Options 1.04

[Jumbo]

Hello Huib,

Good point regarding as to how toned down a new assault version should be. I totally agree. My experience may just be different from yours based on the luck of my die roles. However, Zero out of 3 or 4 assaults and given the number and qualitative superiority I had in those assaults really raises my eyebrow. My opponet even had a failed assault with 4 to 1 in numbers against one of my disrupted Japanese infantry platoons. I just think what we might be getting with the 1.04 version is a little to much of what would more commonly and historically be considered the exception and not the rule. There is historically of course those cases of desperately outnumbered and outgunned troops holding out and eventually winning in the end. But those are stories where usually extreme valor and sometimes luck were big deciding factors. It appears just from what I've noticed half way here with this game conducting assaults, Is that there may just be to many heroes or luck on both sides of the field to really give this a historically correct feel.

[umbro]

To sum up::
104 Extreme Assaults are too hard.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you
102 Assaults are too predictable.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of me
104 Extreme Assaults are too opaque (no details provided)
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you
102 Assaults produce "gamey" tactics/situations.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of me
104 Extreme Assaults do not take into account attacking force size or morale in deciding the final outcome.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you

"Truly, umbro has a dizzying intellect" you say.
"Wait 'til I get going!" I reply

How about a future implementation that:
a) adopts mostly what is in place right now,
b) has only a small impact on the balance of old scenarios,
c) takes into account attacker qualities as well as defenders,
d) has an element of unpredictability,
e) is introduced as an option so that folks do not have to upgrade unless they want the option.

That implementation might look something like (or not):
1) Assault combat phase exactly as it is right now.
2) Replace the current "saving throw" with the "Push phase" - Attackers morale (sum of SPs*adjusted_morale) is divide amongst the defenders SPs and the push battle occurs, where each defending unit attempts to stay in the hex. Some may be forced out while others do the John Wayne thing.
3) Optional "Pull phase" where surviving non-disrupted attackers have to succeed to enter the contested hex in a manner similar to the "Push Phase".

The end result is less predictable, calculable, takes into account all units involved and produces more varied results than right now as some defenders may retreat while others hold, and some attackers may not follow up. This also produces the opportunity for the previous defender to retake the hex the next turn (something I have often read about but hardly ever seen in CS).

umbro

[umbro]

There is historically of course those cases of desperately outnumbered and outgunned troops holding out and eventually winning in the end. But those are stories where usually extreme valor and sometimes luck were big deciding factors.

Agree with all you wrote - the thing you don't mention is the level 5 leader in that hex making it all happen!

umbro

[Herr Straße Laufer]

My fear is that those who wish a toned down version will not be satisfied until it's toned down enough so they can continue the tactics that were succesful for them hundreds of games before. Personally I wouldn't mind if it was toned down a little, nor if it was made as hard as in 1.03 again, just as long it stays hard enough to make a return to those gamey tactics impossible.

So why not make a third option available to the players based on toned down rules?
And, I believe the new rules are equally as "gamey" as the version 1.02 rules, but to the opposite direction.
I've never stated that the game has to revert back to version 1.02. But, I have stated it can't have just the options 1.02 or 1.04 extreme assault.


RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

To sum up::
104 Extreme Assaults are too hard.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you
102 Assaults are too predictable.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of me
104 Extreme Assaults are too opaque (no details provided)
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you
102 Assaults produce "gamey" tactics/situations.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of me
104 Extreme Assaults do not take into account attacking force size or morale in deciding the final outcome.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you

"Truly, umbro has a dizzying intellect" you say.
"Wait 'til I get going!" I reply

How about a future implementation that:
a) adopts mostly what is in place right now,
b) has only a small impact on the balance of old scenarios,
c) takes into account attacker qualities as well as defenders,
d) has an element of unpredictability,
e) is introduced as an option so that folks do not have to upgrade unless they want the option.

That implementation might look something like (or not):
1) Assault combat phase exactly as it is right now.
2) Replace the current "saving throw" with the "Push phase" - Attackers morale (sum of SPs*adjusted_morale) is divide amongst the defenders SPs and the push battle occurs, where each defending unit attempts to stay in the hex. Some may be forced out while others do the John Wayne thing.
3) Optional "Pull phase" where surviving non-disrupted attackers have to succeed to enter the contested hex in a manner similar to the "Push Phase".

The end result is less predictable, calculable, takes into account all units involved and produces more varied results than right now as some defenders may retreat while others hold, and some attackers may not follow up. This also produces the opportunity for the previous defender to retake the hex the next turn (something I have often read about but hardly ever seen in CS).

umbro

What he said! :-)

Ed

[Steel God]

To sum up::
104 Extreme Assaults are too hard.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you
102 Assaults are too predictable.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of me
104 Extreme Assaults are too opaque (no details provided)
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you
102 Assaults produce "gamey" tactics/situations.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of me
104 Extreme Assaults do not take into account attacking force size or morale in deciding the final outcome.
-so I can clearly not choose the goblet in front of you

"Truly, umbro has a dizzying intellect" you say.
"Wait 'til I get going!" I reply

Although I am not now, nor have I ever been, a CS Player, I confess that I find myself following the threads just because of Jonathon's constant Princess Bride references. :happy:

[Jumbo]

Umbro,

I like that assault concept your talking about. Being that assaults are an extremely big part of this game. A more realistic approach to what we presently have could and would IMO, greatly enhance the fun in playing from both side of playing field. There may be just one problem though. Can what your suggesting be modeled/coded into the present game ?. If so. I believe it might be something to really consider. Play tested thuroughly of course, before implementing.

Eric

[umbro]

Although I am not now, nor have I ever been, a CS Player, I confess that I find myself following the threads just because of Jonathon's constant Princess Bride references. :happy:

Thanks Paul - I am happy that it has had some positive benefit - though to be fair that book/movie is probably the most quotable written/made of all time. A quote for all seasons.

Furthermore, I noticed in many of these threads much common agreement and hoped a spot of levity would dilute the rancour.

umbro

[umbro]

Can what your suggesting be modeled/coded into the present game ?.

I think that if we stick to ideas that make use of current mechanisms and concepts then the answer is yes. Plus, we are probably not far off conceptually. Extreme Assault 104 works on the same value (i.e. Morale) as a deciding factor on success in assaults as I suggested above - just differently.

The challenge, of course, is finding a tactically "realistic" model where Huib is happy assaulting three times a game and I am happy assaulting three times a turn!

umbro

[Big Dawg]

Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die!

Great movie! Thanks for this thread Umbro.

I asked for a "tweaked version" of the current assault rules during one of the first lengthy discussions. I recall many people agreed that a compromise between the 2 would enhance playability.

I still think something between 1.02 & 1.04 is the way to go.