Assault Rules...Outcome

[Jason Petho]

I think Gary was kidding Ed.

Thanx!

Yes, Gary was clearly kidding.

Once I have the Dutch 1940 oob's complete, that is the last of the additions that will be included with the 1.04 UPDATE, I will send the UPDATE to the BETA BRIGADE and they can give it a quick once over.

I suspect it will be given to Matrix on August 14th or so and should be available for download sometime after that.

That date is NOT set in stone, but that is my target.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

Thanks. Great thread. I thought we'd have to wait years for the optional component.

"Extreme assault" must be the old rules. Correct?

If I understood Huib's comment, the old rules allowed for speed, and that speed may have been out of proportion to what could realistically be accomplished. This made the game gamey. Similarly, the old rules allowed for massive points grabs at minimal or no cost to the attacker, which was also out of proportion to what could be realistically accomplished, and this too made the game gamey.

I have no military background, but the one thing that struck me about assaults was how, under the old rules, the attacker rarely paid any price (other than AP). I would think assaulting units would be a high risk proposition regardless of the status of the defenders and that assaulting units would invariably take a few hits -- even if it's just to become disrupted after taking a hex.

My primary complaint is the game is wounded and hobbled with the current bugs. Issuing a patch prematurely might cause new problems. Ideally, once the new assault rules are implemented without bugs, the question of optional rules will become moot.

[Von Earlmann]

I think extreme assault is the new ( fixed) rule. The main problems with the old assault rule:
1. Disrupted units almost always lost (except to trucks)
2. Non disrupted units almost never lost no matter what the odds
3. Lead to gamey play of herding and then annihilating an overwhelming superior force with insignificant units ( the justly famous halftrack assaults of T/34s, KVs, and infantry is the most glaring example. The other worst case was the continued assault of armor unsupported by infantry in building hexs.
4. It lead to way too many assaults in most scenarios.
5. It throws the victory conditions way out of wack.

I am in hopes that the fixed new version will just use the assult tables with the factors of terrain,disruption, works,etc being accounted for. Then if you win you win and if you lose you lose........it will never be a completely known event.

VE

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I suspect it will be given to Matrix on August 14th or so and should be available for download sometime after that.

Of what year? :stir:




I kid, I kid!

Thanx!

[Jason Petho]

I suspect it will be given to Matrix on August 14th or so and should be available for download sometime after that.

Of what year? :stir:




I kid, I kid!

Thanx!

And that is exactly why I didn't include the year!

Your guess is as good as mine!

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"Extreme assault" must be the old rules. Correct?

Others have answered but, I have a viewpoint.

Old rule "extreme assault - easy"
New rule "extreme assault - too difficult"

Anywhere in between would be fine. :)

If I understood Huib's comment, the old rules allowed for speed, and that speed may have been out of proportion to what could realistically be accomplished. This made the game gamey. Similarly, the old rules allowed for massive points grabs at minimal or no cost to the attacker, which was also out of proportion to what could be realistically accomplished, and this too made the game gamey.

Some truth there. But, I would not know what Huib's comments were intended to say.
Most players who stuck with the old format, through all the years, had learned to adapt to the assault rules. And, a few "house rules" prevented further "gameyness" in using trucks to surround and Ht's from assaulting without other combat units involved in the assault.
Though, I will say I've seen a ton of "gameyness" in the new assault rules. I'm not sure that anyone has seen them all. :chin:

I have no military background, but the one thing that struck me about assaults was how, under the old rules, the attacker rarely paid any price (other than AP). I would think assaulting units would be a high risk proposition regardless of the status of the defenders and that assaulting units would invariably take a few hits -- even if it's just to become disrupted after taking a hex.

Assaults were a fine art to some. ;) But, you have made excellent points. I would not mind a few hits or some AP delays using new rules. It is the loss of multiple turns and the heroic status of the disrupted unit, in the close assault rule, that is really a drag on these new rules.

My primary complaint is the game is wounded and hobbled with the current bugs. Issuing a patch prematurely might cause new problems. Ideally, once the new assault rules are implemented without bugs, the question of optional rules will become moot.

I would add wounded and hobbled by the "extreme assault" formula of the the new assault rule, even without the bugs and glitches.
I'm all for ferreting out the problems and releasing a patch as soon as possible. And, for not having the assault rules as optional if they are toned down. :smoke:

It might even make any "jokes" about it ... funny? :rolleyes:

Ed

[1925frank]

I find it hard to evaluate the new assault rules with the current bugs, so I'll reserve judgment until I see what Matrix wants me to see. Some of the complaints seem unrelated to the bugs, but maybe they are bug-related. I may not be as adept as others at sorting out what is and is not bug-related. Some of it is obvious. Some of it may not be so obvious. There might be ripple effects. I know nothing about programming, so maybe this is just gibberish or wishful thinking.

I enjoyed and was willing to play the game under the old assault rules. I'm kind of irked that my game play is being interrupted in this way. Even if the goal was worthwhile, the path taken to get there has been a very bumpy one. My hope is that once we get there, I'll say the bumpy ride was worth it. I'm not willing to rule that out as a possibility, although I am sceptical. Other players have indicated they were sceptical too and have been won over, so we'll see.

[Reddog]

From what I've read & watched it sure is getting close to what I would believe and hoped to be a few nice changes to the game. Now the wait... again the wait... it seems like I've been chasing a carrot on a stick since June 2007. I finally get to taste it and they dangle another carrot and then I wait... and wait................................ but I love this game! I'll wait...

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Even if the goal was worthwhile, the path taken to get there has been a very bumpy one. My hope is that once we get there, I'll say the bumpy ride was worth it. I'm not willing to rule that out as a possibility, although I am sceptical. Other players have indicated they were sceptical too and have been won over, so we'll see.

I was very irked myself. :rolleyes:
Bumpy ride is a great phrase. And, so appropriate. These last days seem like months. :smoke:

Won over? LOL!
I'll gladly march to the tune and sing the praises; when there is a new assault system in place that was neither the old or the new (sans bugs).
If someone even thinks to try to "win me over" I'd rather just put up my hand, and walk away. I'd rather not want to be talked into anything.
If they show me that it is fixed, I'll play my heart out for the band. If they try to convince me that finger nails scratched across a blackboard is music, then I think I will simply leave. ;)



Ed

[Huib Versloot]

Even if the goal was worthwhile, the path taken to get there has been a very bumpy one. My hope is that once we get there, I'll say the bumpy ride was worth it. I'm not willing to rule that out as a possibility, although I am sceptical. Other players have indicated they were sceptical too and have been won over, so we'll see.

I was very irked myself. :rolleyes:
Bumpy ride is a great phrase. And, so appropriate. These last days seem like months. :smoke:

Won over? LOL!
I'll gladly march to the tune and sing the praises; when there is a new assault system in place that was neither the old or the new (sans bugs).
If someone even thinks to try to "win me over" I'd rather just put up my hand, and walk away. I'd rather not want to be talked into anything.
If they show me that it is fixed, I'll play my heart out for the band. If they try to convince me that finger nails scratched across a blackboard is music, then I think I will simply leave. ;)



Ed

Ed,
From what I read over the past month, I don't think you will like the 1.04 assault rules, unless you are prepared to adapt your style of play to some extent, like other veteran players have done who want to play with the new rules. 1.04 extreme assault option is 90% equal to what you've seen in 1.03. So if you think it's something in the middle you may end up dissapointed.
Assaults in 1.04 are intended only for those hexes that you really NEED to capture, and it is not a means to speed up the game, collect easy points etc. No, assaulting will COST time and effort and sometimes blood. But if you prepare them well, and pick the right units to execute them, there is less chance they will fail. Sending out armor to capture infantry in urban areas, will not work, even if the infantry is disrupted, throw your own infantry in the melee with numerical superiority and you will likely score kills, or overrun the enemy.
I would recommend playing around a little when the patch is out, to see what works and what doesn't and you might be won over.

Huib