Matrix Games Forums

I think "The Operational Art of War" has that option too.

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I agree complete !!! I don´t know why i read those compares not for the first time here ? Let the Campaign Series what it is !!!

Stefan

Purest.  I can see that.  If someone tried to change Monopoly, Risk, or Chess, I'd instinctively oppose it.  Like a Spock with round ears.  It's the personality of the game that is being tampered with.

Not that there's anything wrong with round ears.
 
Or the Nebraska Cornhuskers wearing blue jerseys.

This thread has gone so far off topic it isnt even funny.How did it get from ''how to turn off music'' to ''lets change CS''?

The name of the thread is "Hmmmm," as in, "I've got a question."  And I deliberately changed the question rather than start another thread.

Mystery solved.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR

Just conservative, not a purist. To be a purist you would have to understand the game. A purist would use different arguments than you do.

LOL! Truth there! [:)]
I just think that slapping on pieces from Steel Panthers, Combat Mission, and The Operational Art of War do nothing more than add "chrome" that satisfies a few while changing the game for all others.
I'm not against colorizing old movies. I am against changing dialog or adding scenes that don't make sense while doing so.
Like what extreme assault does for balance of all scenarios, so too, would any "optional game ending" format?
Just throw out balance all together? Both purest and conservatives may agree to be against something like that?

I prefer to be extra conservative. I have not been pure in quite some time! [;)]

RR

ORIGINAL: Huib

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR

Just conservative, not a purist. To be a purist you would have to understand the game. A purist would use different arguments than you do.

Why can't a conservative be a purist? [&:]

And why do some players constantly look to alter the game engine... by adding more random luck elements and further reducing the need for individual skill level? [8D]

I agree with mwest 100%

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Huib

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Conservative? Or purest?
CS is neither CM nor Operation Art of War?
Why try to make it so?

I'd rather be "conservative" than change the game to something it is not.
The "Mona Lisa" already has a moustache. It does not need a beard too.

RR

Just conservative, not a purist. To be a purist you would have to understand the game. A purist would use different arguments than you do.

Why can't a conservative be a purist? [&:]

And why do some players constantly look to alter the game engine... by adding more random luck elements and further reducing the need for individual skill level? [8D]

Mike they can be both.
Herr Huib just used it as an opportunity to personally attack me.

It does get very droll to repeat and repeat all the arguments against the proposed changes. Huib knows the why and the what. He just chooses to blindly move on and take shots at those who wanted the game upgraded but not changed beyond recognition.

As you said, letting the game engine take over the areas that used to be the skill of the individual players is a problem that they all do not seem to want to face?

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
As you said, letting the game engine take over the areas that used to be the skill of the individual players is a problem that they all do not seem to want to face?

Just for clarity, what are these areas that the game engine takes over that used to be the skill of the individual players ?

Jason Petho

Gentlemen,

what´s going wrong here ? Do we "talk" about a game ? No more words ...

Stefan

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Just for clarity, what are these areas that the game engine takes over that used to be the skill of the individual players ?

Jason Petho

I am disappointed that you are ready to provoke a "heated" exchange on this forum? [&:] You; of all persons, should understand Ed and other players' viewpoints who disagree with some of the recent JTCS rules changes?

Please don't go there... do we need another rehash of Extreme Assault on the JTCS forums? [&:] Was not the recent Blitz Club forum debate enough?

Gents:

But what I believe should get more "attention" in this thread is while many players want to see "change" in JTCS (whether revised artillery spotting rules, separate artillery ammunition, another assault flavor, more luck elements like a variable turn ending?, etc), there is never an accompanying discussion on how any of these proposed changes will impact game play? [&:]

Should not game play impact be paramount - both from a game player and developer perspective?

IMHO, there appears to be a whole lot of "let's change the rules because we can" crowd and very few folks who are worrying about how any proposed rule changes will impact game play? [&:]

ORIGINAL: mwest
separate artillery ammunition,

This is inherently already built into the system as artillery uses the base ammo level and is not bound the traditional command & control supply rules as other combat units on the map.

ORIGINAL: mwest
there is never an accompanying discussion on how any of these proposed changes will impact game play? [&:]

On the contrary, is that not the point of posting threads... to discuss?

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: mwest

I am disappointed that you are ready to provoke a "heated" exchange on this forum? [&:] You; of all persons, should understand Ed and other players' viewpoints who disagree with some of the recent JTCS rules changes?

I disagree.

I am merely asking for clarity as it was a generalized statement.

It may provide the opportunity to discuss each point separately in a civil manner.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


I disagree.

I am merely asking for clarity as it was a generalized statement.

It may provide the opportunity to discuss each point separately in a civil manner.

Jason Petho

I can guarantee that one of the points encapsulated within the "generalized statement" is Extreme Assault and its impact on JTCS. There have been several Blitz Club forum "debates" on this subject. You weighed in on all those debates. I'm sure you remember them? [&:] This "issue" was resolved months ago when you repeatly told players who questioned and objected to Extreme Assault's impact on game play that "...Extreme Assault is working as intended." "Learn to assault better." Most players have moved on? (Me included)

Why debate a topic like Extreme Assault when the decision has already been made and that no changes will be entertained for the near future?

Has not everything that can possibly be discussed on Extreme Assault been covered in this Blitz Club thread?

Extreme Assault

BTW... this thread covers 17 screens, over 4,000 views, and 161 replies.

Why repeat the same "debate" here? [&:]

IMO, I believe most players (me included) have given up "debating" subjects like Extreme Assault because there is no purpose in engaging in another useless exercise?

You and the JTCS game designers have decided that Extreme Assault is a "good thing" for JTCS and there will be no other options except the ver. 1.02 disrupt / surround / capture rule. End of story?

I see your point, Mike.

The generalization mentioned "areas".

I am cursious as to what those other areas are, apart from the usual assault issue, which you have noted has been gone over enough already.

Jason Petho