Hmmmm

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

I see your point, Mike.

The generalization mentioned "areas".

I am curious 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

Examples of the game engine "taking over" versus player skill

Extreme Assault - 10% chance of assault failure regardless of force type, strength, morale, disruption, etc.

Variable Visibility - ??% chance visibility will change each turn.

Random Armor Disable - 10% chance any artillery round will eliminate an armor strength point.

Special Concealment (Anti-Tank Guns) Fog of War - 50% chance that anti-tank guns less then 57mm will remain hidden after firing each turn.

Please note that even though the first two examples are optional rules, this does NOT excuse them from still being poorly thought out rules implimented without regard to the impact to game play.

Poorly implimented optional rules are not "options.?" [&:]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mwest

Examples of the game engine "taking over" versus player skill

Extreme Assault - 10% chance of assault failure regardless of force type, strength, morale, disruption, etc.

Considering the game is based on a CRT system for combat, one can have more skill than anything and still come up short.

One makes tactical adjustments for the "just in case" when in combat, why not when assaulting?

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy - Moltke

Assuming an assault should work 100% of the time is unrealistic. A skillful player would prepare accordingly.

ORIGINAL: mwest

Variable Visibility - ??% chance visibility will change each turn.

A skillful player should be able to account for varying visibility in their tactics, especially since they do not vary that much, nor that often with the 1.04 UPDATE (and being limited to the 6-14 visibility range).

ORIGINAL: mwest

Random Armor Disable - 10% chance any artillery round will eliminate an armor strength point.

It is 4%: a player should already have the skillset required to deal with this as it is nothing new to the system.

ORIGINAL: mwest

Special Concealment (Anti-Tank Guns) Fog of War - 50% that anti-tank guns less then 57mm will remain hidden after firing each turn.

On the defence, this improves the players skillset, providing options that were not available before hand.

On the attack, a skillful player should be able to overcome this with relative ease and adjust thier tactics accordingly.

ORIGINAL: mwest
Please note that even though the first two examples are optional rules, this does NOT excuse them from still being poorly thought out rules implimented without regard to the impact to game play.

The rules have been thought out. Thank you for suggesting we're completely incompetent.

Jason Petho

[V22 Osprey]

guys, guys, we're all wargamers.No need for an argument.I think this why some of the rules are 'optional' so players wont be forced to play with these extreme rules if they dont want to.Making it optional means that there doesnt have to be an argument,the people who want xtreme assault can play with extreme assault and people who dont, dont play with the rule.That simple.

Its all good, save your fustration for the enemy, now lets get back to the Battlefield.[8D]

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The rules have been thought out. Thank you for suggesting we're completely incompetent.

Jason Petho

How many test games were played with Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility before these rules were hardwired as JTCS optional rules (ver 1.04)?

How many playtesters (names please) tested Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility before these rules were hardwired as JTCS optional rules (ver 1.04)?

How many detailed end game test reports were written that evaluated the impact of Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility on game play?

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

guys, guys, we're all wargamers.No need for an argument.I think this why some of the rules are 'optional' so players wont be forced to play with these extreme rules if they dont want to.Making it optional means that there doesnt have to be an argument,the people who want xtreme assault can play with extreme assault and people who dont, dont play with the rule.That simple.

Its all good, save your fustration for the enemy, now lets get back to the Battlefield.[8D]

No worries.

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: mwest

You asked for examples in which the game engine took over versus player skill. I gave you four examples. These four examples remain valid.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Back to the game.

Jason Petho

Crap, I edited your post by accident instead of hitting "quote". Sorry.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The rules have been thought out. Thank you for suggesting we're completely incompetent.

Jason Petho

How many test games were played with Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility before these rules were hardwired as JTCS optional rules (ver 1.04)?

How many playtesters (names please) tested Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility before these rules were hardwired as JTCS optional rules (ver 1.04)?

How many detailed end game test reports were written that evaluated the impact of Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility on game play?

Enough games to decide that the rules were functional as designed.

Jason Petho

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: mwest

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

The rules have been thought out. Thank you for suggesting we're completely incompetent.

Jason Petho

How many test games were played with Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility before these rules were hardwired as JTCS optional rules (ver 1.04)?

How many playtesters (names please) tested Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility before these rules were hardwired as JTCS optional rules (ver 1.04)?

How many detailed end game test reports were written that evaluated the impact of Extreme Assault and Variable Visibility on game play?

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Enough games to decide that the rules were functional as designed.

Jason Petho

I was afraid that was going to be your "answer." [:(]

That explains to me why there continues to be issues and controversies concerning the optional rules.

In contrast, I find it interesting that submitting a new JTCS scenario design through the Blitz Club H2H Scenario Testing site requires four scores of 8+ to pass through testing, all playtesters are listed, and every detailed end game report is available to players for reading and discussion. [8D]

I guess that signals the end of our "debate?" [&:]

Another useful exercise? [&:]

Indeed. Back to the game! [:)]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mwest

I was afraid that was going to be your "answer." [:(]

That explains to me why there continues to be issues and controversies concerning the optional rules.

In contrast, I find it interesting that submitting a new JTCS scenario design through the Blitz Club H2H Scenario Testing site requires four scores of 8+ to pass through testing, all playtesters are listed, and every detailed end game report is available to players for reading and discussion. [8D]

I am bound by the Non Disclosure Agreement with Matrix for those kinds of details, which I am sure you understand.

But you can find a complete list of BETA testers and Campaign Series Legion members in the manual. I'm sure you checked there already?

ORIGINAL: mwest
I guess that signals the end of our "debate?" [&:]

Another useful exercise? [&:]

Indeed. Back to the game! [:)]

Yes, back to Modern Wars: Volume I!

OOB's are a killer.

Jason Petho

[Bioman]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

1925frank,
If more changes are made that allow the game engine to take over I may just as well go back to the old Talonsoft disks and get them to work. They were years of fun that the game engine could not effect and make un-fun.
I don't mind when luck is involved. I do mind when the game's programmer is.

RR

I am somewhat confused by this answer. [&:] From what I understand of your complaints against the Extreme Assault rules you don't like luck to be involved in the resolution of the assault. But you like the old assault rules(surround,disrupt and overrun) which where done by the game programmer of the original Talonsoft version. I may be wrong but this seems to totally contradict your stated opinion.

I use the Extreme Assault in most of the games I play and I admit I have been frustrated at times by the results of assaults but it does add some mystery to the outcome. The old assault rules were, IMHO, completely unrealistic. It is true that some of the scenarios have been unbalanced by the new rules but then again some of the scenarios are so unbalanced by their creators that they are unplayable. Is there a better way to resolve assaults? Possibly but it does not look like things are going to change. Maybe it is time to stop beating the dead horse?

[MrRoadrunner]

I'm not going to rehash all the old arguments.
I disagree with your assessment of Extreme Assault and your categorization of version 1.02.
Some players just did not "get it" when it came to version 1.02 Surround/Disrupt/Assault. Some players did. The game worked fine with the old Talonsoft version.

As much as you do not like the old disrupt, surround, assault I do not like disrupt, disrupt disrupt, reduce, disrupt, reduce, disrupt, disrupt assault and then no result Extreme Assault.
To me Extreme Assault is as "unrealistic" as the DSA. It changed the game.

I've always advocated for something "in between".

I think it might have been better for the "team" to play with things in "Modern Wars" and not have messed with the old Series.

And, that's as much as you will get out of me. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and remain civil doing so?

RR

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

To me Extreme Assault is as "unrealistic" as the DSA. It changed the game.

I've always advocated for something "in between".

RR

Many experienced and accomplished CS players; with hundreds of completed games, believe that a "compromise" assault rule is the solution.

Unfortunately, an "in between" assault solution is not under consideration?

[MrRoadrunner]

Of course Mike. [:)]
Bioman declares it a dead horse? It must be a done deal with no other thought to the many players who want a compromise assault option? [:-]

I do not think it is a "dead horse" issue but, I grow weary of constantly receiving the personal attacks and having to either explain what I believe to be true, or told to "shut up" when I do express my opinion.
I've never not allowed a player free expression.

I believe that extreme assault works as intended and is also wrong for the game. [;)]

RR

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I believe that extreme assault works as intended and is also wrong for the game. [;)]

... and optional.

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: mwest

Unfortunately, an "in between" assault solution is not under consideration?

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho ~ Blitz MB 20090403

Tweaking the 1.04 Extreme Assault rules will more than likely happen in the future, they have been tweaked already from 1.03 to 1.04. (they are "easier" in 1.04 than they were in 1.03). Whether that tweaking happens for 1.05 or 1.06 or beyond, I do not know.

Will there be Light Assault, Medium Assault, Kinda Extreme Assault, Super Extreme Assault options available? No, not in the foreseeable future.

The 1.05 UPDATE isn't due for release until 2010, probably late in the year at this rate. Day job, night job and family taking a lot of my time. Tweaking to the assault rules, if any are found to be necessary, will come in that UPDATE.

Of course, if someone is willing to substitute my salary (plus benefits) for the next few years I wouldd be happy to work on this full time and get out 1.05 sooner! *laughs*

Jason Petho

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I believe that extreme assault works as intended and is also wrong for the game. [;)]

... and optional.

Jason Petho

Barely vetted and still wrong for the game. [>:]

Maybe as wrong as version 1.02 assault is to the few who do not like the original assault rules? [8|]

RR

[Qwixt]

If it's optional, what's the big deal or argument over?

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

If it's optional, what's the big deal or argument over?

Is your question based on what you have read since the release of version 1.03/1.04?
Or, are you simply trying to stir up stuff?

RR

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

If it's optional, what's the big deal or argument over?

Is your question based on what you have read since the release of version 1.03/1.04?
Or, are you simply trying to stir up stuff?

RR

I was trying to decide whether to get JTCS, so I was browsing the forum to try and decide. Trying to figure out if this version is as buggy as the original series was for me. I still remember buying something like West Front (can't remember the exact game), not being able to run it and putting them on my no buy list because of how buggy previous games were for me.

Anyway, no, I am not trying to stir things up. Simply trying to understand what the complaint is for an optional feature. I understand why some would not like the feature, but from what I read, if you don't use it, then the game works like it always use to. I don't need the whole background. Just curious is all.

[MrRoadrunner]

Thanks Qwixt.
The game is well worth the purchase price if you enjoy the scale.

The difference between bugs in the old and bugs in the new is, the new is supported by Matrix. And, upgrades were comprehensive including any bug fixes.

My opinion notwithstanding I think the Extreme Assault changed the game for the worse. Every classicly made scenario was effected. Skill has taken a backseat to a die roll by the game engine.
And, yes, you are correct, you do not have to use EA. But, what if some of your play by e-mail opponents do?
EA has effected PBEM to the worse. Though, not just in game play?

And, lastly, if you make the purchase (and I hope you do) try to enjoy the new effectiveness of artillery versus armor, and whatever they did to change the effectiveness of opportunity fire. It may drive you crazy, but, it effects all equally, from PBEM to those who just "campaign" or do scenarios versus the AI. [:)]

Regards,

RR