Matrix Games Forums

Hi Jason

Whoohooo!! Great work..

1.03 is looking better all the time..

Maybe let the blitz website know as well..since close assault is a little bit of a hot issue their as well..

osiris

Thanks for replying, Huib and TJD.

In my old RS manual, it states that non-Japanese leaders stacked with another unit have a 2 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked and a 10 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked alone. Japanese leaders have a 4 percent chance of being eliminated if stacked with other units being attacked and a 20 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked alone.

In the Matrix version 1.03 manual, it says non-Japanese leaders stacked with another unit have a 4 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked but does not say the odds if attacked alone. It further says Japanese leaders are twice as likely to be eliminated and says Japanese leaders have an 8 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked while stacked with another unit and a 20 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked alone. This would appear to mean that non-Japanese leaders would still have a 10 percent chance of being eliminated if attacked alone.

Someone else was asking that the banzai assault rule be modified. With these increased odds of leaders getting eliminated, and with the other modifications to assaults, both the availability and the effectiveness of banzai assaults would appear to have been attenuated to some degree. Further modification may not be necessary.

I haven't run any tests. Normally I wouldn't leave a leader alone, but with the possibility leaders might actually increase the odds of units retreating, I move them out of hexes I want to keep, and sometimes this means moving them out by themselves. The loss of the leader I described on my previous post was on the third or fourth attack. What caused me concern was the combat result dialogue, which described the attack in the same way as an attack on a truck. A truck would be far more vulnerable than a leader as described in the rules.

ORIGINAL: 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

Bravo! A compromise between the two sets of rules was what I was hoping for. I have come around a bit on the current new assault rules, but there are still moments of frustration (like surrounding a lone, disrupted AT gun with an entire tank company and failing in the assault). Thanks to Jason, the Beta Brigade, and everyone else who is working hard on the fix!

What is the status of the correction?

Artur.

ORIGINAL: sztartur

What is the status of the correction?

Artur.

It is being tested, will be released "soon".

Jason Petho

I may have missed this as I have not recently been following the discussions that closely but should it not be possible to occasionally succeed in an assault when an enemy unit is not disrupted? It seems that the emphasis of the discussion has been about how difficult it is now
to successfully assault a position against disrupted units.
 
Personally I prefered the assault rules as they were as I have enjoyed playing the Campaign Series as the game I have been used to over the past years and worry a little about the effect the new rules will have on old scenarios. To me it's a game that needs little improvement, it's not a simulation
it's a game and I enjoy it for what it is - or was.
 
Some of the additions are great and I look forward to making some new scenarios that incorporate them but to me the additions are good but the changes to an almost perfect game are bad. Two of the three PBEM games I'm playing have been hugely disrupted by these changes - the one that hasn't is using the old Talonsoft software.
 
I'm happy to hear that some modifications to the changes may be made.
Cheers, Chris
 
 
 
 

It is being tested, will be released "soon".

Jason Petho

I'm reluctant to ask if you have any news on the status of the assault patch but as it's been a week since your last update I guess it's not unreasonable to do so.

Anything, Jason?

Thanks,

TJD

ORIGINAL: TJD

I'm reluctant to ask if you have any news on the status of the assault patch but as it's been a week since your last update I guess it's not unreasonable to do so.

Anything, Jason?

Thanks,

TJD

It is still on track to send to Matrix near the end of the week.

Jason Petho

I generally like the new assault rules. Armor should not be the unit of choice when attempting to take a city. The only real issue I have is the "superman bug" where a single leader can repel multiple armored assaults. A leader by himself might be able to evade capture and escape to a neighboring hex, but should never repel an assault. Unless of course the graphic is updated to properly show him wearing the appropriate red cape and letter S.

Any news again? Weeks are passing...

Artur.

Sending it to Matrix today or tomorrow.

Jason Petho

Excuse a dumb question,
 
Having only installed patch 1.03, will 1.04's optional 'assault rules' require an earlier patch as well e.g 1.02?
thanks
Jay
 
ps: how big is patch 1.04? Not on broadband here [:(]

Is 1.04 patch supposed to fix bug with 0 assault value units ?

blue jay: patch is 225.54 mb

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Is 1.04 patch supposed to fix bug with 0 assault value units ?

Yes, it does.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: blue jay

Excuse a dumb question,

Having only installed patch 1.03, will 1.04's optional 'assault rules' require an earlier patch as well e.g 1.02?
thanks
Jay

The 1.04 UPDATE is cumulative. It includes all updates.

Jason Petho

I thought the 1.04 Beta at 200+mb was cumulative and the 1.04 Official at a few mb's was not?

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

I thought the 1.04 Beta at 200+mb was cumulative and the 1.04 Official at a few mb's was not?

At this point, the 1.04 UPDATE will be cumulative as to not to cause confusion with the various UPDATES. That's what I was told by Matrix.

Jason Petho

ok I checked it on second install, read document about assaulting...it seemsthat it works as designed

alone AT gun was overrun 8 times out of 10
two succesfull tank assaults was needed to wipe out battery of 122mm howitzers
0 defend and 0 assault units was overrun without problem

mortars was hardest to beat in assault, 0 assault value but defense 3 and they were able repulse two waves of infantry, they got disrupt status though and were eliminated in third assault

....
and one experience from current 1.03

surrounded stack of german units in chateu hex, 2 commanders, 1 disrupted battalion HQ, 1 undisrupted MG (with lowered morale), 1 disrupted MG and 2 disrupted rifle platoons (at half the original strength) and 1 disrupted engineer platoon(strength cca 4SP) captured by two full canadians infantry platoons with Commander (level 3), I don't think that this assault could had chance to succeed in Talonsoft's version of assaults

and one experience from current 1.03

surrounded stack of german units in chateu hex, 2 commanders, 1 disrupted battalion HQ, 1 undisrupted MG (with lowered morale), 1 disrupted MG and 2 disrupted rifle platoons (at half the original strength) and 1 disrupted engineer platoon(strength cca 4SP) captured by two full canadians infantry platoons with Commander (level 3), I don't think that this assault could had chance to succeed in Talonsoft's version of assaults

there was a bug in 1.03 where units with leaders present in the hex were easily steamrolled, regardless the condition of the defending unit(s).

I finally downloaded and installed 1.04, and I reviewed the article by Jason and Wyatt on how the new assaults work. 

I remember in the old Talonsoft manuals, an author recommended you'd probably be better off with two assaults at 2-to-1 odds than one assault at 4-to-1 odds.  I think that'd be even truer with the new assault rules than with the old assault rules. 

If I understand correctly, 25 percent of the time the assault result will be completely independent of the odds.  Fifteen percent of the time the attacker has a chance of winning regardless of the odds, and ten percent of the time the defender has a chance of winning regardless of the odds.  If this is true, then an attacker takes a risk of putting all his eggs in one basket, because in 1 out of 4 instances, the superiority of the assaulting force is irrelevant.  The assaulting force is probably better off making a couple assaults at lower odds or perhaps even multiple assaults at unfavorable odds.

I've read posts where players have tried desperation assaults and won much to their surprise, and I've read posts where players have been thoroughly frustrated because there was no conceivable way the assault should have failed. The above would explain both.