 |
|
Extreme assault? - 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: Extreme assault? (/showthread.php?tid=50790) |
RE: Extreme assault? - Scud - 04-03-2009 Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Big Dawg Wrote:This gives new life to some of the "one sided" scenarios. I'm playing one of those unbalanced ones that I suspect would be pretty even with the new rules and a lot more interesting. The problem is knowing which scenarios would benefit and which ones wouldn't. I think it has to be left up to scenario designers to recommend in their scenario descriptions. Hopefully some will revisit their older creations. Maybe even submit them for beta testing with the new rules. For now it's certainly a dilemma. I like the new rules, but I'd rather know beforehand, as much as possible, that I'm playing a balanced scenario against an evenly skilled opponent, regardless of the optional rules. RE: Extreme assault? - Huib Versloot - 04-03-2009 IMO with the new rules too often the assault is without effect whatsoever on either side, even if a lot of forces are involved. This is very unrealistic as assaults in reality are casualty intensive, regardless who 'wins' I think both sides should have a much greater chance of losing sp when an assault is conducted. The new assault rules certainly need some work and cannot be left unadressed in 1.05 at least that is how I feel about it right now. Huib RE: Extreme assault? - Stryker - 04-03-2009 I totally agree with young Alfons. My opinion is that assault was broken in the Talonsoft version, but is still broken and pretty useless to be honest. I like the fact that it has changed the game and that it can no longer be relied on as a sure-fire tactic (disrupt/surround/assault). But I am still seeing totally ridiculous results and it doesn't seem to make much difference whether extreme assault is on or not - there just doesn't seem any point assaulting any more, except out of desperation.... and sometimes - just sometimes, you get a surprise result and then it all seems worthwhile :) I hope the matrix guys can fix it in the future.. AI behavior must be difficult in these situations as you still need some element of randomness while maintaining an acceptable percentage of probability. difficult! RE: Extreme assault? - Jason Petho - 04-03-2009 Rudolph Hucker Wrote:....But I am still seeing totally ridiculous results... Feel free to email me game files where you are receiving ridiculous results, as they help decide on which course to take in the future. So far, I have received two files since 1.04 came out. Jason Petho RE: Extreme assault? - Herr Straße Laufer - 04-03-2009 LOL! Sending files is the only determinant of your making a change?  :chin:Ridiculous! Extreme assault is not the CS fix that you thought. :eek1:  Something "in between" is what is requested by those who play the game. It would not be hard to make an in between option? Call it "regular assault" or "realistic assault"? Call it what you want to? Extreme Assault is far from real. It is more a joke and coupled with what you did to transports makes it more so. :mad:But, it a revised or optional medium assault needs to be done. Extreme Assault is as stupid to some as the version 1.02, disrupt/surround/assault, was to you (or, whomever wanted it in your beta club/team). Sending you files is like sending UFO reports to Project Blue Book. We all know it is not swamp gas or venus, O.K.? :rolleyes: RR RE: Extreme assault? - Steelrain60 - 04-03-2009 MrRoadrunner Wrote:LOL! I've changed my mind on this issue and I'm no longer a fan of the extreme assault, as my experience with it has lead me to believe that slows games down too much. But come on, man. The overall tone of your post, especially the last sentence, is unjustified. Why the antagonism? RE: Extreme assault? - Jason Petho - 04-03-2009 MrRoadrunner Wrote:Sending files is the only determinant of your making a change? Yes. Jason Petho RE: Extreme assault? - Big Dawg - 04-03-2009 Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Big Dawg Wrote:This gives new life to some of the "one sided" scenarios. Hawk, My point was to use the extreme assault rules in scenarios that HEAVILY favored the attackers (4-1, 5-1, 6-1 odds) in an effort to make that particular scenario more of a contest than a 1 sided turkey shoot. I think we all understand that the extreme assault rules will give a great advantage to the defender in traditionally balanced scenarios. My point was directed at the unbalanced ones only. THANKS! RE: Extreme assault? - Chuck10mtn - 04-03-2009 Oh my GOD, here we go again.Who started this thread he should be court marshaled. I know that the xtreme assult isn't perfect but it is a far cry better than the old automatic surround, disrupt, capture. As someone earlier said I think that when you have one group rushing to assult another a lot more losses should be taken on both sides. If the losses were greater for the attacker win or lose it wouldn't be such a big offensive stratagy. I have a hard time seeing how the game takes longer, its still only X number of turns. I believe the exteme assult is closer to reality than the old assult rules were. Just my opinion on the subject. Chuck RE: Extreme assault? - Krec - 04-03-2009 I have to agree with RR. Something in the middle of 1.02 and extreme would really be nice. The main problem now is its very tough win assaults. What i am finding in my games is opponents are now just littering the battlefield with men knowing that i cant possible clear them all out. trying to cut a path is very tough even if in open terrain. i now just surround and shoot most of the time. Also i have notice sometimes i cant even kill transports with shots. Trucks should be dead meat almost everytime, but i am not finding that. This just adds to the littering affect. When i roll up on a 2sp disrupted mg units with some armor, i should roll over those boys and keep going, As it stands now that darn mg unit can hold up a convoy for turns. I agree some flavor is good but something is not quite right here. :soap: |
){kind=link}