So Then What Does One Do When........

[umbro]

I must apologise in advance for taking up so much bandwidth with this post, but I find myself with time on my hands awaiting a turn from Jason (Jason are you listening :-)) and Dev's posts wound me up a little...
<soapbox ON>

I think the best point made thus far is the fact that it is optional to use the assault rules, but that seems to simply not be enough to satisfy...
the majority of grief opposing the new rules appears to be based on what one USED to be able to do and the speed of the game using the new rules.

I think that the situation is not quite so clear as you state. Those who believe the original assault rules are a more accurate simulation than the optional 104 rules are happy that they have the option not to use them. It is the folks who believe that the original rules are too predictable, but that the optional 104 rules are too arbitrary who remain disappointed.
[By arbitrary, I mean are dependent on a die roll which is virtually unaffected by the forces, both offensive and defensive, participating in the assault.] BTW, in the interest of full disclosure I am in the former group - but I have already been roasted for that position so I shall say no more :-)

The first and foremost thing to try and understand here is that this is really a new game.. the old game has been modified enough to qualify for new status. new options, new units, new rules, new EXE..
You must forget almost everything you've learned to do for the past 10 years in order to master this version successfully.
Sadly it appears to have repercussions on the old school boys here who cannot fathom that change is necessary to prolong the life of the existing game.

Again I think you may be over-stating the case here. Yes, a huge overhaul of units (beautifully done with more to come!), some new rules and new options. But, if you grab an old scenario, and turn all the options off, you end up with a game that is almost indistinguishable (thank goodness!) You will get a couple of little surprises, such as small calibre ATs not giving their position away with every shot, and some bugger building a bridge where there was none.

Even with all the options ON there is only one which forces a major rethink of old tactics, and as I mentioned above only those who wished for something better than the original assault and (in their opinion) did not get it, are disappointed.

It was dead in the water support wise and not playable on new systems.
In order to produce a playable version of CS that was supported, it was necessary to improve it beyond the original parameters, other wise there was no money to be made and thus no need to make anything more out of it.
So if acceptance is made on this point, the the next section will be easier to understand.

Undeniably accepted. I posted my last result over a year ago when I bought a new Vista machine and could no longer play H2H. (By H2H I refer to live online)

in playing the 1.04 version with the suggested settings of using the assault variant
Old tactics do not work
S D C does not work
Quick strikes do not work
It is better to shoot now than attempting assaults and this might be another greiviance as well, but one must STOP and think here a moment

This is certainly a grievance for some as the game potentially devolves into a serious of toe2toe slugfests.

successful assaults are normally well thought out and planned and take lots of time
assaults made on the spur of the moment, without proper preparations will fail without a dousing of luck.

the old version simply allowed poor tactical decisions to succeed by giving assaults an automatic success rate IF one simply disrupted the enemy. How simple is that? sadly that's an absurd design flaw.

Two comments on this.
Firstly, you assume that the 6 minute per turn timescale is fixed. I have never believed this and there are numerous threads on this topic from the past. One has to see the time scale as a flexible concept, so that planning, communicating, gather resources and executing a 6 minute piece of action takes quite a bit longer. Though once the action is engaged a number of true 6 minute pieces can get strung together until the next lull.
Secondly, with the original assault rule, if you left a lone, spotted, disrupted unit in LOS of the enemy, with no escape route, you really did deserve to have that unit rounded up and marched to the rear.

A disrupted enemy is a dangerous foe, there is no reasoning that says a disrupted unit cannot function when pressed by an attack. Command might be in tatters, but men faced with death or POW status can still and will perform to their maximum limits. This is some of our reasoning on the beta design team for these rules

Either that, or more likely - they will fall back!

Simply driving your units into the battle is a great recipe for disaster and the new CS version takes this seriously, beer and pretzel commanders need to realize this is above their pay scale and they need to put some effort into their strategies if they want to be winning games.

One could say the same about leaving guys hanging out in the front line just waiting to be rounded up, and the original version took that seriously.

Assaulting bunkers and fortified positions was a major boo boo, many generals learned to bypass and let them starve out while maintaining pressure just enough to keep them from resting and regrouping.
The new version of CS takes these factors into consideration in order to separate it from the rest of the bunch. It is a war simulation, not an arcade game.

Though it is true that bunkers were often bypassed until the appropriate forces were available to reduce them I do not believe that it is the case that optional 104 assault takes that into consideration. 104 assault comes down to a single morale check which simply provides for a fixed "assault fails" result - regardless of the units involved.

The easy version is still there for those who want it, the advanced version is where the meat of our efforts reside and where you'll be challenged to master a winning strategy EVERY time you play.

That may be one perception. An alternate one might be: The new version is brain dead as you simply pound away until everyone is dead or you get lucky on an enemy morale check.

The truth of the matter (as is usual in such cases) probably lies somewhere in the middle. I thought that the point of the discussion was to broach ideas that might alleviate both sets of objections.

Please don't try to restrict changes, because it only limits the life span of this new version. Once it becomes stagnant, people stop buying and it all goes away..

On this I hope that we can all agree. But I also hope that those changes that are made can garner a general positive consensus.

Find your medium, get your game on, and when you feel up to a challenge flip the options switch and come see where the Iron Crosses grow.

There are so many ways to answer this needle, that I shall allow the gentle reader to come up with his own.

umbro
<soapbox off>

[RedDevil]

Ah Jon, always a pleasure to see you respond in any thread :) Welcome back BTW, you were missed!
I'm going to blame Jason for allowing you time to get worked up over my post tho

I'll reply to some points you mentioned when I have more time to reconnoiter and compile a worthy response!
I do agree perhaps it's not too clearly laid out on the table just what is exactly the grief and the responses are catered towards the blurry perception of that.
I do feel however that Wyatt/Jason did take the time to document the coding values applied in making the assaults function as they do and do believe it's more than just a single die roll inputted to get that result. I may be wrong here, but I was certain it was made public? Then again perhaps it's better if it's not :P

more to come later, It's past my bedtime here.. 4 AM comes to fast these days..

Cheers for making a discussion out of it!