Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

Sorry, but I must differ.
They said that the non-combat units being able to hold out against an assault was a glitch/bug.
Now when I show what has happened with a combat unit being attacked and assaulted. I first hear that I should not have given the enemy a hex to retreat to?
In that comment I realized the zones of control have been made "soft" and units will now need to be fully surrounded, causing more units to not be in combat on other areas of the map.
When I said I pretty much followed what we were told to be successful in assaults I am told I should count the amount of points the enemy unit was worth and consider if I should attack it?

Then I am asked c'mon Ed what's the problem here? Or, why are you bashing?

No, neither are true. The problem was that I was, after I pointed out many of the bugs/glitches, then asked to provide examples of non-glitch problems with the assault rules. I've seen others do it too. Like two platoons of infantry that cannot assault and capture an artillery piece?

I do not believe for a moment that these new rules will be optional. I think more other changes are coming that will not be optional and seriously impact the game.
Had we had the opportunity to voice are displeasure before the release, it would not have to be done during the most emotional time of the release?

And, I am getting the "well, you'll just have to change your play to get around the glitches". Heck, I don't want to change my play to get around the new assault rules. Why should I go so much farther?

I'm ready to just ask where I can mail my disk to and then Matrix can sell it again.
That's where I am at. That is why I am doing it.

I'm just tired of what I see as the "run around."

Ed

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I do not believe for a moment that these new rules will be optional. I think more other changes are coming that will not be optional and seriously impact the game.
Had we had the opportunity to voice are displeasure before the release, it would not have to be done during the most emotional time of the release?
And, I am getting the "well, you'll just have to change your play to get around the glitches". Heck, I don't want to change my play to get around the new assault rules. Why should I go so much farther?

Look, you're welcome to simply keep using v1.02 until v1.03 is tweaked further. We're going to make the rules optional, but this may take some time as Jason posted since we don't know what will be involved coding-wise in that. In the meantime, if you want to keep using v1.03 we can offer advice and we can ask for save files for any unusual results you see. If you run into something you feel is a problem, please post or e-mail us a save and we'll make sure to look at it and see if we can duplicate and fix the issue.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I do not believe for a moment that these new rules will be optional. I think more other changes are coming that will not be optional and seriously impact the game.
Had we had the opportunity to voice are displeasure before the release, it would not have to be done during the most emotional time of the release?
And, I am getting the "well, you'll just have to change your play to get around the glitches". Heck, I don't want to change my play to get around the new assault rules. Why should I go so much farther?

Look, you're welcome to simply keep using v1.02 until v1.03 is tweaked further. We're going to make the rules optional, but this may take some time as Jason posted since we don't know what will be involved coding-wise in that. In the meantime, if you want to keep using v1.03 we can offer advice and we can ask for save files for any unusual results you see. If you run into something you feel is a problem, please post or e-mail us a save and we'll make sure to look at it and see if we can duplicate and fix the issue.

Regards,

- Erik

My faith in Matrix was at no point missplaced.

HI Erik and Jason

Hi Boys

Heres your middle ground. Ive mentioned it a few times but it seems to be getting missed in all the emotion.

In SPWAW we have 2 levels of disruption, dispersed and routed/moral broken
In Panzer blitz and Panzer leader there are 2 levels of disruption

So heres the rules quoted directly from Panzerleader

D=Unit is dispersed, Unit is immediatley inverted. Dispersed units may not move, attack, load or unload. Unit becomes undispersed at the end of its own current player segment: Note subtract 1 from the die roll for all subsequent attacks against it during the current player turn.

DD= Special dispersal: If target unit was already dispersed by a previous attack during the current player segment, unit is ELIMINATED. If unit was previously undispersed treat as normal dispersal

What do you think..I think this would work
Rene/Osiris

So heres the rules quoted directly from Panzerleader

D=Unit is dispersed, Unit is immediatley inverted. Dispersed units may not move, attack, load or unload. Unit becomes undispersed at the end of its own current player segment: Note subtract 1 from the die roll for all subsequent attacks against it during the current player turn.

DD= Special dispersal: If target unit was already dispersed by a previous attack during the current player segment, unit is ELIMINATED. If unit was previously undispersed treat as normal dispersal

My apologizes for including myself in your ongoing conversation, but this would be a real disaster! The oversimplified combat results was one of the controversial aspects of PB / Pl from the time it was released. The 'magical' recovery aspect of limited results types has one result, unrealistic effects.

Why not actually keep track of the individuals in the unit, as regards the number of men. Its done in other computer games with base units of companies and battalions. The computing power of machines and the memory availability for even the average machine could easily handle this. As casualties mount, morale decreases, combat ability decreases and so on!

So, for example, a 'platoon' has say 50 men in it. It undergoes an attack by artillery, the result could be say two casualties, 3 wounded. The 'count' displayed for unit strength would now be 45. Just as the count is kept for vehicles and guns the same should be true for infantry units, but not as it is presently done (1-6)! The factors for the unit would change, a simple table for the type, Additional information, would be fatigue, morale, troop quality, which would give much more options for 'defining' units and their relative strengths. Better definition / detail helps every game! And with computers, there would be no burden on the players as the program does all of the bookkeeping.

Like I said, sorry for butting in! Just some ideas! [:)]

Dennis

HI Dennis
 
My apologies..maybe my point was not clear... Im just qouting the rules..I didnt mean that they should be take per se verbatim and applied..obviously they cannot be added like this to CS nor should the unrealistic recovery
 
The idea I had in mind was to bring in the concept of broken morale/routed dispersal where the unit has no hope of recovery..and hence you dont have to sit around for 18 turns trying to kill a 2SP unit
 
your idea is not bad either..we count tanks based on strenght..so why not have 35 men in a platoon..could be fun watching the numbers drop
 
your idea is good...... one of the more original ones..
 
rene

Gentlemen:

I've played the CS game since the release of "Europe in Flames" and I... like the many others have said... love this game! Once the announcement was made in 2007 that Matrix was going take over the game as well as update it to work on XP and Vista I thought I had died and gone to heaven. Since then the message boards here and at the Blitz have been nothing short of high intoxication in bringing new life to an old game... and old players.

I purchased the first release that Matrix put out and downloaded every patch after that including the current 1.03. During that time I was playing a PBEM 2x2 (4 players) Team game using this revised CS game. All players willingly updated their games and we've been playing continuously just under 1-year. I've (and 3 other players) witnessed the transition this game has gone through and it has been outstanding.

Granted it's too early for me to give any true comments to the recent LOS, assault rules and others but it has not stopped me from playing my favorite game. This game is alive (unlike the TS version that may not last another major OS change made by Microsoft) and changes can be made if need be.

Jason and his Beta Brigade have made excellent progress in bringing new life to CS and have already committed themselves repeatedly to remain available for more great stuff... I'm sure.

Thank you Gentlemen for all that you've done!

So I guess to make a short message long... which is what I've done... I support this new version. With the few alterations (minor assault adjustments) that have already been mentioned by Jason and others... IMHO.

I have been playing the game much more as 1.03 was rolling out and I am very comfortable with the new changes. My experience with assaults has not been unpleasant, but I do see the differences.  I have learned to make provisions for another assault if the first fails, and I reduce the target a bit more if I can.  I love the sneaky anti-tank guns.  I have not seen abnormal losses to armor from indirect HE.  After getting used to playing with the "low ammo" 1.03 beta situation I am feeling like superman now!
 
Thanks for all your effort.  This is a great game!
 
Chuck

I like the 1.03. I know I slammed the modibility to the platoon files but that really is not a big deal when you look at the overall game concept. This is a great game and has jumped leaps and bounds from the old days of west front 1.01. Really I like historical accuracy but really to the extent that some of this is getting. Yeah I moaned about HE killing my tanks. So I used infantry as cannon fodder as they should be. On assault if that HQ unit is that important to take out I will send a company after it. If by chance counter battery effects doesn't have the effect I want I will send in 2 infantry platoons or an engineer unit to take out those retarded dug in artillery peices. The point is I have fun playing the game as a whole. How many updates did microsoft have right after 98 came out....then Me then NT then 2000 then XP and now vista. So if you look at it in context this game has very minor glitches compared to a peice of software that if it is not tweaked right will put a harm on your system. Now also look at this point:

is it fun?
does it do what it is intended to do?
does the military use this game to map out strategy?
do you live by the rules of the game or do you adapt and still have fun?

All I ask is this is a cool game and keep it up Jason!!!!! KUDOS...

ORIGINAL: 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

First of all thanks for the hard work on this project.

Is it possible to tweek the formula that affects assaults as it stands with 1.03 so that disrupted units are not almost always captured, but would be captured more than under the new assault rules?

Big Dawg has a very valid point, this isn't black and white, one or the other. Obviously many people have been unhappy with both sets of assult rules that have been used in the game so far both in yours (matrix) and talonsofts version. I have played since the EFI days and remember the horrors of the old rules (unless I could commit 10 to 1 at least I never assulted) I got used to the new ones in attack and defence but and am unsure of where the game is going now (BTW I must say this is the only game I have brought 3 times as the same game ie standard gold matix etc, 4 if you coun't EF1 thats how good it has been). Wouln't it be better to work out a valid set of assult rules for it than go back to an another discredited set from the first incaration of the game.

I have been playing a few games since the 1.03 update and here are my findings Assults are not right, sorry but that is how it is. picture the situation, 2 * pz gren on point both disrupted and heavy beaten up (half strength or less) they out in the open ambushed from 5 sides by undisrupted 5 * full strenght infantry + support vehicals and 3 * tank Platoons out of woods from all around them, not once but twice. did they surrender no, did they break no, did they run no, they didn't even lose a smegging SP no it was the attackers that suffered diruptions and losses that can't be right.

Another from another game but this time I benifited a loaded russian truck in woods I grant you and may well be the 0 assult bug, was assulted twice by 2 * company of tiger I's lets just say it was the tiger I's that came off worse. These are only two examples there has been many more, as I don't tend to play games where I have that much spare capacity if force to invest in 10 to 1 assults,I have gone back to the bad old days of not assulting you might as well remove the assult button from the game as far as I am cocerned it is just not an viable option any more.

BTW happy birhday jason we have played many times in the past under my other alter ego Von Helsing from the frontline club and I respect the work you and others have put into the 1.03 update, some things I am not sure of like VV, naval units and bombers but will play along and see, but the assult rules still does need tweeking sorry.

Hey OTTO welcome to matrix.its me RAUS from the blitz,i won a night time PBEM today.Good to see you hear.[:D]

Hi R.W.Lee good work, I knew you would make a fine player [8D] keep it up and I will see you in the field sometime.

well guys i have read all the posts here

i have not played any cs games for a long time but have just restarted again and using the 1.3 patch - the game has changed and i personally dont feel for the better , playing a DCG i assaulted 1sp of disrupted russian infantry with 3 german tank units (11 sp) in open terrain and had no effect three times

bad luck ? in the old game this would certainly not happen

the game to me doesnt feel the same ,not as enjoyable to play, i play the AI to win and feel good dont seem to work now, play PBEM to feel bad and lose

ORIGINAL: 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

First of all thanks for the hard work on this project.

Is it possible to tweek the formula that affects assaults as it stands with 1.03 so that disrupted units are not almost always captured, but would be captured more than under the new assault rules?

Okay, so whats done is done!

I may have missed it but whats the game plan?

An update making the changes optional or what? [&o]

I'd like to resume gaming with this program, is there a 'fix' on the horizon?

Dennis [:)]

tm.asp?m=1866511

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

tm.asp?m=1866511

That's a link to my post. Sorry that I missed this whole thread before posting. But the extent of the assault problem was so great that I assumed it was a bug, not a rules change.

To the Matrix people: I'll repost what I posted in the other thread, in the way of specific examples that have made the game much less fun for me:

"In most scenarios, they're not that big a deal. But I've found some scenarious virtually unplayable. Any scenario that involves taking prepared positions is almost impossible to win. It was hard enough to disrupt all the units in a bunker or pillbox and then assault; now, even once they are disrupted, you need overwhealming force to even have a chance. Very frustrating. And I still find it infuriatingly difficult to overrun artillery positions, which I don't get."

I recently played the Kokoda Trail LCG for Rising Sun. The initial battles were fine, as they were mostly defense and required only the occasional assault to retake a captured position. But once you get to the later scenarios, which involve assaults on bunkers, I've found those scenarios basically impossible. It really ruined the end of what, up until then, had been a great and enjoyable campaign. I've not played Rising Sun since then, because I don't see how any scenario involving assaults in heavy terrain and bunker would be balanced anymore.

Under the new rules, prepared positions simply take more time and more firepower to overcome, and the scenarios do not give you any more time or firepower with which to do so. That feels very unfair and frustrating, as many other posters have said, too.

It seems that the new rules were designed more for East Front and more for PbEM players. Unfortunately, I play all three theaters more or less equally, and exclusively against the AI. I can't help but feel as if I (as in, players like me) was ignored when the decision was made to overhaul the assault rules.

Changes are coming, stay tuned.

Jason Petho

It seems to me that even if the assault rules are made optional, there exists huge potential for confusion amongst players unfamiliar with the game mechanics history of CS and its scenarios.

My suggestion is to wonder whether which set of assault and visibility rules is used might not be better encoded into the scenario itself by the designer.

It seems to me that the designer will be fully conversant with the rules under which the scenario is to be played and will have designed it specifically with those in mind. Why should they not set them as part of the design process?

The designers will be far better in a position to judge than a new player coming to CS for the first time who might, out of ignorance, attempt, say, a difficult RS scenario full of bunkers with the new assault rules and be driven to frustration and an early exit from the game by playing what is under those rules near to impossible.

In similar vein, all of the old scenarios included with Matrix Edition could be encoded to use the rules under which they were created.

You might even consider giving the choice on other rules as well. This could be Don Fox's chance, for example, to finally make sure once and for all that his scenarios are played with armour facing off!

Or perhaps the encoding would be better limited to the two most controversial rules....visibility and assaults.

Something to think about, I hope, at the least.

Regards
Ivan McIntosh