 |
|
Reverse the patch. - 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: Reverse the patch. (/showthread.php?tid=46741) |
RE: Reverse the patch. - Herr Straße Laufer - 07-16-2008 Stryker, We may be the only small potatoes left who feel that way? From what I have read and what I have a "feel" for. The "few lords of the game" that voted to change the assault rules, back to where they were over ten years ago, will now make attempts to fix the known bugs that may, or may not, consider artillery as combat or non-combat units where assaults are concerned. They will clean up all the little bugs to fix the invincible wagon, or leader, standing alone turning back the best and brightest of the highly trained combat troops. They may never change the way they fundamentally changed the game with the "upgrades" that were supposed to improve realism. To gain realism they forgot the game itself. It is the same thing that Avalon Hill did to ruin Squad Leader when they abandoned SL for Advanced Squad Leader, and SSI did when they changed Panzer General and added more "realism" and 3-D effects. Change is not always improve? RE: Reverse the patch. - Huib Versloot - 07-16-2008 The bugs in the new assault rules are not the new assault rules. I see references to these bugs repeated over and over, as if these were intended, and as if the whole assault system is now flawed. I have not seen a single valid example, apart from those bugs that will be fixed, where the realism of the new rules seriously can be questioned to such an extent that they are less realistic than the previous assault rules. RE: Reverse the patch. - Arkady - 07-16-2008 Nort Wrote:I already like the changes better, playing just two games right now.Absolutely my opinion ! I hope for some glitches fixed soon and maybe small tweaks in assaults formula later but overall, it is a new life. Well, I don't remeber original assaults in EF I, but after eight years of my CS experience I like the changes RE: Reverse the patch. - Ivan - 07-16-2008 Silkster53 Wrote::chin: Too bad. Something in the middle ground may have been acceptable to all parties. :conf: Silkster, could you say what something in the middle ground would be? We all know about the bugs that a few people have experienced (I haven't as yet). What changes would be acceptable to you in addition to fixing the bugs? RE: Reverse the patch. - Stryker - 07-16-2008 Show me the brick wall so I can bang my head against it... lol ah - here it is ... :bang: Huib, >>2 full strength panzergrenadier platoons couldn't overrun a disrupted reduced to 1 arty platoon In your opinion is this kind of result a bug or an example of the new rules? There have been plenty of similar examples given in the short time the patch has been out and yet, all I seem to read is "give us specific examples"??? didn't Ed give enough? I presume the assault rules would be something like; unit strength + moral + unit type + assisting units in hex...etc etc. etc. -vs- "the same rules of the unit(s)we are assaulting"... even taking into account the roll of the dice, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the programming......perhaps it isn't possible to get it right - talonsoft never did. nuff said on my behalf... bored with saying it - it seems nobody actually reads my posts properly, because the same old comments follow without reference to any points I try to make....it's a democracy after all, most others seem happy with it..so be it. :( RE: Reverse the patch. - Jason Petho - 07-16-2008 Stryker Wrote:In your opinion is this kind of result a bug or an example of the new rules? It is a bug in the assault rules, which will be fixed ASAP. For some reason, 0 assault value units have a glitch. (Leaders, wagons, artillery units, etc included) Jason Petho RE: Reverse the patch. - Montana Grizz - 07-16-2008 Sounds great Jason. That should ease the pressure on the odd assault results. Pat RE: Reverse the patch. - Herr Straße Laufer - 07-16-2008 :rolleyes: Ivan Wrote:Silkster53 Wrote::chin: Too bad. Something in the middle ground may have been acceptable to all parties. :conf: How about one where you have overwhelming odds and the defender would surrender? Now it must be attacked and assaulted multiple times depending on what terrain and I guess what it's morale is. I don't care if Batman and Robin are in a hex with their utility belts full of goodies. If they are attacked by well trained men who number in the thousands, and Batman is not a happy camper, the attackers should win. I've seen this multiple times where one strength point disrupted units are holding out against hundreds and hundreds of attackers who do combinations of shoots and assaults. I've even lost tank platoons that have assaulted with the infantry. It is not the realism that I would want. Now if it was Superman I might change my mind. ;) RE: Reverse the patch. - Valor - 07-16-2008 As I said in other post, I'm not glorifying the old system, that's why we have had all those house rules etc... I agree that assaults against disrupted units shouldn't be automatic... I play few scenarios now and in some of them I don't see a big problem for now... as long as I'm defender :stir: but in other I see... Some players concerned only about WF or EF don't see other problems that arose here. Just try now to assault pillbox packed with three or four units in. In WF and EF those are rarity... but in every RS sea landing scenario there are plenty of them :hissy: If we want to have something changed, try to look whether does it affect something else? :chin: Just my two cents Slawek RE: Reverse the patch. - Herr Straße Laufer - 07-16-2008 Stryker Wrote:Show me the brick wall so I can bang my head against it... lol Yup. I know the feeling. Really know the feeling. But, I thought in a democracy everyone got to discuss the issues before the vote that creates the change? Maybe just a bit of more realism? :( |
){kind=link}