Matrix Games Forums

Just one final message to ensure clarity:
 
The upgrade is really nice. I like the new units and the graphics. The little graphic bugs can be easily fixed with small patches along the way.
That said, the Variable Visibility and new Assault Rules have fundamentally changed the game. In my opinion for the worse, obviously.
 
Whoever thought that changing this game was the way to go "missed the mark". Improving the game would have been a much better road to take.
I'm saddened to see that some do not know the difference and ask us, the players who support the game, to just put up with things as they are.
Sorry, when I see a wrong I try to right it. When I am told that I have to be silent and all will work out, when I know it will not, I will shout it to the top of my lungs.
If I see a man beating his wife on the sidewalk I will step in, even if it means that I will have to accept some blows from both parties.
I knw what is right and I know what is wrong. If the crowd I hang with thinks that right is wrong and wrong is right, I will not hang with that crowd anymore.
 
It's who I am. It's why I am.
When I believe I stand on solid ground it is impossible to move me.
 
To any and all who think I am nuts for posting my beliefs about the game or are insulted by what I type, it was not my intention. I just have strong beliefs about what is going on here and I feel the need to express them most strongly.
 
Ed

Ed,

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
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?

With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole and there's no need for it. The update has only been out for a couple of days now, we're waiting to get a good sense of the feedback before deciding on the next course of action. We're all reading and listening, be assured your point of view (and the others) has been heard and is being considered.

Everyone working on the JTCS team wants the best for the game and the series. These are dedicated folks that put a lot of work, thought and testing into these releases for the benefit of the community. We want everyone in the community to be happy with each release.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I'm saddened to see that some do not know the difference and ask us, the players who support the game, to just put up with things as they are.
Sorry, when I see a wrong I try to right it. When I am told that I have to be silent and all will work out, when I know it will not, I will shout it to the top of my lungs.
If I see a man beating his wife on the sidewalk I will step in, even if it means that I will have to accept some blows from both parties.
I knw what is right and I know what is wrong. If the crowd I hang with thinks that right is wrong and wrong is right, I will not hang with that crowd anymore.

I haven't told you to be silent, but a little less melodrama would be appreciated. Comparing your concerns regarding two features in this update to someone beating their wife is simply beyond the pale. When I suggested you relax and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, it was because of this kind of tone.

Your feedback will be 1000x more valuable if instead of making these kinds of comparisons, you play with v1.03 a bit more and post some more specific examples of how the assault or visibility rules are causing problems with gameplay for you. The more specific feedback like that we have, the better a decision we can make.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: dgk196
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.........

We are certainly interested in hearing from you all and we always keep your concerns in mind, but as I just posted to MrRoadrunner, the most valuable feedback for the team if you have a problem with any of the changes is to post some specific examples where it doesn't work for you rather than just general feedback.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ed,

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
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?

With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole and there's no need for it. The update has only been out for a couple of days now, we're waiting to get a good sense of the feedback before deciding on the next course of action. We're all reading and listening, be assured your point of view (and the others) has been heard and is being considered.

Everyone working on the JTCS team wants the best for the game and the series. These are dedicated folks that put a lot of work, thought and testing into these releases for the benefit of the community. We want everyone in the community to be happy with each release.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik,

Again, please read my message that is immediately above you post?
Don't paint my car yellow and say I'm going to love it once I get used to it. I did not buy a yellow car?

You fundamentally changed the game. Regardless of the hard work that was done, the game has changed and not improved.
Hundreds of people sweating to build a bridge to nowhere only accomplished building the bridge. If it's destination was "nowhere" then what was accomplished?

If you do think that players expressed their desires and it was to fundamentally change the game with the variable visibility and assault rules hard wired and not optional, then you are sorely mistaken and you will be hard pressed to find those, other than in the "cabal", who did?

It's still a snake in the bath water, even if it is days later and the bathwater is cold?

Osiris,

ORIGINAL: osiris
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

I'm not sure I clearly understand the issue here. Could you be more specific on where this is causing you problems?

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.

Have you tested this yourself yet? Which scenarios or situations did you have a problem with the new rules in? Apart from the issue with 0 Assault units, have you seen any other problems?

Regards,

- Erik

Ed,

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Again, please read my message that is immediately above you post?
Don't paint my car yellow and say I'm going to love it once I get used to it. I did not buy a yellow car?

I've never told you to love it, take it or leave it, etc.

What I do ask is for some more specific feedback rather than general complaints and analogies which are not actually helping point out any issues that are bothering you. Apart from the problem with assaulting 0 Assault units, is anything else about the new assault rules, in your testing, a problem?

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: dgk196
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.........

We are certainly interested in hearing from you all and we always keep your concerns in mind, but as I just posted to MrRoadrunner, the most valuable feedback for the team if you have a problem with any of the changes is to post some specific examples where it doesn't work for you rather than just general feedback.

Regards,

- Erik

How about this for specific?
Make the variable visibilty and assault rules optional choices to made. They changed the fundamental way the game is played. It's not one thing here, or a graphic problem there, or an engineer entering a minefield with another platoon stopping the non-engineer platoon from being attacked by the minefield.
It's not the little things that can be easily fixed. It is the large fundamental changes that effect every scenario and every campaign, in a game that all of us were quite content to play as is, as long as the minor issues were fixed.
Variable Visibility and the new Close Assault rules change the entire game so much that no specific "little" fixes can repair what has been done that changes the game into something that looks like the Campaign Series but is not the Campaign Series.

I must apologize if I am not coming across clearly.

Ed

the most valuable feedback for the team if you have a problem with any of the changes is to post some specific examples where it doesn't work for you rather than just general feedback.

I'll be happy to post specific feedback in the coming days, but I would like to make a general point about these changes. CS is a classic. One way to define a classic is that it's something that can't really be improved in its fundamentals despite its flaws. Tweaking may be desirable, but you've got to respect the essential integrity of the thing.

I held off buying the game until the 1.03 update came out. This change is such that had I known of it I would not have bought it. I'd've stuck with my Talonsoft originals.

My biggest worry is for Rising Sun. I don't think the bulk of the scenarios in that game will be playable any longer with these new assault rules. You'll never get the Japanese out of a -9 Pillbox now.

Please give us the option to revert to the old system.

/TJD

Let me just say that I changed from being sceptical about the assault change, to being positive about it in a day's time playing. I have had no examples in my ongoing PBEM games were anything unrealistic happened. Apparently my opponents feel the same way as they are not complaining but enjoying the game.
It would really be a pity if the assault rules would be rolled back because some refuse to play with them or refuse to change a gamey style of playing.
I am interested in examples were it is clear that the new rules are less realistic than the old ones were you could assault with a ridiculous minority as long as the other side was disrupted.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ed,

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Again, please read my message that is immediately above you post?
Don't paint my car yellow and say I'm going to love it once I get used to it. I did not buy a yellow car?

I've never told you to love it, take it or leave it, etc.

What I do ask is for some more specific feedback rather than general complaints and analogies which are not actually helping point out any issues that are bothering you. Apart from the problem with assaulting 0 Assault units, is anything else about the new assault rules, in your testing, a problem?

Regards,

- Erik

And, I never said that you did. But, more than one member of the "team" has done that very thing. I am not too pleased about that, but, I am willing to have the franker discussions with them.

Do you play the game? Have you played the game? Have you spent hundreds of hours playing against the AI or Human opponents?
In the few days, I've played, with Variable Visibility and in the last two days of Close Assault, I have seen my PBEM experience radically changed. And, not for the better.

I cannot express how pleased I was to have Matrix support CS. I was impressed by the quality of work done in most of the patches, bug fixes, and add ons.
Where I am not pleased is in the addition of both variable visibilty and close assault. It changed the whole game and not just small bits of it. So, I cannot relate small bits that can be "patched up" it's too fundamental.

Love it? Take it or leave it? That's up to me now, isn't it?
Like my example of the "turd/hot dog", if you serve it to me I can get up from the table.
That will be my choice, even if you did not specifically say it?

I look forward to new scenarios with all the new units and features. I've had my share of PBEM with people that have played the old ones so many times that they can beat me with their eyes closed.

Ed,

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
How about this for specific?
Make the variable visibilty and assault rules optional choices to made. They changed the fundamental way the game is played. It's not one thing here, or a graphic problem there, or an engineer entering a minefield with another platoon stopping the non-engineer platoon from being attacked by the minefield.
It's not the little things that can be easily fixed. It is the large fundamental changes that effect every scenario and every campaign, in a game that all of us were quite content to play as is, as long as the minor issues were fixed.
Variable Visibility and the new Close Assault rules change the entire game so much that no specific "little" fixes can repair what has been done that changes the game into something that looks like the Campaign Series but is not the Campaign Series.

That's not specfic, sorry.

We've already decided to add options in the future, but what I'm looking for now is not just a comment to "take these out" but some specific examples why. Because we have feedback from people who have played them and report them a good improvement, I'd like to get some specific reasons why they are not.

The problem with attacking 0 Assault units is effectively a bug that can be tweaked. Apart from that, what else is a problem for you as far as the new assault rules and variable visibility. How have these negatively impacted your game play? If you can give us specific scenarios and instances where they caused problems for you, then we can look at those and decide what to do.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Huib

Let me just say that I changed from being sceptical about the assault change, to being positive about it in a day's time playing. I have had no examples in my ongoing PBEM games were anything unrealistic happened. Apparently my opponents feel the same way as they are not complaining but enjoying the game.
It would really be a pity if the assault rules would be rolled back because some refuse to play with them or refuse to change a gamey style of playing.
I am interested in examples were it is clear that the new rules are less realistic than the old ones were you could assault with a ridiculous minority as long as the other side was disrupted.

Herr Huib,

I appreciate your comments. I have not had the same "happy moment of change" that you have. I'm about to offer my opponents in ten different PBEM matches a victory because I cannot accept the way close assault and variable visiblity has changed the game.
Remember my posts about Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader, the old board games from Avalon Hill? Squad Leader was a solid fun to play game. Advanced Squad Leader turned it into a droll and tedious game for the sake of "realism". I was willing to spend hundreds of dollars buying the additions to SL. I spent not one dime on ASL.
If you think that it is realistic that a scout car platoon cannot overrun and capture a non-combat half track transport platoon because it is in a town, then I think realism went the way of the dinosaurs. If you think multiple infantry and armor platoons attacking a leader, alone and in the open, get no effect result is realistic then I have a bad view of realism. If you think that three infantry platoons and five armored platoons attacking from different hexes, a disrupted and weakened engineer in trenches that not only suffer a no effect but, two of the armor platoons have one disrupted and the other destroyed is realism, then I do not know what is real.

You know you have my respect and I honor you for all you do for the game. I just will not be able to accept the close assault rules and variable visibility rules as anything but optional. If someone does not want to play me because of those preferences, I can have that option.
It would be similar to the armor facing rules?
At least then I would have a choice? I've even played opponents with the armor facing rules "off", though I prefer them on.

And, so all that know, out of the fifteen PBEM games that I have ongoing, eight have been placed on hold by my opponents wishes, because of the close assault rules. The other opponents are continuing to play to see what effect these changes have made.

As I stated, over and over, the new rules fundamentally change the game to something that I do not recognize as CS.
Sad but true. It's not a haircut or a new pair of shoes. It's become a totally new "person".

I see by some of the posts and from some personal messages that I may eventually be forced out the CS game. It's really O.K. by me. I am sure my family will either love it or hate it .... depending.

Ed

ORIGINAL: TJD
I'll be happy to post specific feedback in the coming days, but I would like to make a general point about these changes. CS is a classic. One way to define a classic is that it's something that can't really be improved in its fundamentals despite its flaws. Tweaking may be desirable, but you've got to respect the essential integrity of the thing.

I hear you and agree - I've already discussed with Jason and we've agreed to add an "option" switch to these for the future, but we'd like specific feedback now to help with other decisions on tweaking and the way to proceed.

My biggest worry is for Rising Sun. I don't think the bulk of the scenarios in that game will be playable any longer with these new assault rules. You'll never get the Japanese out of a -9 Pillbox now.

Have you actually tried any of these yet?

It's very important to me to separate feedback based on what other posters have said from feedback based on actual gameplay, since we also have a fair amount of positive feedback based on actual gameplay rather than assumptions.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Do you play the game? Have you played the game? Have you spent hundreds of hours playing against the AI or Human opponents?
In the few days, I've played, with Variable Visibility and in the last two days of Close Assault, I have seen my PBEM experience radically changed. And, not for the better.

Ok, we're now getting somewhere. Can you please give me some specific examples from your play in the last few days, other than the single one you've posted so far, where these rules radically changed your gameplay in a negative way? Seriously, this feedback would be very valuable for everyone and far more likely to have results than general comments.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you actually tried any of these yet?

It's very important to me to separate feedback based on what other posters have said from feedback based on actual gameplay, since we also have a fair amount of positive feedback based on actual gameplay rather than assumptions.

In case this is a specific "shot" at me. I have sited examples of how the new variable visibility and assault rules have effected games that I am playing currently.
You can read them. Most are in this thread?
I just grow weary of having to type in specifics when it is actually the fundamental change to the entire game that you have done, without making it optional, that is the problem.

Erik, if it is a glancing shot at me, I honestly expected better. [&:]

Ed

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
If you think that it is realistic that a scout car platoon cannot overrun and capture a non-combat half track transport platoon because it is in a town, then I think realism went the way of the dinosaurs. If you think multiple infantry and armor platoons attacking a leader, alone and in the open, get no effect result is realistic then I have a bad view of realism.

These are the only problems I'd heard from you before specifically. These are both part of the same one issue, which is effectively a bug with 0 Assault that can be tweaked. I agree completely that these are not realistic results and this is an issue that needs to be corrected.

If you think that three infantry platoons and five armored platoons attacking from different hexes, a disrupted and weakened engineer in trenches that not only suffer a no effect but, two of the armor platoons have one disrupted and the other destroyed is realism, then I do not know what is real.

Ok, that's the first time I heard that example - can you post a save file or more specifics as to scenario and situation?

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
In case this is a specific "shot" at me. I have sited examples of how the new variable visibility and assault rules have effected games that I am playing currently.
You can read them. Most are in this thread?
I just grow weary of having to type in specifics when it is actually the fundamental change to the entire game that you have done, without making it optional, that is the problem.
Erik, if it is a glancing shot at me, I honestly expected better. [&:]

That was not a shot at you.

Regards,

- Erik

Let me be clear on something - we've already discussed internally and agreed that in the long run, these should be optional rules, but the work still has to be put into actually implementing that (and it may be a fair amount of work) and thus may not be a short term solution for those who preferred the old rules.

Making the final v1.02 update available again is certainly fine with us and you'll still find it out on the web if you want to stay at that version for now, despite all the great fixes and new content that v1.03 has to offer. Since the update has only been out a few days, we are still in information gathering mode and would very much like to hear more feedback regarding actual gameplay with these changes.

We've heard both positive and negative feedback and we accept both but the most valuable feedback is that which is based on gameplay results. So far on the assault rules the negative is outweighing the positive, but a lot of this is very general and we want to make sure everyone has actually tried these in actual gameplay before passing judgement. Also, the issue with 0 Assault units is recognized as an issue to be corrected - apart from that, how are the new rules working for you?

Our focus is on specific feedback on how the new rules can be improved. We respect the integrity of the game, but we also want to improve it so we're aiming for the best of both worlds. Let's discuss specific examples where the new rules are not working ideally for you (or instances where they are working better than the old rules) and the JTCS team can take that feedback and improve them so that hopefully we'll all be happy with them in the future.

I think even the folks who loved the old rules have to admit that they also had some "corner cases" where they could cause unrealistic results. The common goal we should all have is just to make JTCS the best it can be for all players.

Regards,

- Erik