 |
|
Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 (/showthread.php?tid=47430) |
Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Hawk Kriegsman - 08-10-2008 Ok all, Let's try this again. Discuss the assault rule all you like. Tell us what you like, what you dislike and what you would like to see changed. Please refrain from personal attacks and name calling. Me personally: I like the 1.03 assault rule. I like that people will have an option in the future of new rule or old rule. I don't like the glitches. I don't like the rift that has been placed in the community. Please discuss away. Thanx! RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - junk2drive - 08-10-2008 I did not like the old version. I don't see much point in discussing 1.03 version since Jason has agreed to change it and fix the bugs. IMO the subject has been beat to death. Let us patiently wait for 1.03b or 1.04 or whatever it's called. RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Glint - 08-10-2008 my sentiments exactly 'junk' and Hawk, - I think you made the right decision and appreciate it's a hard task you've taken on. That being said, I feel the blitz community should give you full support, whatever your actions, not many of us would take the responsibility on. Anyway, enough said on that subject, just felt the rift was damaging the spirit of ' FUN ' in the community !!!! I look forward to the new patch and will adapt my game to the way it has to be played. regards Glint RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Huib Versloot - 08-10-2008 I just wanted to add that I believe that my own designed scenarios play well with the new rules. I've always been looking for means to slow down the pace of the game somewhat. This just helps. I think that is true for most other scenarios as well but I cannot speak for other designers obviously. RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - SGT Rice - 08-11-2008 I see valid points on both sides of the debate. On the con side ... The Volk opposed to the changes can correctly state that a lot of the hard work and 'institutional memory' that's been accumulated here in this forum has been dissipated by the major changes in v1.03. Just one example; I've always found the scenario database to be invaluable for understanding what the play balance is like before starting up a new scenario with someone, but now I have no idea; its like starting over. If scenario stats for v1.03 were compiled separately, what story would they tell? Drastic changes in balance across the board? Drastic changes in balance in a subset of games? Or very little affect on balance? I don't think anyone knows, and it would take a awhile to find out (i.e., time for enough reported games too accumulate). It would also entail someone modding the current game reports mechanism to track game versions (since not everyone uses v1.03), and they would have to do that soon before the existing sample of reported games gets too many v1.03 results mixed in with TS results (unless they could filter reported games by date, allowing them to compile stats on pre-v1.03 matches). Even if someone was willing/able to make that effort, they still face the possibility that their efforts to reconstitute the scenario database would be a waste of time because the game system now seems to be somewhat dynamic; significant changes that affect play balance may be coming along periodically, more selectable optional rules are available, the new rules have bugs that need fixing, etc. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that change can be difficult, uncomfortable and costly. RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - SGT Rice - 08-11-2008 On the pro side ... Let's face it, the old disrupt-surround-assault method of playing CS was pretty cheesy; it bore little resemblance to any of the history I've read. So I commend the efforts of the Volk who are willing to be the agents of change, to put new ideas out there trying to improve the historicity and simulation value of this great game. In support of their efforts I would like to toss out a few thoughts: All of the John Tiller games I'm familiar with (Civil War, Napoleonic, Panzer Campaigns) have three morale states; Normal, Disrupted and Broken. I submit that you can't get a decent model of battlefield morale without somehow introducing a 'Broken' morale state into CS, representing units that have pretty much lost the will to fight and are ripe for surrender to the first significant enemy force that closes with them. The old assault rules tried to have it both ways; disrupted units could still move and shoot, but they were ready to surrender at the drop of a hat. Not good. The new rules are a step in the right direction, but they don't really create a good mechanism for turning disrupted-but-still-fighting units into POW candidates. The current mechanism for reducing the morale of enemy units is to rack up multiple 'retreat' results with direct fire; if you can herd them around the map for four or five hexes then their morale should be low enough to allow an easy assault overrun. I would suggest that unit morale should be reduced by one for: losing a casualty point AND failing a morale check every disrupt result every retreat result being in a low ammo state being out of command range of a higher headquarters being stacked with a leader who is eliminated Leaders are different; their morale should be reduced by one for: being out of command range of a higher headquarters being part of a stack that's forced to retreat being part of an entire stack of low ammo units each unit in their hex that is eliminated. Being surrounded should have a huge impact. If a unit is surrounded the morale penalty should be four points MINUS the following: 1/2 a point for the concealment value of all unoccupied adjacent hexes. If a unit is reduced to zero morale then it should be unable to fire, should pay quadruple movement costs (even reducing it to zero movement) and its assault strength reduced by half (rounding down, potentially to zero). These changes would create a mechanism by which disrupted units deteriorate into 'broken' units that can be easily overrun. The old 'ping-pong-retreat' result is another somewhat cheesy element of CS that needs to be addressed along with assaults. Retreats should be limited to one hex per turn (though multiple morale losses could still occur from multiple retreat results), units should never retreat to a lower concealment level hex in LOS of an enemy unit and armor units should maintain their facing when retreated. My two cents; while I sympathize a lot with the critiques of the new rules, I'm ready to look ahead, offer ideas and feedback and hope for a better game to come. RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Von Earlmann - 08-11-2008 Generals, This will probably be my last post on this subject cause it will say it all as it were. I will tell you all that since the new rule I have never had a repulsed assault. I am currently playing in EF and WF in snow and in clear. Every assault was preceded by arty prep and suppression fire. They were conducted by units with high assault values. Volksgrenadiers,submachinegun, and once with Ami rifle platoons.The units were all at least 5sp. Every assault except the ami rifles(2) was by one platoon.They were conducted in woods,trenches,snow, and uphill. So, if you prep the target and use something near full strength units you will probably carry the battle. Seems about right to me and I reckon with the bug fixes it will be about right. Just wanted to let everyone know that all the horror stories are not set in concrete and if you do it right it will work. The game has not been ruined......it has and will be fixed. Enjoy the game  von Earlmann PS Now I will get back to deigning scenarios....they are like people.......you can never have too many good ones:whis: RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-13-2008 Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Ok all, I'd like to. I hope and think that it will be O.K. with Gary. Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Tell us what you like, what you dislike and what you would like to see changed. Good. Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Me personally: I like it to a point. Thought it was too strongly in favor of the defender. Will look forward to playing with the new toned down and cleaned up version. Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:I like that people will have an option in the future of new rule or old rule. I think this may be less good for the community but, I cannot predict the future. I think most will play with the version 1.03 assault rules switched on. Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:I don't like the glitches. Agreed here! They make the 'cheesy' play of the old rules look watered down. Psst, one of the secret glitches is that defending units stacked with a leader will withdraw. A leader standing alone will stick it out. But, I'm not going to let anyone know. ;) Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:I don't like the rift that has been placed in the community. Me neither. Yes, honestly so! Ed RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Osiris - 08-13-2008 Hawkriegsman wrote: I like that people will have an option in the future of new rule or old rule. When did this come up? What a horrible idea! So sad. I can see players in the community arguing about what rule they should play with. Why not just a comprimise between 1.03 and 1.02 sounds far more intelligent. 1.03 assault rule is fine minus the bugs of course.. Osiris RE: Assault Rule Discussion Part 2 - Huib Versloot - 08-13-2008 Osiris Wrote:Hawkriegsman wrote: Why horrible? Most people play with armor facing on. I don't. I'm glad there is an optional rule for that. Why making a "compromise" that nobody likes. |
){kind=link}