Options 1.04

[Gordons HQ]

I’m not going to mention my age but there are too many years than I care to mention that have past by. In all that time playing wargames I have noticed there are many different approaches, views and opinions towards wargaming.
There are however probably two types of groups most war gamers fall into.

These are the ones who play for the games sake, where the game is the most important thing and winning is the most important thing.
Then there are those who wish to play the game as a simulation of an historic battle and try to treat it as is realistically possible within the confines of the game.

The former are probably interested in their position on the ladder and rightly so in that case are interested in evenly balanced scenarios. I can also understand their resistance to change if it interferes with their particular style of play.

The latter group are generally more interested in discovering the historic outcomes of various battles and what various weapons could achieve. Because of this they wish a game to be as realistic as it is possible to make a game become.

This is where the problem lies, the two groups will never agree on many basic things.
Luckily the Beta team and Matrix have made it possible to please many players by adding the optional rules, we can now choose which to use and also who to play.

I will confess I belonging to the latter group and I did stop PBEM because the game was at times like playing chess, so predictable and so unrealistic with some of the old rules.
Fast moving chess yes, but nothing like the wars I’ve read so much about.
At least there was a decent AI who rarely used such tactics, so that’s the route I have been using.

So credit I say to the developers, it seems so much better to me now with one or two exceptions. I am prepared to put up with these because they don‘t radically effect the game, ships and bombers I‘m talking here.

If there’s one thing I would like to see added if it’s at all possible is some sort of random fire generated by the AI even when a unit has used up all it’s op’s and is being fire upon. Then a unit firing on an enemy unit would never be certain if the enemy unit would fire back or not. This works in Steel Panthers but it may not be possible to put into the game.
I know you can save points for this but sometimes it’s just not practical.
It just looks plain silly sometimes when one side fires all the time and the other has to just sit there taking it.
I stress, I mean random here and not every unit but it could have a percentage chance to return fire.
If it’s not possible I will just have to grin and bear it as it’s still a great game.
I hope I'm being constructive here as suggested elsewhere in these threads.

Cheers, Gordon

[Glint]

Well put Gordon.
I've played a few games and the assault rules make it harder but, just means a new strategy when playing the scenarios?
I haven't studied battles to the extent you have but I have to admit, the new rules for JTCS force you to play in a more realistic manner than before.
True, the old Surround, disrupt and assault system made for an unrealistic battle and I feel many games were won by masters of that tactic. Now we are all in the position of working out new strategies to play the game more realistically and have to adapt to the new system. A challenge for all but the fun of the game perhaps?
No disrepect to the leaders of the ladders but how do you feel now about learning new tactics to achieve a win as novices again?
I admire the results of gamers who have achieved a kudos to date but, certain bugs with the game excluded, how do you guys feel about going back to scratch and learning again?

regards
Peter

[Herr Straße Laufer]

How about those who do not play for simulation, realism, or ladder stats?

Why is everyone so willing to take that fun away?

RR

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Peter,

Since you asked... I don't think of myself as "Ladder Leader" but I've been here quite a while, and I've been gaming since the late 60's (is that my age showing?) This in mind I do have opinions.

Being an alumnus of the disrupt, surround, annihilate cabal you may find it surprising that after my initial shock with the 1.03, 1.04 asault changes I'm delighted with them! As you've noted many games were won by mastering that tactic and once you had it down... watch out opponents here comes the steamroller.

When 1.03 came out I patched in the middle of a very large Kursk scenario a few turns before I was about to hit a very large, very fortified, (bunkers and trenches) Soviet line. Reading all the assault horror stories at the time I was stunned by the seemingly insurmountable task in front of my landsers. More researching of posts on the boards by both sides of the argument seemed to point to correct prepping of the defender for an assault to carry. So I used that as my guide. I had plenty of nice stuff to "prep" with; lots of 105+ artillery and 9 sections of nebelwefers. Long story short it may have taken me a turn or two longer than in the past but I still rolled up the Sov line and still even managed a few annihilating assaults where disrupted units were herded into one hex for the final assault. I've since discovered that I was probably able to achieve those chain assaults because the defenders morales had been so busted up.

For myself I found it pretty satisfying because I didn't achieve it by "playing the system" (pre 1.03), I did it by some careful planning and preperation. This is not to say that I was not furious sometimes by the Sov positions that absolutely refused to fall by the end of the game even after being surrounded and assaulted continuously for 8-10 turns. But then aren't there always die hard pockets of resistance?

The new assault rules require me to think more, and perhaps play a sharper game. Where in the past I would shoot up and overrun defenders in a town I now manuever first in an effort to isolate the defenders (my first way to lower their morales) Where in the past I would dump my artillery all over the map I now co-ordinate the fire in more confined key areas (another effort at lowering defender morales). My style has changed but I think it has done so in a way that more closely approximates... dare I say the word... realism.

A final interesting anecdote for the stats people out there the only games I've lost since August have been to opponents that don't even own Matrix JTCS and still play the T/S version where I can surround and annihilate at will. Go figure?

Just my .02

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

One last note

Anybody looking to give 1.04 a good road test try "To Save Budapest", EF. Lot's of Russian infantry dug in and a ton of Sov AT that has a hair raising habit of firing from treelines and staying hidden. The SS have excellent morales, consequently they've been able to push assaults pretty good, but the hidden AT fire is mind numbing. My opponent and I were both commenting the other night this is the first time in all our CS play that either of us have ever seen an AT front as a creditable deterrent. Check it out.

Cheers

[Gordons HQ]

I don't like the word fun in connection with wargames it's probably just one of our common language difficulties though.
I prefer to think I get an enjoyment out of pitting ones skills against some kind of opponent or other as opposed to fun, that conjures up an whole different meaning to me.
That aside I fail to see how anyone who loves the game can fail still to get enjoyment or fun out of it in the present form. Surely this enjoyment or fun is part of the challenge of the game and there are new challenges now, of that there can be no doubt.
I hope anyone who thinks he has lost the fun of the challenge will persevere as it seems many like the new options.
Thanks XLVIII Pz Korp for the tip on "To Save Budapest" I've started playing that today and it seems a cracking scenario. That AT gun line is giving me problems, another challenge, just as it should have done in reality.

Cheers Gordon

[Herr Straße Laufer]

By fun, I mean challenging and interesting.
Where most games, computer and board, lose their enjoyment factor is when they become too much a simulation. Steeped in realism. Or, when the game engine takes over.
Classic Talonsoft and Matrix version 1.00-1.02b all had that fun feel. It's a game. At it's base that truly is what it is?
If it was not fun it would not have lasted for as long as it did, through PBEM etc., which seemed to keep it alive.
The cyber world is littered with little silver discs that fell by the wayside because the games they represented were a too childish or a too technically "realistic" genre that sucked the fun out of playing them. Talonsoft and the Campaign Series original developers struck a balance between fun and simulation. I think they had it as "real" as it could get while maintaining flexibility and interest. It was/is the "opponent" that provides the true challenge in the game? The game itself should never take over to make it a challenge other than to face an opponent (even the AI) that puts up a good and fair fight? Might I say in scenarios that are "balanced" so that individual player skills are the most important factor to generate the fun?

Everyone brings up the AT remaining "hidden" effect as an excuse to bear with version 1.04. To me that was never a problem. The problem was (and is) the fact that there are many of us who see the old version 1.02 assault rule as too easy and the new extreme assault rule as too hard (which also allows the game engine to take over a game by chance die rolls).
There could have been a compromise? Or, an additional option for a toned down "less extreme" assault formula, that was actually asked for early in the process? Keeping small AT's hidden was never an issue. Hell, it's not even part of optional variable visibility, it is part of the game engine itself?
Hidden AT's, new OOB's, and the new graphics were worth the price of admission, for me at least.

Let us all know how "To Save Budapest" works out? Are you playing versus the AI? I've played it a few times against some very skilled opponents. You are in for a fun and challenging game.

Ed

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Ed, playing against an opponent. And I can't believe in all the years I haven't played this scenario, so I am playing blind. It's a real white knuckler for the Krauts right now. Actually reminds me of my experiences when I played EF with the ASDN patch.

[Gordons HQ]

Ed believe me I understand and respect your point of view.
However as I know you are aware, there are other points of view too and these people have as much right to expect to get their kind of fun from the game.
I believe that the vast majority of people who play this game never in fact PBEM and someone has to speak for them.
I think scenario balance is a very tricky issue indeed, personally I think if there are both types of scenario balance then we go a long way to pleasing the majority.
The well balanced ones for people of similar views to yourself where you can pit yourself against an opponent on equal terms. Some of these of course are also historical in their balance.
The other type of historical scenario for people who for instance wish to know what say the East Front was really like, where there just was no balance the most of the time.
If all scenarios are all equally balanced, then often the game paints a very false picture of history. Many people buying the game I'm sure don't wish that but may in fact begin to believe it.
Those people wish to pit their skills in historical situations and see if they could in fact do better than the commanding officers at the time did.

Have fun with the game I'm sure you still do, remember now you've got all those options.

I nearly forgot to mention I'm playing the Budapest one against the AI and it's putting up great opposition at the moment, great game.

Cheers Gordon

[Adolf Vahringer]

IMHO, game balance does not equate to equal forces, instead game balance equals the ability to be able to win a scenario from either side. A scenario can be balanced and still satisfy the needs of those who want to play from a historical perspective, they do not need to be separate from each other.

If you adjust fire power/results to give the game a more historical feel to those who want to play against the AI, then you invariably change the results for those who wish to play H2H. If you want to make a more historical game vs. the AI then you need to change the AI, not the results.

Finally, I play several opponents who are close to the top of the ladder, and I cannot say any one of them play solely for a favorable w-l record, but instead rather play because it is an enjoyable game. If you take the enjoyment out, you take out a good portion of the regular players here at the CS and the game will no longer be able to survive as it will not be able to recruit new players.

Just my $.02

Gavin