Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
My opinion notwithstanding I think the Extreme Assault changed the game for the worse.

Opinion noted.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Every classicly made scenario was effected.

Some for the better, some for the worse ... and that is open to interpretation, of course.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
Skill has taken a backseat to a die roll by the game engine.

As described in my post above, the skill set required to use the new assault rules are more than the old rules required.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
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?

Request that your opponent not use it?

Or try the scenario against the opponent with one on and one off, and see the difference in game play for yourself?

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
try to enjoy the new effectiveness of artillery versus armor,

The skills required to avoid losses are the same. The chance of loss has increased by 3%.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: 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

Thanks for the info. I do enjoy the smaller scale. I never bought Rising Sun, so that is appealing as well. I don't remember too much about the original. When I read a review on it, the reviewer mentioned waiting for the AI to move in 3D view, that did bring flashbacks of listening to unit movement and watching each unit move, which prompted my setting it to 2d hehe.

Another thing that I liked is that it didn't seem as "grognardy" [;)]

I think the scale, Panzer Blitz/Panzer Leader, was the ultimate for board wargaming and it translated well into a computer game. [:)]

That said, "old timers" earn some rights? [;)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard

Grognard is French for "grumbler".[1] It is not necessarily pejorative and is sometimes used as a compliment. Historically it meant a soldier in Napoleon's army, particularly a member of the Old Guard.[2]
"Grognard" came to mean a veteran wargamer in the early 1970s.[3] It was first used by John Young, at that time an employee of SPI, and subsequently popularised by Strategy & Tactics magazine

Too young to have been in the Old, Middle, or Young Guards. [8|]
Well qualitifed to be considered a veteran wargamer of the early seventies. I even playtested and designed a few board war games during the seventies and eighties.
Grumbling ... I know that too! [;)]

Sounds like you have a purchase to make.
If you ever want to PBEM let me know? I do know a little bit about the game.

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

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

Agree. It is rather addictive and sure beats pushing those Panzerblitz / Panzer Leader cardboard counters around! [;)]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

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.

Agree. You get the original Talonsoft games (East Front 2, West Front, and Rising Sun) upgraded with new rules, counters, nations, and scenarios - all in one comprehensive software release. Also, JTCS installs on your hard disk drive, so no more shuffling disks in and out of your PC drive bays! [:)]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

My opinion notwithstanding I think the Extreme Assault changed the game for the worse.

Agree. When Extreme Assault (EA) was first released, I utilized that assault option for all my PBeM games. Unfortunately, I quickly saw how EA slowed down game flow with turns dissolving into grinding "slugfests." For me, it took the enjoyment, excitement, and "fun factor" completely out of assaults. Battles became tank cannon and direct fire battles of attrition in which I tried to drive back and reduce in strength units by massive fire power. Assaults became an useless option - not enough time or troop strength to overcome the EA assault mechanics and game engine taking over (10% chance that all assaults will fail each time). I also consider myself a good JTCS player. You can check my win/loss ratio over on the Blitz Club Website. I understand how EA works - I choose not to utilize it because it impacts my overall enjoyment of JTCS.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Every classicly made scenario was effected. Skill has taken a backseat to a die roll by the game engine.

Agree. EA effects each and every scenario. Unfortunately, the scenarios designed prior to the release of EA are more negatively impacted.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

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?

Agree. The current assault options may have divided some JTCS players into two "camps" - ver 1.02 assault (classic) and ver 1.04 assault (Extreme Assault). It may; as Ed suggests, limit the opponents who will agree to play utilizing one or the other "flavors" of assault.

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

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. [:)]

Indeed! Opt fire is deadly! Learning how to best utilize opt fire can be one of the more important tactical skills you can learn in JTCS! [:D] Look forward to you joining our ranks soon! [8D]

Downloading it now. [:)]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Is there any way to have the last turn in a scenario left uncertain?  Even if there was a ten percent chance that the opponent might have one more turn, it might change the way the last half of the last turn is played. 

I just played a scenario where I had the last half of the last turn, and it allowed me to take all sorts of liberties I wouldn't have taken if I'd thought for one moment my opponent might have another turn.  I'm not normally competitive enough for it to make a difference.  I've seen other players do remarkable things in the last half of the last turn.

I'm not sure if it is possible, and I'm not sure if other players would want it.  I believe Combat Mission has it as an option, but I don't know what players there prefer.  I wouldn't know if the program for Campaign Series would even lend itself to this type of adjustment.

I like this idea. Especially when playing against Hal in DCG/LCG. Hal obviously has no idea when the game might end. Definitely would make the last turns less gamey.

And FWIW, the EA rules make the DCG's much more interesting.

I like this idea. Especially when playing against Hal in DCG/LCG. Hal obviously has no idea when the game might end. Definitely would make the last turns less gamey.

Sorry I don't get this, when playing against Hal the only gamey play would be by you.[&:]

Jason,

Quick question. I hated EA initially but I won't play without it now, however... this 10% random failure chance, no matter how well you plan or execute an assault could be a bit excessive? Perhaps if this were toned down to the same 3% as in artillery vs. AFV kill the entire situation may seem much more palatable for all involved?

Much easier to write off 3% as fanatic defence than 10%

Just a thought.

Gary

BTW this is very reminiscent of the "Great Halftrack Debate and War" [:D]

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp

Jason,

Quick question. I hated EA initially but I won't play without it now, however... this 10% random failure chance, no matter how well you plan or execute an assault could be a bit excessive? Perhaps if this were toned down to the same 3% as in artillery vs. AFV kill the entire situation may seem much more palatable for all involved?

Much easier to write off 3% as fanatic defence than 10%

Just a thought.

Gary

BTW this is very reminiscent of the "Great Halftrack Debate and War" [:D]

I see what you are saying, and that is a good suggestion, thank you Gary.

On the other hand, maybe looking at it that you are successful 90% of the time?

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp

Jason,

Quick question. I hated EA initially but I won't play without it now, however... this 10% random failure chance, no matter how well you plan or execute an assault could be a bit excessive? Perhaps if this were toned down to the same 3% as in artillery vs. AFV kill the entire situation may seem much more palatable for all involved?

Much easier to write off 3% as fanatic defence than 10%

Just a thought.

Gary

BTW this is very reminiscent of the "Great Halftrack Debate and War" [:D]

I see what you are saying, and that is a good suggestion, thank you Gary.

On the other hand, maybe looking at it that you are successful 90% of the time?

Jason Petho

Yes but, being successful 97% of the time is a lot closer to the 1.02 days and may go a long way to mending the rift between the 1.02 and 1.04 camps. I think everyone could live with the possibility / assumption that no matter how well you plan or execute, bad, unexpected, things happen in combat and nothing is automatic. [:(]

Your thoughts?

Mr. RR what do you think?

Could be a way to lay the "Stars and Bars" to rest and become one community again. [:)]

Gary

How about scaling it back based on morale? If morale is at 50%, then the chance of withstanding the assault is 50% less (5%). I would base it off of morale and relative strength, but definitely at least morale.

Find the readme PDF in your JTCS folder. It list the changes from each update. In the 1.03 section, it explains the new assault and how morale effects the outcome.

Keep in mind that a unit that retreats loses morale.

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp

Jason,

Quick question. I hated EA initially but I won't play without it now, however... this 10% random failure chance, no matter how well you plan or execute an assault could be a bit excessive? Perhaps if this were toned down to the same 3% as in artillery vs. AFV kill the entire situation may seem much more palatable for all involved?

Much easier to write off 3% as fanatic defence than 10%

Just a thought.

Gary

BTW this is very reminiscent of the "Great Halftrack Debate and War" [:D]

As I stated in an earlier post... many experienced and accomplished CS players; with hundreds of completed games, believe that a "compromise" assault rule is the solution.

Reducing the random failure chance from 10% to a proposed 3% is a step in the right direction toward an "in between" assault solution. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

On the other hand, maybe looking at it that you are successful 90% of the time?

Jason Petho

The random 10% Extreme Assault failure rate is an ADDITIONAL game engine calculation following the combat routines / casualty assessment and the morale check routine.

To take only one routine of a three part game engine calculation process and claim a 90% success rate is a misleading statement. [:-]

ORIGINAL: mwest

The random 10% Extreme Assault failure rate is an ADDITIONAL game engine calculation following the combat routines / casualty assessment and the morale check routine.

Obviously.

ORIGINAL: mwest
To take only one routine of a three part game engine calculation process and claim a 90% success rate is a misleading statement. [:-]

We were discussing only that element of the assault, so it shouldn't be misleading.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: mwest

The random 10% Extreme Assault failure rate is an ADDITIONAL game engine calculation following the combat routines / casualty assessment and the morale check routine.

Obviously.

ORIGINAL: mwest
To take only one routine of a three part game engine calculation process and claim a 90% success rate is a misleading statement. [:-]

We were discussing only that element of the assault, so it shouldn't be misleading.

Jason Petho

Agreed, and truthfully I wouldn't want any other changes made to the assault calculation. I'm just offering up my humble suggestion for a healthy compromise for both sides of the issue.

Just to clarify; I'm not one to calculate formulas with my unit values before I assault. Most of the time I just do a judgement call; is this enough manpower? how will the terrain effect this assault? etc. which was why I hated EA initially. Until I got a feel for EA most of my judgement calls were frustratingly wrong. However I continued using it and within a few games I developed a "feel" for what was required for success, unit strength, mix, etc. I liked the fact that I now had to put some real thought and effort into my assaults with regards to prep, and unit mix. I watch now for units that have been retreated knowing that their morale has been reduced and consequently knowing they are now more vulnerable to assault and yes, I still regularly bunker bust, and herd disrupted units for a final coup d' main.

I like the fact that more caualties come out of assaults, which to me only seems right, afterall you are conducting action up close and personal with assaults. After all the grenades, close in small arms fire, etc the idea that one side ran away and the other took / or continues to occupy the hex without anyone getting hurt on either side seems ludicrous.

After following this thread, it seems the the main issue for the 1.02 camp is the random 10% "no matter what you do you're screwed factor" Truthfully I was not even aware of that 10% trump card before this thread and now that I am aware of it, like many others I too think that is a bit too much control for HAL. A reduction of that to 3%(?) is all that I suggest be changed. I'd want the rest of the 1.04 assault routine to stay the same and I'd hope that a 70% reduction of "no matter what you do you're screwed factor" would be enough to make everyone happy.

Again, just my humble thoughts. [:)]

Gary

Gents:

I'm bowing out of this discussion.

I am NOT going to participate in yet another Extreme Assault thread.

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? [&:]

And here is the real tragedy. It never really was a "debate" in the sense that either side really listens and would be swayed to change their view point.

The same arguments are brought out by both sides... and we go round and round... but nothing gets resolved. So when that "magical" and "obscure" deadline rolls around for ver 1.05 (at best we are looking at another year)... how will the Extreme Assault landscape have changed in a year's time? Not much. The same players who "love it" or "hate it" today will be making the same points that have been made and are being made now, concerning the impact of Extreme Assault on play. And since the final arbitrators are Jason and Co. - then Extreme Assault will remain the only JTCS assault option - most likely little changed from its present form. End of "debate?"

Peace out folks. [8D]

ORIGINAL: mwest

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

Not everyone that views this forum goes to the Blitz.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp
After following this thread, it seems the the main issue for the 1.02 camp is the random 10% "no matter what you do you're screwed factor" Truthfully I was not even aware of that 10% trump card before this thread and now that I am aware of it, like many others I too think that is a bit too much control for HAL. A reduction of that to 3%(?) is all that I suggest be changed. I'd want the rest of the 1.04 assault routine to stay the same and I'd hope that a 70% reduction of "no matter what you do you're screwed factor" would be enough to make everyone happy.

Again, excellent suggestion, Gary.

Some form of compromise along these paths for 1.05 may be feasible.

Thank you.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: XLVIII Pz. Korp

Mr. RR what do you think?

Could be a way to lay the "Stars and Bars" to rest and become one community again. [:)]

Thanks for asking.
I honestly think it does not matter what I think.

Extreme Assault has fractured the community. On that I agree.
I'm beginning to feel like there will never be a "one" again.
In the ten years that I played the game, win lose or draw, I always looked forward to getting home opening my e-mail and downloading files, to get right at playing the game.
Lately the enthusiasm to play has just been sucked out of me.

How can a fracture be fixed with two, three, or four options?
I guess it works for OpC? Only time will tell if it works for CS?

RR