Matrix Games Forums

RoadRunner,

I'm sorry this change has upset you, please do not overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Have you tried the new assault rules much beyond the one unusual situation you had? We've had reports from quite a few others that they are working well overall. Since you're unhappy with them, the best way to give us feedback is to give us some specific examples from your play (in addition to what you already posted) where they don't meet your expectations. Or if you prefer, play v1.02 while the assault rule changes shake out and any necessary tweaks are made.

Your request regarding adding options toggles to some of the changes makes sense to me and I'll inquire to see what's possible, but let's give these new rules a chance first and see what the consensus is. I've heard from a lot of folks that really like the new rules as well.

Regards,

- Erik

I replayed the same campaign with the Beta version of 1.3 where the new assault rules were not included yet-it was the first version of 1.3 published to forum members. Same situation in the same town. 4 sections of armored cars assaulted and overran the inf squad without any infantry and armor support. That may be also irrealistic but from the other side. Too easy. So Matrix designers please make something in between the current status and what it was before adding the new assault rules.

Artur.
 

ORIGINAL: sztartur

I replayed the same campaign with the Beta version of 1.3 where the new assault rules were not included yet-it was the first version of 1.3 published to forum members. Same situation in the same town. 4 sections of armored cars assaulted and overran the inf squad without any infantry and armor support. That may be also irrealistic but from the other side. Too easy. So Matrix designers please make something in between the current status and what it was before adding the new assault rules.

Artur.

The sword has (mostly [:D])two sides. I think the Bug (Chance of survival of unarmored units and leaders) will fixed in the next Update.

Making part of the game engine with no option just stinks. I heard these assault rules were part of the original EF game.

Ah, I remember in the original EF you could actually overrun undisrupted units!
Happy memories of blitzing Russki troops on the open steppe.....[:'(]
Then Talonsoft said "Oops, we coded assaults wrong!" and "fixed" it in a patch.....which made it impossible to assault anything....

After much insult throwing and death threats, Talonsoft compromised and gave us the assault rules we had until the recent 1.03....

I haven't played enough with the new 1.03 to form an opinion yet, but what a feeling of deja-vu![:'(]

Im thinking that Eric,Jason and the boys have got the message.I mean they want the best for us ,matrix always has done the rite thing.so rest assured they will make everything ok,i know this.The problem is it wont be till 2011 rite Jason.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

RoadRunner,

I'm sorry this change has upset you, please do not overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Have you tried the new assault rules much beyond the one unusual situation you had? We've had reports from quite a few others that they are working well overall. Since you're unhappy with them, the best way to give us feedback is to give us some specific examples from your play (in addition to what you already posted) where they don't meet your expectations. Or if you prefer, play v1.02 while the assault rule changes shake out and any necessary tweaks are made.

Your request regarding adding options toggles to some of the changes makes sense to me and I'll inquire to see what's possible, but let's give these new rules a chance first and see what the consensus is. I've heard from a lot of folks that really like the new rules as well.

Regards,

- Erik

RR has certainly made it clear how he feels about the changes to the game. I'm glad he has as I feel the same way although I am happy to play an earlier patch for the next year or so if some of these changes could be made optional.

It may be said that players still have the option of playing 1.02 or the Talonsoft version but we know that if nothing is changed 1.03 will eventually be the game that 90% of people play - we don't want to lose the game and the community we have loved for so many years. I've never played a game for more than 2 or 3 years - CS almost 10 years now.

Chris

I have to agree with those who dislike the new assault rules.

I'm an old player of the Talonsoft games and I've lurked on these boards for months waiting for the new update. I'm sorry that my first post is a complaint but I'm stunned by this change. It seems to me that they were designed primarily with East Front in mind. No one so far seems to have commented much on the terrible effect these changes will have on Rising Sun. Many of the scenarios in RS are wholly dependent on the old assault rules -- the whole "blowtorch and corkscrew" approach is now out the window, and with all the advantages now going to the defense you'll never be able to dig the Japanese out of their positions. All of those great scenarios by D. Bevard are now unplayable. I just gamed one and for God's sake I can't even assault a lone leader with a Marine platoon in plain terrain. WTF?

Sorry to run on but I just don't understand why these changes were brought in at the last minute. So far as I can see, there was no widespread clamor for a change in the assault rules. It weren't broke, so why fix it?

I'm solidly in favor of a return to status quo ante. I'm hoping for Patch 1.03b.

/TJD

iM WAITING TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE that their 4sp tiger got destroyed by one of the civilian charachters it attacked.

Hi
 
Unfortunately I dont have the option of going back to version 1.02b? Can matrix put the 1.02b patch back on the site and give people some options till things are sorted and settled down...I really liked it when you kept all the archived patches around on your site. I found patch 1.02 off site but cant find 1.02a and 1.02b
 
rene

ORIGINAL: osiris

Hi

Unfortunately I dont have the option of going back to version 1.02b? Can matrix put the 1.02b patch back on the site and give people some options till things are sorted and settled down...I really liked it when you kept all the archived patches around on your site. I found patch 1.02 off site but cant find 1.02a and 1.02b

rene

I thought you were a designer, then you would surely want to stick with 1.03 instead of going back to 1.02.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

RoadRunner,

I'm sorry this change has upset you, please do not overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Have you tried the new assault rules much beyond the one unusual situation you had? We've had reports from quite a few others that they are working well overall. Since you're unhappy with them, the best way to give us feedback is to give us some specific examples from your play (in addition to what you already posted) where they don't meet your expectations. Or if you prefer, play v1.02 while the assault rule changes shake out and any necessary tweaks are made.

Your request regarding adding options toggles to some of the changes makes sense to me and I'll inquire to see what's possible, but let's give these new rules a chance first and see what the consensus is. I've heard from a lot of folks that really like the new rules as well.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

Upset, who me? For months I was telling anyone who would listen that you should not "paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa". I joyously downloaded the "upgrade" and found that my Mona Lisa has a moustache. Upset. Yes sir. I'm upset sir.
I expected upgrades that added to the game. I got updates that changed the game and for the worse. The new assault rules are the ones similar to Talonsoft's old EF game prior to disgarding them in the Campaign Series.

We, the players did not get upgraded. We got a great looking game that is not the game we have played for years.
And, as far as throwing out the baby with the bathwater? If someone switched my "baby" with a snake, I'd throw the snake out and make sure it was dead. Then I would go back and look for my baby.
Go back to version 1.02. Sadly, I think I may go back to the original Matrix release, that was a rehash of Talonsoft and then beg some patches off players who may have them.

Who in their right mind would think that adding things that changed the game, not improved it, would have not met with "opposition"?
Why would such expansive changes be made mandatory?

I was told by a friend that there was a vote and it was the vote that got the new assault rules added to this game. Well, the small amount of voters got it wrong. The election sucked.
You changed a game that had a loyal following for all the years after it went unsupported. There is a whole group out there that you have not heard from?
My God, resetting the assault rules back to ones that were rejected when the game was improved by the original designers? And, then not thinking that every scenario and campaign would be altered by it?

It is not like it was not said on numerous occasions. I've heard from two of the inner circle. One said that it is just tough and I should curse if I want to. The other said that anyone that did not like the update are a bunch of babies if they complain about it.

I've burned the tips of my fingers off typing about this. It feels almost as stupid as the time I wasted being a devoted follower of the game. I am not going to change to be a devoted follower of the new game that looks like the Campaign Series that I used to play. It looks more like the snake in the bathwater.

I'll continue to be a voice in the wilderness.

Ed

I can't believe that I am about to do this, mostly because of his unwarranted personal attacks on individuals, but here goes........

I am in a 'conditional' agreement with 'RR'! I'm going to burn in he++ for that, I just know it! [;)]

But, maybe we should let the 'dust' settle for awhile? [:)]

However it works out, I think all can agree, that some of these unilateral changes would be better received if there were an 'optional' function available. Especially when some fundamentals about either the function of the game or the effects on play would result!

Don't want to 'pee in anybody's wheaties' but the implementation for 1.03 (and any future upgrades) changes should all have been 'optional'. Then as time went by and feedback came in you could see what could be made permanent and which sort of thing(s) should remain in the optional category. Then based on actual user feedback their 'permanent' or optional status could be determined and implemented! With the optional function 'users' could have 'flipped' back and forth to make comparisons and given those details, on this site, about what they experienced, which could be incorporated in future editions. You guys had (have) a lot of chances here!

I'm not pointing the finger here...... reliance on a small 'inner circle' never works...... to few people with to finite a selection of points of view...... its the same reason 'doctors' can't operate on relatives, to close to the situation for objective decision making! I'd give 'it' to people on the 'outside' have them evaluate it and then present that to the people responsible to make it work!

Just from a 'philosophical' point of view, isn't it always better to let the 'community' decide? If you would have incorporated these with an optional function.......

Few if any complaints, the 'status quo' is there for all who want it.

The discussions about the updated options would have gone on in a process in this forum more along the lines of, 'have you tried it', 'did it work for you', 'these are the things I've noticed.......and so on. Instead, you've already got people scrambling for the old upgrades, not a good sign!

I'm holding out on as much as I can (indirect artillery effectiveness against armor not withstanding) and I'll be watching this site for insights.

Matrix, you've got a 'world of experienced' JTCS 'experts' out there, I'd use them! But its just my opinion and as they say, opinions are like.........

Dennis [;)]

Well said Dennis.[&o]

Someone needs to make a movie about you. [:D]

and you're not gonna burn anywhere, Ed's okay, just a loyal "grognard".

I'd rather see ten patches with a little change each, rather than one big update with a lot of problems.

"I'd rather see ten patches with a little change each, rather than one big update with a lot of problems. "

I couldn't agree with you more!

Now I can bore everybody with my 'war-stories'.

The planes would 'come back'. Each of them had a dozen problems! What to fix first?

Complaint one: the pi$$ tube is too short! Complaint two: engine quits when pulling more than 3G's!

Which do I work on first? [&:]

If I asked the pilot, who experienced the effects of hurtling at the ground, out of control, at Mach 2.0, and had already pi$$ed himself,I think I could guess what his priority would be![:D]

By the way, 'complaint one' was always signed off as 'checked okay by an enlisted man'! The complaining officer was never allowed to forget it! By his fellow officers!

Some things were not 'flight inhibiting' and as such 'stayed' in the book for a time when they could be addressed without interfering with the 'critical' problems!

Never, never did I send anyone out there with more than one 'gripe' to fix! I quickly learned that if you tried to fix all the problems at once, you rarely, no make that never succeeded! I went out there with all the 'gripes'! I would prioritize the problems, assign the personnel, see that they do the work according to expectations. Thats what we did, every mission series, every day!

In short, generally, if you try to fix everything at once, you may have limited your chances for success!

Just my opinion! [:)]

Dennis [;)]

I agree with TJD,
Changing such a fundamental rule like assault has repercussions that could render existing scenarios unplayable, change balances, etc. Unless the scenario was written and tested with the new changes it should remain an 'option only' in older scenarios. A single problem like this can turn all of your hard work into trash.

Now I understand that these things need to be ironed out over time but how long do we have to wait?
Dave

ORIGINAL: TJD

I have to agree with those who dislike the new assault rules.

I'm an old player of the Talonsoft games and I've lurked on these boards for months waiting for the new update. I'm sorry that my first post is a complaint but I'm stunned by this change. It seems to me that they were designed primarily with East Front in mind. No one so far seems to have commented much on the terrible effect these changes will have on Rising Sun. Many of the scenarios in RS are wholly dependent on the old assault rules -- the whole "blowtorch and corkscrew" approach is now out the window, and with all the advantages now going to the defense you'll never be able to dig the Japanese out of their positions. All of those great scenarios by D. Bevard are now unplayable. I just gamed one and for God's sake I can't even assault a lone leader with a Marine platoon in plain terrain. WTF?

Sorry to run on but I just don't understand why these changes were brought in at the last minute. So far as I can see, there was no widespread clamor for a change in the assault rules. It weren't broke, so why fix it?

I'm solidly in favor of a return to status quo ante. I'm hoping for Patch 1.03b.

/TJD

Hi Huib

I did not design patch 1.03..in fact I had no input at all into it. I do want patch 1.03 to work but I have said this over and over again in my posts..sometime less is more and this is where we are today..we have a bunch of upset people who are unhappy campers and some of them are die hard fans of this game and they probably know it better than I do.

So im going to try to put forth a few logical solutions, I just hope someone listens cause Im just a little scenario designer in this whole scheme of things:

Variable visibilty
Number 1 and biggest issue for me with 1.03 is variable visibilty. I know some adjustments were made but it has a huge impact on the game. I can now only design scenarios outside of the 15 hex and what ever the other number is. Understand my logic here. I want day to night functions but not variable visibility. I really think and I have said this before, variable visibilty should have been tossed in favor of patch 1.04 for a proper day to night functionality. You dont need variable visibilty if you have a proper day to night function..so in essence variable visibilty is a comprimise and not a good one until day-night functions are introduced with 1.04. That leaves 3 options:

• variable visibilty needs to adjusted to a even more restricted set of numbers
• make it optional..a on off switch..default being off so that stock scenarios ARE NOT AFFECTED since they were not designed with this function.
• toss it altogether and put the energies towards a proper day to night function in 1.04

Graphics updates:
Kudos to Jason and others for the graphic upgrades while some are outstanding there are 2 that are not good for or functional reasons.

Trucks in 1.03 are a mess..a loaded german truck goes dark grey and canvas on top..so anyone playing PBEM is going to know those are loaded. I can make a local fix for that but it should be a community wide fix.

SSPzgd 44 platoon graphic, a number of people have already said its hard to see and doesnt highlight with green borders. Again its a minor fix but again it needs to be a community wide fix.

Close assault changes
Playing SPWAW I can understand what matrix wanted to do here. But more testing should have gone into one of the key functions of the game. Close assaults are one of the key ways of resolving combat in CS..the bugs really needed to be cleared out of this one particular function before it was released because it effects playability immediately. Last time I played SPWAW trucks die when they run something with a gun. It sounds what has happened with a truck and a commander holding of tanks is a bug..that needs to be fixed because any player with half a functioning brain is going to fill the hexes with trucks and leaders. Finally double dispersal or as was earlier suggested by another player routed/broken morale with no chance of morale recovery should be considered.

I do want patch 1.03 to work...I can make do with minor changes and bug fixes to last 2 issues I brought up but with the first issue variable visibility it has a huge a bigger effect on the game than I think anyone realized. Thats why I would like the option of retaining patch 1.02b.

No offence meant by any of this

Osiris

ORIGINAL: Arkady

It also increase combat efficiency of russian infantry, until now poor fire value and inability to win assaults against undisrupted units need great tactical skills to use them.
Now they can with repeated assaults destroy enemy (after several losses though) in human-waves tactic...it is great for more reality in scenarios of first two years of Great Patriotic War.

Arkady

Is there a description of the mechanics of this somewhere? I think it's a good change as Russian submachine gun infantry often get a raw deal.

ORIGINAL: cromlechi

Is there a description of the mechanics of this somewhere? I think it's a good change as Russian submachine gun infantry often get a raw deal.

Go to the sticky thread at the top of this forum titled:

v1.03 UPDATE is released and Full Change List

Description of the new assault rule is the first thing described in the thread.

ORIGINAL: dgk196

I can't believe that I am about to do this, mostly because of his unwarranted personal attacks on individuals, but here goes........

I respectfully disagree with this comment. I've made comments against the post and not the poster. With one exception, a certain East German who thought that writing filthy attack private messages and e-mails would endear himself to me. [8|]

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I am in a 'conditional' agreement with 'RR'! I'm going to burn in he++ for that, I just know it! [;)]

But, maybe we should let the 'dust' settle for awhile? [:)] However it works out, I think all can agree, that some of these unilateral changes would be better received if there were an 'optional' function available. Especially when some fundamentals about either the function of the game or the effects on play would result!

I'm willing to let the dust settle. But, why did there have to be dust in the first place?
When I was told that "all you little generals" should just stop whining and "accept the game as is this is the direction it is going", I got insulted. I don't want the turd put in front of me, call it a hot dog, and then be forced to eat it. Would you?
Then I read a posted message that said, "the official 1.03 upgrade is now available, let the cursing begin". Kinda gives some forecast that the developers knew that they made a major change to the game that might be seen as changing it into a game that "purest" would just love to hate, eh?

ORIGINAL: dgk196
I'm not pointing the finger here...... reliance on a small 'inner circle' never works...... to few people with to finite a selection of points of view...... its the same reason 'doctors' can't operate on relatives, to close to the situation for objective decision making! I'd give 'it' to people on the 'outside' have them evaluate it and then present that to the people responsible to make it work!

I call them the "cabal". Quite of few I counted as friends.

ORIGINAL: dgk196
The discussions about the updated options would have gone on in a process in this forum more along the lines of, 'have you tried it', 'did it work for you', 'these are the things I've noticed.......and so on. Instead, you've already got people scrambling for the old upgrades, not a good sign!

Discussions don't work when a small few have a direction they want to go, blinders on, and the "pedal to the metal". How many times I said, "don't paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa, don't force major changes on the players, visibility variability should be optional, and don't change the game into something it was not intended?

I'll be the voice in the wilderness. I will stand up for the game. I will walk away from what they think they can force down our throats. It's the last real "free will" freedom that I have?

Ed