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

[Herr Straße Laufer]

What does one do?

[Etc. snipped]

What I would like to know is: Is there a comprensive plan to make all the scenarios 1.04 compatable?

Thsi massive undertaking needs to be done (at least on the stock scenarios) to make them balanced, winable from both sides and fun.

This should really be considered by the fine folks that do such things.

Thanx!

Hawk

2 points

1. When in the history of this game did we have a set of perfectly balanced scenarios?

2. Wargaming has traditionally been about simulation as well. Warfare and battles are rarely evenly balanced. Why this obsession with winning at the cost of making it a decent simulation?

If we are not interested in a sense of realism why bother playing the game, there are literally thousands of arcade games around with nice graphics and sound affects.

Adam,

If you ever read the old Talonsoft forums, or the ones here (especially those related to the H2H area) PBEM became more and more seen as the strength in keeping this game alive.
I'm not sure of how many players think an unbalanced scenario played by e-mail is fun.
Talonsoft, and to some degree most scenario designers, try to taylor their scenarios to be balanced. How they achieve that balance can be debated. But, most would agree that balance was a factor.

If you design a scenario against the AI, it will have to be made with a degree of finesse to provide both a challenge and keep it fun enough to play again? I've found some scenarios that were designed to play against the AI are well balanced H2H. But, I think they are the exception to the rule that was used to create them.

If I want simulation to trump a balanced game, I could simply read a history book? Why play a game? Once you start the first turn as a human, unless you have a history book in your lap, the simulation no longer simulates?

And, yes, to the comments of others. I believe that all scenarios will be effected by version 1.04. Many already have.
I do not think it is getting used to the new assault rules either. Delays in attacks change the speed of the game. In the end the result will be different from a fast paced to a slower paced game. It's all scale, mathematics, and the new luck.

For those that design simulations, please keep doing so. Most I have looked at seem like a lot of work was put into them.
I play by e-mail. I play for fun. I probably will not find much use for the simulation scenario but, I am sure that others might. It's worth it!

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

...la Italiana is no more...

If this means what I think it does, you have my deepest sympathy! :(

....v1.04 it does nothing to any existing scenario...

Ed...I dare you, or any one...to tell me you have won a scenario that you have lost elsewise....

...for all of you blokes...there is nothing that can be done to protect them...

Actually you contradict yourself.

I have won games that I have lost. I've also lost games that I have won. I'm not sure what else you are trying to say.

If the scenarios are not affected by the new rules why do they need to be protected?
And, I did have some comments in another thread that would have addressed the changes to scenarios effected by version 1.04.
____________________________________________________

Once again, personally I am very sorry for your loss (if that was your meaning). I hope you will cherish the good and that the rough, sharp edges will be made smooth for you.

Regards,

Ed

[Huib Versloot]

Well as ive stated in another thread on this Huib 13 Panthers and 3 A/C's assault a disrupted Russian mg unit and no effect is the result.That is a glaring no no on these assault rules.The whole problem members had before with the assualt rules were with bunkers and pillboxes not general against infantry in normal terrain.Tanks assualting in Town hexes ok maybe give way there as that was not their function.Just my point on this.

That must have been the heroism % factor (which I didn't invent) As I stated before in another thread, to minimize the chance your enemies are heroes make sure that they have to be heroes twice or 3 times in the same turn. In other words assault in groups of 2 x 6 sp Panthers or something ... or shoot them dead. I'm not a big fan of this heroism dice, but I doubt if I would lose games over it. Historically if there were heroes we have the advantage of hindsight and the designer can give them an exceptional morale. I don't favor random temporary heroes on the battlefield designated by a lucky dice roll, but these specific examples are constantly used to say that the entire set of 1.04 assault rules is too hard which isn't true IMO.
If one sticks to using units that are good at assaulting and in a certain terrain and have morale it works almost all of the time even without an overwhelming force.

[RedDevil]

several things need to occur

1. people need to realize this is a NEW game.. the EXE has been changed, it is a new game .. end of story

2. people need to quit trying to compare the old and new versions as if they should co exist in complete harmony. It is apples and oranges.

3. The old game still plays, simply insert your CD and play it, but don't try this on a VISTA equipped PC.

4. The new version requires one to practically forget all they have learned from the old system in order to play it properly. Why people cannot fathom this simple factoid is beyond me.

5. Nobody is making you play this game, or even purchase it. You made a choice to try it, so now you must embrace the changes to your gaming styles to fully enjoy the product, otherwise it is simply another poor decision of funding allocation.

6. The realization that this game is not going to be the same as the old version. Grasp change, overcome, preserve, adapt

7. The assault rules are optional, USE THE FRIGGIN OPTIONS if you can't handle running with the big dogs who like it with meat AND potatoes. Quit howling at the moon over something that is there with choice.

I know... all to simple... but the truth is, the NEW version of CS kicks ass and it's a whole different ball game to master.
So for all the time spent discussing faults and miscues that the new games has that the old one doesn't, instead of playing and re-learning, nothing really gets accomplished.. except for around and around the maypole til we all fall down...

oh and 8. someone needs to realize that I have NO, NONE, NADA vested interests beyond a free copy of the game for beta testing scenarios.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Another nice post Randy. It says a lot.

RR

[RedDevil]

my later post said more, but it got removed.
I suppose it was far to more sarcastic than yours is

[Herr Straße Laufer]

It happens? Even to officers of the club?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-TItmXT8Dk...re=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j2nJn6rZdt...re=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VqLaTJdYJ8...re=related

Especially the third one?

Why are you intent on highjacking another thread and having it locked down?

RR

[Scud]

It would probably be helpful if designers, in the future, give their recommendations as to what optional rules they'd recommend. I think a scenario designed specifically for the new assualt rules, for instance, would get a lot of play. Unfortunately, I agree that the old scenarios might now be unbalanced with the new rules. Still, as time goes on and enough are played, the ones that are balanced should emerge.

Just as an aside, I wonder what's going to happen when Windows 7 makes it's appearance (scheduled for next year)? Will the game still play?

[Jason Petho]

Just as an aside, I wonder what's going to happen when Windows 7 makes it's appearance (scheduled for next year)? Will the game still play?

I would think so, at least I will do my best to ensure it is.

Jason Petho

[Ivan]

Ed,

[/quote]

Adam,

If you ever read the old Talonsoft forums, or the ones here (especially those related to the H2H area) PBEM became more and more seen as the strength in keeping this game alive.

[/quote]

I used to read the Talonsoft forums. The difference between then and now is that Matrix and the crew actually want to listen to the people who play the game and welcome feedback.

[/quote]

I'm not sure of how many players think an unbalanced scenario played by e-mail is fun.
Talonsoft, and to some degree most scenario designers, try to taylor their scenarios to be balanced. How they achieve that balance can be debated. But, most would agree that balance was a factor.

[/quote]

I take your point, I do not necessarily disagree.

[/quote]
If you design a scenario against the AI, it will have to be made with a degree of finesse to provide both a challenge and keep it fun enough to play again? I've found some scenarios that were designed to play against the AI are well balanced H2H. But, I think they are the exception to the rule that was used to create them.

If I want simulation to trump a balanced game, I could simply read a history book? Why play a game? Once you start the first turn as a human, unless you have a history book in your lap, the simulation no longer simulates?

And, yes, to the comments of others. I believe that all scenarios will be effected by version 1.04. Many already have.
I do not think it is getting used to the new assault rules either. Delays in attacks change the speed of the game. In the end the result will be different from a fast paced to a slower paced game. It's all scale, mathematics, and the new luck.

For those that design simulations, please keep doing so. Most I have looked at seem like a lot of work was put into them.
I play by e-mail. I play for fun. I probably will not find much use for the simulation scenario but, I am sure that others might. It's worth it!

RR
[/quote]

The point I think I was trying to make is that we have never had a perfectly set of balanced scenarios. Therefore, a change in the assault rules or other changes will not necessarily alter the sum total of balanced scenarios. Some that were unbalanced may become more balanced for example. If I only wanted to play perfectly balanced scenarios I would have a very limited set of scenarios to play from. Sometimes the fun is beating the odds, overcoming a critical situation etc. This might not mean winning all the time, it might mean doing the best with what you have got. It would be quite easy for any player to tweak the victory conditions if their sole concern was balance with a view to a potential victory.

I actually agree with you that some of the results from the new assault rules do not always produce plausible outcomes. I think what we had before was worse in terms of realism and simulation however.

I thought it was really good of Matrix to listen to the concerns and to make the new rules optional.

I am unclear what your concern is now. It seem you are against any sort of change to what you regard as a classic game? Can you accept that there are many people who want to see change and who prepared to put up with teething problems to achieve that change?