 |
|
Assault Rule opinion poll - 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 opinion poll (/showthread.php?tid=46921) |
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-01-2008 Once again. If you are tired of my defense of the old rules please do not read further. Alert Alert Alert Do not read below this point or complain that you did afterwards. **************************************** Osiris Wrote:Therese nothing wrong with the new assault rules..move on! First off, Sir, there are major problems with the new close assault rules. Secondly, do not stifle the voices of those who disagree with your assessments on the subject, or that of the "corporate line" that is being forced upon us. The new assault rules allow for more cheesy play than the old rules did. If you cannot see that or have not experienced it yet, that is not my problem. If you wish to cut and paste every defense of the new close assault rules then you will be answered along with them. "The assaults rules work fine if you get an armor an engineer/infantry to work together just like you properly should..." Total Bovine Excreta by whomever claims this to be true. It is absolutely not true. I have had situations where multiple units of infantry, engineers, and armor were used over multiple turns to capture one strength point enemy units that were surrounded, out of supply, disrupted, and assaulted by multiple units from multiple hexes. It happened in games on more than one occassion. Recently I had to resort to just shooting the unit to death instead of assaulting it. Many turns and Action Points were wasted. I was told that I should not have been so foolish to use so many units to take out an enemy that should have been by-passed. Right! Oh, the realism in either action? :rolleyes: I will no more allow an enemy to remain in my rear area, near victory hexes or artillery parks, as I am moving forward, than I would allow the enemy to drive up and take them when I am defending. And, with the knowlege of the "realistic" artillery spotting rules there is even more reason to "take out a unit" than simply by-pass them? "I think scenarios designed using TS version EF 1.03 and WF Gold and RS Gold might be more affected..that being said. Were not talking about adding 5-10 turns to those scenarios..maybe 1-3 turns max if any...so its easier if people just evolve and adjust their tactics." More BS. We were told that the scenarios were not effected. Now you are talking about the scenarios being changed to help with the new assault rules. *shakes head* Truly this is a display of the fact that the new close assault rules do have a major impact on the scenarios. This is not about adjusting tactics. This about changing the game that everyone played for 8 years? That is the truth of it. "If you dont like it play 1.02 till the close assault rule bugs are fixed, theres a few people still out there with it. and Move on..get over it! Osiris " I'm sorry that a bunch of players (or just a few) did have trouble with the surround and assault that players used. It sure did not seem to be a major topic of conversation on the forum since I've been at the Blitz. If you could not learn to prevent surround and overrun you "lost". Now you have to remake games to fit the new rules? And, the new rules do not allow for more "realism". They just add new "cheese" that we will start hearing complaints about? Please, do not come onto these forums and tell us to "shut up and move along." I certainly will not do that. This game has been fundamentally changed by the new Close Assault rules. In my opinion for the worse. I was willing to compromise to find a "realistic" solution between the old and the new. But, your comments amount to telling us that you poured crap on our food and you now want us to ignore the smell and eat hearty? If the new assault rules work so well, and the two new rules of Variable Visibility and Close Assault are bringing the "realism" that everyone was crying for ... for soooooo long, then why is Matrix scrambling to fix what they did? Not just the bugs, but, by toning them down and making them optional. Why did they scramble to fix the visibility rule when it first came out in the unofficial version 1.03? If you think the AI is now so tough when using the close assault rules, then you can choose that rule when you play the AI in the future. Playing against a human will only bring on more cheesy play and cries later for fixing the new rules. These new rules were to bring in "realism". They failed. Matrix and the crew are fixing the problems. If I hear otherwise, then I may just walk away and let you have your new "realistic" rules that seem to help the AI. And, for what it is worth, I welcome all comments and ideas. I wish everyone would. RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Hawk Kriegsman - 08-01-2008 Silkster53 Wrote:Once again. If you are tired of my defense of the old rules please do not read further. Damn it! I should have not read further.  I personally like the new assault rules (the glitches not withstanding)even though they have gimped my disrupt, surround and capture tactic. I have already started to adapt my tactics as such. I really do not want to see the 1.02 rules back at all. I think a toned down 1.03 rule with the glitches fixed will be just fine. Also for toned down. This thread. I understand that everyone is passionate about this subject, however I feel that the line that should not be crossed is approaching. So a very friendly reminder to all here. Talk topic, talk solutions and desires to improve the game. No shots at others with differing opinions or at the fine volunteers who gave us so much to be worked up about. If we cannot be civil in this topic I will close it. I appreciate everyone's understanding and cooperation. Thanx! RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-01-2008 Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:I personally like the new assault rules (the glitches not withstanding)even though they have gimped my disrupt, surround and capture tactic. I have already started to adapt my tactics as such. I really do not want to see the 1.02 rules back at all. I think a toned down 1.03 rule with the glitches fixed will be just fine. I am becoming a fan of toned down. The present new and past "old" rules are opposite sides of the coin. I voted for compromise. I'm not as much enjoying the new assault rules. But, I am intrigued to see what a toned down and bugless version will be like. I have a copy of that file but, cannot look at it until Sunday afternoon at the earliest. I even like the idea of hobbling the old surround and overrun "dudes", of which I was one, still am, and will continue to be. I think it is still a feasible tactic once the toned down version is made. The current version 1.03 rules make heroes out of cooks and bottle washers. Too many red capes in that one. Thanks! 
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Von Earlmann - 08-01-2008 I still haven't seen the stuff everyone else has experienced..........maybe I'm running the wrong version and don't know it? I have not had much opportunity to assault simply because the games I am currently playing haven't afforded me the chance yet........I did take out some Ami engineers in a forested hex with a platoon of volksgrenadiers.....come to think of it that is the only assault I have made with the new rules........seemed to work ok.......I am not a fan of variable visibility esp in my campaigns....maybe I am missing something but fail to see where that adds any realism or even serves any usefull purpose...I don't favor making it optional.....I'd just a soon see it disappear :-) I will say again tho;of all the assault rules I still like the very first one the best. Never cared for the second one but couldn't figure out what to do about it with Talonsoft refusing to support the game anymore........I guess it was better than not playing, but I didn't play all that much either. Anyway I'm an old guy and hate change (hell it's getting so I can only sleep in my own bed)..........but,I think in the long run the changing of the assault rule might be for the better....time will tell......I do think the game will go on...........after all; it survived Talonsoft :-) VE PS: Scotch can tone things down if used in the proper amounts! RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-01-2008 Von Earlmann Wrote:I still haven't seen the stuff everyone else has experienced.......... VE, I play over fifteen games pbem. My opponents are all quick players and turn around is superb. I've seen so much that your head would spin. ;) Von Earlmann Wrote:I did take out some Ami engineers in a forested hex with a platoon of volksgrenadiers.....come to think of it that is the only assault I have made with the new rules........seemed to work ok.......I am not a fan of variable visibility esp in my campaigns....maybe I am missing something but fail to see where that adds any realism or even serves any usefull purpose...I don't favor making it optional.....I'd just a soon see it disappear You had to be very lucky. Any cover seems to increase the ability of a unit's ability to standfast. If the Amis had an officer in the hex that would be a deathnell. A Kraut surrounded, out of supply, and disrupted engineer even had the chance to recover morale for me. It then extended the process of assault by two more turns. Lately I've taken to just shooting the crap out of enemy units. Though, horror of horrors, I still attempt assaults to see if I can get them to work more quickly. Maybe the toned down assault will work better for that? :eek1: Von Earlmann Wrote:I will say again tho;of all the assault rules I still like the very first one the best. Never cared for the second one but couldn't figure out what to do about it with Talonsoft refusing to support the game anymore........I guess it was better than not playing, but I didn't play all that much either. Early on I hated to be surrounded, disrupted, and then overrun. But, I learned to avoid the most devastating parts of that with some pretty nice counter tactics. Now I find myself leaning toward a change from the "tried and true" old way. But, not to the spectrum shift new way. The game is now taken out of the hands of the players and put into the hands of the game engine. Von Earlmann Wrote:PS: Scotch can tone things down if used in the proper amounts! LOL! I'm an old Crown Royal man, that liked it two fingers and neat. Now I'm an "old" vodka man. Wedge of lime please! :smoke:
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Osiris - 08-01-2008 Hi Silkster 53 My statement was as follows: "were not talking about adding 5-10 turns to a scenario..maybe 1-3 max IF ANYs..people need to evolve and adjust their tactics." my second statement was: If you look at how many of the original scenarios (probably more than half) in EF, RS and WF were designed under the old assault rules in the original TS version. those assault rules were similar to the ones now...so in many ways the scenarios in the game have been designed with tougher close assault rules... so the close assault rules have a minimal impact on the game..nothing that cannot be overcome with some new strategies.. The rules have some bugs..Let matrix fix the bugs and than try the close assault rules..Once the bugs are out and people still dont like them, well thats a different conversation. osiris RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Chuck10mtn - 08-01-2008 Thanks Hawk for trying to keep everybody's eye on the ball here. It seems as sometimes good jugdement gets misplaced for quick responces to what was wrote. As gamers we are all competive in one way or another, some more than others. I just don't like the idea of there being one more version to play. I think there is enough different rules now not to mention the ATR spotter, halftrack assulter, mass hex filler , armor facing people, soon it will be 100 different groups playing because of all the added rules. We all know the KISS rule for us not so fast people, ( Keep It Simple Stupid ) I don't want 100 rules to clarify before I play send me the file and lets start shooting. Maybe thats why I suck , but I have a lot of fun playing. Win or lose its a game about war not a war over a game. Just some things to think about. Chuck RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - dgk196 - 08-06-2008 So, since this is a poll........... I voted for the ability to switch between the old system and the new system. It gives both 'camps' what they want. I don't know what caused the 'need' for a revised system. There where 'glitches', so why weren't the 'bugs' worked out? What was the driving force behind the 'changes'? Was there some insurmountable problem with the old 'system'? Who, started the ball rolling on this? What was the 'justification'? I only ask these questions, because if you understand the 5 W's then maybe a better understanding of the revisions is possible!? Dennis :) RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Herr Straße Laufer - 08-06-2008 Dennis, As I understand it, both variable visibility and close assault were done for the sake of "realism". I'm not sure if they were fully vetted. If so the bugs and glitches should have been found in playtests? In the end "realism" became, that which is in the eye of the beholder? It is my belief that some testers were former prey to surround, assault, capture, (which admittedly was too easy in the original CS Series) and they wanted it out. Others might not have been experienced enough with either play or PBEM. What we got was a visibility system that is far out of the scale of the original intent of the designers, and a close assault formula that swung the pendulum too far to the opposite of the original. I'm now a firm believer in Variable Visibility being an option or just removed altogether. The close assault rules need tweaking. Not just to remove bugs and glitches, but, to eliminate the elevation of defending units to "hero" status. If the toned down assault rules are added they should be done so as hardwired into the game engine. I fear that the ladder will fracture from any "optional selection" of close assault. :( What I found increasing funny, as time went on, is those who voted for the "new" close assault system as it was first introduced. Early on most did not know of the many bugs and glitches, let alone the actual "impossibility" of overrun in some situations. Even now the votes for the "new" is more than twice those who voted for the old and/or compromise? A lot of the votes came early and I truly believe that those members did not actually "know" what the new assault rules brought. They simply wanted something that was not the "old" rules. ;) Essentually the horse died in the gate and the gamblers went to place bets on it? :chin::rolleyes: Variable visibility - option or out. Close assault - toned down, without bugs, and hardwired. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. Nor, would I bet on it! ;) With the impact of these rules changes I wish Matrix would come out sooner, rather than later, with a patch that fixes them. I still have regular opponents that do not want to continue play because of the effects of these rules upon the game.
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll - Huib Versloot - 08-06-2008 Silkster53 Wrote:A lot of the votes came early and I truly believe that those members did not actually "know" what the new assault rules brought. They simply wanted something that was not the "old" rules. ;) Now this sounds rather arrogant and pedantic and I don't believe a word of it. Huib |
){kind=link}