overall, new assault rules ARE improvement. I've played 100+ PBEM games on the blitz ladder (and another hundred outside) and revios asault version was terrible! Yes, I was used to it but combats where just two tanks overrun three disrupted infatry platoons in the villafe was insane.

Now you really need use combat tactic, setup fire support, supress the enemy and then storm the position with force...

Did you try Jasons's assault training scenario ? And you result ?

[Schlonz]

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Now you really need use combat tactic, setup fire support, supress the enemy and then storm the position with force...

Well, from this point of view, the assault rule changes seem to be a brilliant idea.
Unfortunately, each and every single scenario that have been designed so far,
was designed and playtested according to the old assault rules.
Assaulting a hex now will require more time, something you don't have in most
scenarios - at least, when you're playing the attacking side.
The lack of infantry units (for urban/forest assaults) in some armored scenarios
is another problem which could effect the outcome of a battle.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Thanks for the chance, Mr.RoadRunner.

The glitch will be fixed ASAP.

Jason Petho

Here's one that I do not think is a glitch but, it sure is not realistic either:

I am not sure how many times I'm supposed to assault or how many troopers I need?

I'm playing a game where a disrupted and out of supply engineer got whittled down to two strength points. The engineer retreated into a town hex that had a trench. Fully surrounded. He remained disrupted for two more turns and I attacked him with multiple units from multiple hexes over the course of three turns. The engineer undisrupted on the third turn, three shots to disrupt and reduce it to one strength point. It took the next turn to take out the disrupted one strength point engineer, after three assaults. That is attacking and assaulting over five turns. In a twenty turn averaged size game that is a quarter of the time hunting out a really tough "flea"?
Realism is a concept that I no longer understand.
If I recall correctly, I used between seven and ten tank platoons and eight to ten infantry platoons, plus indirect bombardment each turn.
Now you may find a "real life" isolated example or two like this, but the real life outfit surely was not disrupted, and out of supply, surrounded and many hexes away from it's nearest combat unit or leader.
This is an example to me that the new assault rules are surely not adding realism to the game, and that they are effecting the total play of the game, while changing the balance a little?

Ed

[Jason Petho]

One could also ask how important those 6 Victory Points (10 VP if it was a German Engineer Platoon) were? Did they need to be assaulted, or could they have been bypassed?

A combination of units work best in assaulting. Using three rifle platoons with a leader is ideal. Don't forget that armour suffers a penalty when assaulting into a town/village/city hex.

Leaving an escape route may also be a good thing, have the engineer retreat out of the hex if a successful assault happens. Don't forget a retreat usually means a point of morale is lost, making it easier to assault!

Jason Petho

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I'm playing a game where a disrupted and out of supply engineer got whittled down to two strength points. The engineer retreated into a town hex that had a trench. Fully surrounded. He remained disrupted for two more turns and I attacked him with multiple units from multiple hexes over the course of three turns. The engineer undisrupted on the third turn, three shots to disrupt and reduce it to one strength point. It took the next turn to take out the disrupted one strength point engineer, after three assaults. That is attacking and assaulting over five turns. In a twenty turn averaged size game that is a quarter of the time hunting out a really tough "flea"?
Realism is a concept that I no longer understand.
If I recall correctly, I used between seven and ten tank platoons and eight to ten infantry platoons, plus indirect bombardment each turn.
Now you may find a "real life" isolated example or two like this, but the real life outfit surely was not disrupted, and out of supply, surrounded and many hexes away from it's nearest combat unit or leader.
This is an example to me that the new assault rules are surely not adding realism to the game, and that they are effecting the total play of the game, while changing the balance a little?

Thanks for the specific example. Do you by any chance still have a save file of this game?

[R.E.LEE]

I had the exact scene occur in a rising sun ,but no trench just light jungle and took 18 turns to eliminate a 4 sp infantry that was disrupted and tootaly surrounded.all arty was used every turn as well.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Thanks for the chance, Mr.RoadRunner.

The glitch will be fixed ASAP.

Jason Petho

Here's one that I do not think is a glitch but, it sure is not realistic either:

I am not sure how many times I'm supposed to assault or how many troopers I need?

I'm playing a game where a disrupted and out of supply engineer got whittled down to two strength points. The engineer retreated into a town hex that had a trench. Fully surrounded. He remained disrupted for two more turns and I attacked him with multiple units from multiple hexes over the course of three turns. The engineer undisrupted on the third turn, three shots to disrupt and reduce it to one strength point. It took the next turn to take out the disrupted one strength point engineer, after three assaults. That is attacking and assaulting over five turns. In a twenty turn averaged size game that is a quarter of the time hunting out a really tough "flea"?
Realism is a concept that I no longer understand.
If I recall correctly, I used between seven and ten tank platoons and eight to ten infantry platoons, plus indirect bombardment each turn.
Now you may find a "real life" isolated example or two like this, but the real life outfit surely was not disrupted, and out of supply, surrounded and many hexes away from it's nearest combat unit or leader.
This is an example to me that the new assault rules are surely not adding realism to the game, and that they are effecting the total play of the game, while changing the balance a little?

Ed

[R.E.LEE]

Hey Eric is all we have to do is save the game we are playing,send you the file then are you able to go back and see all the turns.if so then ill send you some stuff that will make you wonder wtf.(or do we have to save every turn that we assualt these iron men,then send all the saved turn files,not sure how this works.but my last iron jap took 18 turns so would i have to send 18 files.

[MrRoadrunner]

Sorry, I play so many games I do not save anything.
There have been so many glitches and bugs that I even thought saving something like that would not matter until the bugs are worked out.

Could have been an invisible wagon or something? [;)]

[MrRoadrunner]

You will need your opponent to send his unclosed file, so that your moves can be viewed in replay.
At least that may be the best way for them to look at it.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

One could also ask how important those 6 Victory Points (10 VP if it was a German Engineer Platoon) were? Did they need to be assaulted, or could they have been bypassed?

A combination of units work best in assaulting. Using three rifle platoons with a leader is ideal. Don't forget that armour suffers a penalty when assaulting into a town/village/city hex.

Leaving an escape route may also be a good thing, have the engineer retreat out of the hex if a successful assault happens. Don't forget a retreat usually means a point of morale is lost, making it easier to assault!

Jason Petho

And, here is a comment that tells me that you do not care that you sucked the fun out of this game by making new assault rules that fundamentally changed the game.
I hate what was done and to tell me that I have to sit back and shoot or count points?
I guess forgetting to tell you that the engineer was in the rear center of my immediate line and was near a victory hex.

If you cannot take out 80 or so disrupted men after numerous assault and fire actions how can it be said that the game is improved.
Sorry, I am getting more into the thought that the old rules were fine and these will never be.

Good going mate, now I can start counting the victory points of individual enemy units while trying to win a winnable game that is quickly turning into a losing game. At least the score of -18 and British Major Loss says it. Though I've taken almost every victory hex on the map but have taken a pounding from the German armor and infantry.
The game is really "kewl"! Not! [>:]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

And, here is a comment that tells me that you do not care that you sucked the fun out of this game by making new assault rules that fundamentally changed the game.

Offering suggestions and possibly some advice for dealing with the new assault rules until they can be fixed and/or made optional is saying I do not care?

If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I hate what was done and to tell me that I have to sit back and shoot or count points?

They are suggestions; nothing more, nothing less.

Jason Petho

[R.E.LEE]

I agree with Jason here,i mean come on ED they have already stated many times that most likely these will be made OPTIONAL and they have addmitted that the trucks and lone leader stuff will be fiixed,so whats with all the bashing you are doing.

[big dawg]

ORIGINAL: big dawg

Hi Jason/Erik,

I have heard from those that believe the Talonsoft EFII assault rules favored the attacker because disrupted units could be easily over run.

The new v1.03 Matrix rules are more in line with the original assault rules found in the original EF game that make assaulting disrupted units not an automatic victory.

Is there any middle ground ?  Thank you.

I have seen a few posts where the same question was asked.

I have not seen a reply.

I do not know how the assault formula works, but perhaps there is some middle ground. [:)]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: big dawg
but perhaps there is some middle ground. [:)]

Besides the corrections and the ability of making it optional, what other middle ground can be suggested?

Jason Petho