But - how significant are the new changes

[Jason Petho]

We have no real visual representation of the logistics required for anything else, so your supply argument is hardly valid.

There are supply dumps, supply camps, supply trains and supply trucks being visually represented as well within the series. Again, these are intended for the von Earlmann campaign type system.

For example, how does one simulate the main, secondary, AA and torpedo armament of a heavy cruiser? What about damage control...the crew of a damaged warship don't just brew up and have a smoke, you know.

I appreciate and respect your intimate knowledge and experience with naval affairs.

Right now, the units are designed within the limitations of the game engine. As you've noted above, the game is a land warfare based game.

Naval support is an element of that, as you know.

When I am designing a scenario that has a cruiser sitting in a harbour providing additional fire support for the ground battle I am trying to represent (Leningrad, Sevastopol), I would like the option of being able to display that instead of having the generic "naval" guns that Talonsoft provided prior to the 1.03 UPDATE. Same holds true for the majority of Rising Sun scenarios I would like to design for future updates.

Does these mean that the scenarios will turn into a huge naval battle? No, because that isn't the point of including the ships. If someone wants to do so, that's up to them, they are free to design any type of scenario they wish. And you have the freedom to play it or not if you wish.

Would such a scenario be included in future updates? No.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. Is it a start and a work in progress? Yes. Will there be code to reflect the complexities of a ship environment? Who knows, but as you say, is it even necessary if the ships are just sitting in the blue water providing fire support; in essence the floating artillery can now be on the map if the designer wishes them to be.

At the moment, I do not believe there are any game scenarios or campaigns where any of these features come into play, with the exception of the bootcamp scenario.

Jason Petho

[K K Rossokolski]

I begin to understand the rationale....basically, these things are eye candy. Certainly, there was nothing sillier than the little naval gun icons, when used on the screen. In principle, your solution seems reasonable.. BUT An issue with the ships in harbour could be that CS is largely all or nothing when it comes to destruction. Ships are more commonly damaged rather than sunk outright , and CS might not cater for this well at all. I am no longer much interested in numbers...is it within the probabilities of the game that a battleship could be sunk by say a Tiger, or a 170mm shell. If so, just silly.
I remain deeply concerned about the existence within CS of units of doubtful pedigree and TOTALLY opposed to the bizarre non-flying long range bomb shooters, and of couse the simply absurd alleged "submarine." These latter might be at home in a freak show, but not here.

You might consider a caveat in the manual to the effect that these things are just for show, not for (simulated) real and shouldn't be used.

[Von Earlmann]

We'll see what they try to do over at Matrix. I, for one, will not have this new stuff shoved down my troat.

Ed

I don't know Ed.....the last time Talonsoft put in the so called old assault rules.........they were shoved down our throats :-)

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I agree with Von Earlman's last post about assault rules.

Also I fixed the quote box for you Earl! :smoke:

Thanx!

[Chris Merchant]

[quote=Von Earlmann]

I don't know Ed.....the last time Talonsoft put in the so called old assault rules.........they were shoved down our throats :-)

Now this is ages ago, and I may be wrong, but wasn't it at the insistence of jim rose that made a lot of the rules change in EFII, including the assault rules?

cheers

[Kool Kat]

[/quote]

CS is a simulation. By definition, it should not incorporate elements that do not simulate. It simulates WWII-era land combat....within its limitations, it does this vey well indeed. That is why we play it. We dont play it for the River Plate scenario, but for the Invasion of Europe, or Kursk, or Bougainville. It quite adequately simulates seaborne elements supporting the land battle. It has some capability to simulate some air aspects, although there are weaknesses here.. You and your team have done terrific work improving the game, new countries, new units, filling capability gaps, much more. 99.99% of it is an honest copy of the real thing.

Well stated here. :)

Let this be a warning not to "over step" the simulation boundary limitations, scope and CS engine capability - especially in an effort to introduce "new" game content.

I like new units as much as the next person...

However...

I play CS because it simulates WWII-era land combat with the supporting air and seaborne elements. The supporting elements need to remain second to the core and heart of CS - WWII-era land combat. Also, IMO, these supporting elements should never detract or become a kind of "mini-game" within CS.

My two cents.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

[quote=Von Earlmann]

I don't know Ed.....the last time Talonsoft put in the so called old assault rules.........they were shoved down our throats :-)

Now this is ages ago, and I may be wrong, but wasn't it at the insistence of jim rose that made a lot of the rules change in EFII, including the assault rules?

cheers

To answer all the comments of this vein. Yes, Talonsoft did not take a vote for the change from the old assault rules. They made the changes after the game was on the market for a couple years?
Now, we have returned to where the game was ten or more years ago?
This, after it has stood the test of time, both growing and maintaining devoted followers?
I did not want a change. I honestly believe that the game was changed. I'm not sure I have ten years to wait to see if it stands the test of time.

[Mike Abberton]

While I never played EF, as I understand it, when the assault rules were changed it was in the presentation of an entirely new game, EFII versus EF. That's not quite the same thing as a patch to an ongoing game.

I am just not sure why something so significant was changed without making it optional. Imagine if CS had never included the armor facing rule, and then all of a sudden v1.03 came along and only had armor facing effects.

[Von Earlmann]

Let's clarify the change.......a lot of us (ok just me) were disgusted with the first change. I thot the original assault rules were the best part of the first game. Not only did they change the rules (Talonsoft) they charged us another $40 bucks for the privilege(which they didn't make optional) and it took 2 years to get it done;but the airplanes were prettier.Seems like everything is now being changed within a few weeks (and in an attempt to please peolpe)and it don't cost much :-)

I will take what Matrix is doing over the so called support from Talonsoft any day.

VE

PS: Someone said smile, it could be worse; I smiled and sure enough it got worse :-)

[Ivan]

Talonsoft were a joke when it came to support for this game. People used to plead with them on their message board and you would be lucky for a two word reply a month later. I've never seen a company like Matrix in terms of support. If anything they are in danger of trying to please too many people and could end up pleasing no one. I'm all for leaving the decisions to a small group of people who understand the principles of wargaming and have a vision for the game. I'm sure John Tiller didn't design the thing based on the whims of lobby groups. Democracy stinks:) It's ok to liisten to feedback but you just can't incorporate every and any idea.

I fear too many options and back tracking etc. will simply leave a mess of a game that no one can agree on. It will also undermine the ladder system as you could in effect be playing very different games in terms of balance so the ladder would not be a true reflection of ability.

As for people worrying about scenarios being unbalanced with the new rules, how many scenarios are truly balanced at the moment? I can't imagine it would be difficult to tweak a few scenarios and the new rules might breathe new life into some that were completely unbalanced. It fresh air for me.