1.03 assault rules problem solved.

[x-para]

What about some sort of varying degree/level of Disruption for units that are Disrupted?
I think this would enhance playability, tweak the assault rules and make everyone happy at the same time.


level1 D-"Hero" 80% chance unit will stand ground under this level of D.
level2 D-"Dug in" 25% chance units will retreat.
level3 D-"I didn't sign up for this" 50% chance unit will retreat/surrender
level4 D-"shell shock" 70% chance units will retreat
level5 D-"I want my mommy " 90% chance unit will surrender/retreat


could also throw something in where if more than 75% of units being assaulted retreat, it causes "Panic" and a mass retreating of all units in the space being assaulted whether they are disrupted or not.

What about a "counter-attack" option for saving AP's?
If their is a failed assault from thine enemy, and you have enuff saved AP's and have selected the new "counter assault/attack" option instead of saving AP's for firing, then those units assault/counterattack the enemy unit that just hit you.

just some thoughts, hate to see bitterness and feelings of betrayal when we could solve this problem and enhance the game at the same time.
Think of all the brain power we have here...instead of using it to try and out-wit out-speak one another lets tap it to come up with some viable solutions.

j

[Big Dawg]

Think of all the brain power we have here...instead of using it to try and out-wit out-speak one another lets tap it to come up with some viable solutions.

j

Well said. I have asked Jason if it is possible to "tweek" the current assault value so that it is easier to win an assault than with v 1.03 yet harder to win than v 1.02. I do not know how the code/formula is written so I can not suggest much more than this. ( I have not found a reply to this proposal, but I have been without my computer for the last 2 days.)

If this "tweeking" were possible, it would still allow the offense to roll forward, but assaulting disrupted units successfully would not be guaranteed.

I have not seen a post that opposes this suggestion.

(J, I have your file & will send it late today/early tonight.)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

<snip>

I hope they can at least fix the known bugs sooner with a small patch. One of my current opponents just said that he will wait for me to dig him out of his entrenched position, after I just lost most of my force getting there. Funny that some of the glitch/bugs will make it impossible to push him out, even if I could successfully do an assault.

<snip>

*Edited to remove anything that is deemed unacceptable by the few who do not want me to express myself. I left the above in because it relates to the topic.*

[Gordons HQ]

Ed I think we all know your opinion by now, say it anymore and it's almost like propaganda. Say it enough and people will believe it.
Sorry I don't mean any disrespect I know your record stands for itself, but other do have opinions. Please let them have their say without re-stating your case everytime they propose something.

Take care,
Gordon:)

[simovitch]

There's a new problem with the assault resolution related to leaders ID'd on the Matrix forum. It seems that if the defender is stacked with a leader he is 5-6 times more likely to retreat out of hex - apparently similar to something that resembles pre-1.03 results.

I don't think that's working as designed.