Assault rule changes

[dgk196]

"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."

A very good point, I would say. I wish this 'thinking' had been applied, and will continue to be applied, to any and all future 'changes'............ 'power to the people', after all, don't we pay the bills? [;)]

Dennis

[osiris_slith]

Hi
 
Did this message get through to Dgk196 and roadrunner:
 
THERE IS A BUG IN THE ASSAULT RULES! The assault rules do have a bug and its not so much the rules as the units in some cases..its being worked on.
 
The assaults rules work fine if you get an armor an engineer/infantry to work together just like you properly should...
 
The former assault rules were also unrealistic..units died way too easily, the usual BS lazy tactic of surround, disrupt and destroy with a 100% success rate.
 
I have played this game for about 8 years and I would consider myself hardcore fan of it..Why is it that I dont have a problem with the new assault rules..they work fine, there are some bugs, they were found, samples sent to matrix and it will be fixed. 
 
I certainly had no problems with close assaults in Tank Graveyard, what I did find is the AI has turned into a more than capable opponent in version 1.03...still got a major but I lost about 2x as many tanks as I normally would have..and yes the new assault rules did force me to change tactics..shoot the crap out of anything and than assault it. Very few commanders would order a close assault with out first pounding the enemy unit into dust..close assaults are for cleaning up the garbage thats left over when firepower has done its job..
 
If you dont like it play 1.02 till the close assault rule bugs are fixed, theres a few people still out there with it.
 
and Move on..get over it!
 
Osiris
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[McIvan]

The point is that most of the old time scenarios are balanced (those intended for H2H anyway) with particular game-play expectations in mind....particularly time-wise.  Any change to game mechanics will inevitably cause some imbalance. 
 
For that reason I think it would be nice to have the designers able to ensure their scenario is played under the game mechanics that suit it.

[osiris_slith]

Hi McIvan
 
If you look at how many of the original scenarios (probably more than half) in EF, RS and WF were designed under the old assault rules in the original TS version.those assault rules were simalar to the ones now...so in many ways the scenarios in the game have been designed with tougher close assault rules.
 
I think scenarios designed using TS version EF 1.03 and WF Gold and RS Gold might be more affected..that being said. Were not talking about adding 5-10 turns to those scenarios..maybe 1-3 turns max if any...so its easier if people just evolve and adjust their tactics.
 
Assault tactics need to evolve and adapt..so does tactical game play..I think Jasons is right on..Why on earth would you bother using a battalion to chase down a 1SP disrupted engineer...it cant do you any harm..it cant hurt anything..by pass it and move towards the objectives. Once the bugs is out you probably will be able to wipe out right away.
 
Tactical advice to dgk196 and roadrunner..I find that it is far easier to kill 1SP units with direct fire than close assaults..and requires far less units and effort and more importantly saves time..and leave an escape route..easier to kill if its running about..
 
Having made an LCG for the previous version..I cant think of any scenarios where I would extend the lenght of the game to fit the current assault rules.
 
osiris
 
 

[McIvan]

That's a very good point about the scenarios created for the old East Front I.....but to continue with my suggestion, that could be seen as even more reason to hard code the options into the scenario, to ensure that those scens get played with the NEW assault rules (as they more closely reflect the East Front I rules).
 
Leaving all talk of game mechanics aside, what is your opinion in principle on scenario designers being the ones that set the optional rules for their scenarios?
 
 

[osiris_slith]

HI McIvan
 
I ve mentioned it a few times in this thread, that the stock scenarios do need to be protected, at that time I was talking about variable visibility as I think that will have a greater impact on the game than the Close assault rules.
 
I think the close assault rules..the new ones should not be optional for players and scenario designers. I think as a scenario designer I rather work with a fixed variables, (in this case tougher close assault rules) at least than I have something to measure the scenarios by. I can adjust the scenario around the game engine. Some players like the new rules and some dont. As a scenario designer I have to adapt as well to the new game mechanics.
 
Can you imagine the chaos if scenario designers could flip the switch for different close assault rules or variable visibility. To illustrate the point you mentioned here's why I am not in favor of giving scenario designers optional rules on-off switches.
 
Our scenario list might look like this:
 
Tank Graveyard at Minsk: Close assault rules matrix version 1.03
Tank Graveyard at Minsk: Close assault rules matrix version 1.02
Tank Graveyard at Minsk: Close assault rules matrix version 1.02, optional visibility rules
Tank Graveyard at Minsk: Close assault rules matrix version 1.03, fixed visibilty
 
For me as a designer variable visibility is a far bigger issue because I dont have any control over it:
 
Variable visibilty means I have to make bigger maps to compensate for changes in visibilty to protect fixed units. The stock scenarios right up to version matrix version 1.03 are not protected and it may have a impact on scenarios that depend heavily on fixed units.
 
Im very much against scenario designers having the on-off switch. I think we can better serve the community by voicing our concerns and wishes to matrix on what we would like to see and worked with fixed variable. So far its worked well..does everybody get everything they want..no of course not. I want variable visibilty gone and replaced by a night-day system but you know if it does'nt happen. I can adapt as a designer.
 
Designers can always adapt.. and if designers can so can the players.
 
 
osiris
 
 

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: osiris

...Im very much against scenario designers having the on-off switch. I think we can better serve the community by voicing our concerns and wishes to matrix on what we would like to see and worked with fixed variable. So far its worked well..does everybody get everything they want..no of course not. I want variable visibilty gone and replaced by a night-day system but you know if it does'nt happen. I can adapt as a designer.

...Designers can always adapt.. and if designers can so can the players.

I agree with this. If the Assault Rules and Variable Visibility are made as optional toggles I for one will be greatly dissapointed. This will cause a rift between players and no one will be motivated to adapt to the new set. IMO There is no comparison here to the Optional Armor Facing rules since the AI is at a severe disadvantage with these toggled on - thus the toggle is required.

Incidentally I had a great experience with variable visibility in the EF scenario "Into the City": All of a sudden I had a LOS to the pesky Soviet artillery on the far side of the Volga and for a few turns I was able to counter-battery until the "smoke of battle" rolled in and I lost visual contact. What other tactical game attempts to simulate battlefield smoke? Many Gamer's seem to be be married to the sterile digital battlefield. I think the visibility rules compliment the 6 minute turns of CS nicely. To me CS scenarios are an abstraction of the most brutal 2 hours of combat taken out of a 2 day engagement (I think Huib said something like this in another thread and I totally agree).

[osiris_slith]

Hi Simovitch
 
Thats one way of putting it..like I said before the world will not end if variable visibility is still in the game..one can adapt.
 
However I found the AI in 1.03 to be a very tough opponent. You may want to try Tank Graveyard with the armor facing rule on..I found very few almost no instances of bad armor facing by the AI. I wiped the Russians out but it cost me 40 tanks..I was even surprised when I saw a leader scooting about the board trying to get AI units morale up..usually the AI just takes them off the board..
 
so far its been a good experience with 1.03 despite a hicupp or 2
 
osiris
 
 

[Rommel44]

To me I would rather see them do away with the big red " D " thats on my counter letting the enemy know whats up. Lets put a question mark there instead and ease back on the assult results table some. That way maybe everybody is happy. OK maybe not just a thought. The varible weather rule lets make it a possability every so many turns seeing since turns are 6min each. Weather can change in time and designers can set fixed units according to when weather might change. Just a couple of Ideas seems like people are complaining a lot but not trying to help find a solution to a perceived problem.

[Krec]

You must realize the game has a real hardcore fan base that has been playin the game for years.  any changes to the basic mech or the way calculations are done must be an option,  imo.  i dont think you can just change the game and say thats the way it is.  i would strongly suggest all new rules be a toggle option.  i for one like the new stuff but i can understand the concern of players who like the old way.  a simple toggle option will please both parties. IMO    just my 2 cents 

[OttoVonBlotto]

[/quote]

.I think Jasons is right on..Why on earth would you bother using a battalion to chase down a 1SP disrupted engineer...it cant do you any harm..it cant hurt anything..by pass it and move towards the objectives

Apart from spotting for it's artillery for the rest of the game and taking pot shots at anything that comes into range or if PBEM taking a last minuet dash to the VP hexes unless you leave a force to negate it. What happened to the manual "remember security"..

And as for having 4 different versions of the same scn with differing rules [:-] lets face it both sets of assault rules are flawed, why not do something that actually works rather than this hash up at least in 1.02 you could disrupt the attacker and counter attack to take the ground back.

[Jason Petho]

New EXE's are being tested.

The glitches are fixed.

The odds are improved a little in favour of the attacker, although they are still not "automatic" as pre-1.03.

A full explanation of how they assault actually works will be available when the update is released, which will hopefully be very soon. It is being tested by the BETA Brigade.

Jason Petho

[junk2drive]

Thanks. Hope the Beta Brigade is keeping their sanity.
 
Also hope that whatever we get, it doesn't create such an uproar.

[Krec]

Actually its a great time to be a wargamer,  look at all the choices we have,  great games all over the place.  i am sure the everything will be fine.  getting there is part of the fun.

[OttoVonBlotto]

That is good news, thank you Jason and the team..[:)]

[TJD]

Jason, Erik, et. al.:

I'm one of those who wrote in opposition to the new assault rules but I'm now ready to eat crow and admit that the change is indeed for the better. My main concern was for Rising Sun, which is very dependent on assault, but I've now had opportunity to play quite a number of the original scenarios and I have to say I'm pleased & reassured by the results. I had really feared that the old Talonsoft scenarios, e.g. Kakazu Ridge, Blowtorch & Corkscrew, etc., would be totally unbalanced by the new rules. Not so. I got Major Victories each time and had a much more interesting
experience. One surprise is that overwhelming force is not always required. I've succeeded with very understrength assaults, while massive assaults came to nothing. Good dice certainly make a difference.

I regard the CS as a classic and argued that a classic by definition ought to be left alone. I think this is still true as a general principle. But damn if you guys haven't found a way to make a classic even better. So I give you my thanks, and my apology.

/TJD

[Jason Petho]

Thank you, TJD.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

I have a question regarding leaders.  With the current bug, assaulting a lone leader is problematic, so the alternative is to attack (shoot at) the leader.  My understanding is the odds of killing a leader by attack in EF and WF is 2 percent and in RS 4 percent.  Shooting and killing a leader would appear to be an extraordinary longshot. 

However, yesterday an opponent shot at a lone leader from about six hexes, and the combat result dialogue showed 7 attack value and 1 defense value, and my leader was eliminated.  This makes the leader look more like a vulnerable truck.  If that's the way it works, a leader would be exceptionally vulnerable to an attack when not stacked with other units.

Do the 2 percent and 4 percent rules apply only when the leader is stacked with other units?  When stacked with other units, you can't specifically target a leader, but when he's alone you can. 

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I have a question regarding leaders.  With the current bug, assaulting a lone leader is problematic, so the alternative is to attack (shoot at) the leader.  My understanding is the odds of killing a leader by attack in EF and WF is 2 percent and in RS 4 percent.  Shooting and killing a leader would appear to be an extraordinary longshot. 

However, yesterday an opponent shot at a lone leader from about six hexes, and the combat result dialogue showed 7 attack value and 1 defense value, and my leader was eliminated.  This makes the leader look more like a vulnerable truck.  If that's the way it works, a leader would be exceptionally vulnerable to an attack when not stacked with other units.

Do the 2 percent and 4 percent rules apply only when the leader is stacked with other units?  When stacked with other units, you can't specifically target a leader, but when he's alone you can. 

Yes a lone leader is as good as dead when you have action points left to fire at him.

[TJD]

Yes a lone leader is as good as dead when you have action points left to fire at him.

Well, that certainly isn't my experience. I've found that you can gun at them all day and gain nothing. But I don't have hot dice, so perhaps that's the difference.

/TJD