Options 1.04

[Deutscher Landser]

I´m a german player and my english is too bad to understand all arguments of the 1.04 discussion. I`m playing since 1997 and i took every patch immediately. For me, new rules were NEVER a problem. I only like this game and play every day. For me 1.04 is great, because you have so many new units, the night rules are fine too. etc. Earlier (1.02 etc) there were some unbalanced scenarios, too.
So what..... come on guys, let`s play and have (strategic) fun !!

[Tiger 88]

Well Gents - I maybe sitting at the top of the ladder - but I could give two hoots about that - and those that know me - know my words are true!

What I really care about is the fact that both sides have an equal chance at winning - and therefore - the balance is key to me with a good scenario.

In my opinion - the new rules have made the defender advantageous in most scenarios that I have or am playing - and have made the equality unbalanced. I do not like the fact that I have to have zone of control (meaning I have about every hex enclosed) before I now assault the enemy. This to me is not balance - now my guys are subject to the enemies artillery - or now I have to "shoot-out" the bad guys and hope that I get good die rolls to eliminate them - and how fun is it now to send tank volley after tank volley to try and eliminate the enemy?

You all know how I personally feel about the v1.04 rules and would really love to see something in between. I still play with both sets of options but my preference is playing without the new rules turned off.

Further - I keep coming back to this - when a single rifle platoon - disrupted and not at all at full SP can fend off engineers, rilfeman and Tiger II's on a paved road in a clear hex - well thats just a bit too John Wayneish for this cowboy!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

<snip>

I judge balance of existing designs just on win/loss ratios. In case of this scn it is almost 50/50, even if the scenario was designed to be tougher for the Germans (hence the title) and the stronger player should pick that side.

This is where I get lost in the argument.
If a game is designed as "balanced" and perceived as balanced why would "the stronger player" pick one side or the other?

Would it always then be unbalanced if played by opponents of equal ability?
If the scenario dBASE shows a 50/50 split on wins that would actually be a false stat because of who played which side?

If you are judging balance based on win/loss but you want "the stronger player" to play the "weaker" side, where is the balance? How could balance then be judged?

Maybe it is semantics all along?

RR

[Huib Versloot]

This is where I get lost in the argument.
If a game is designed as "balanced" and perceived as balanced why would "the stronger player" pick one side or the other?

Would it always then be unbalanced if played by opponents of equal ability?
If the scenario dBASE shows a 50/50 split on wins that would actually be a false stat because of who played which side?

If you are judging balance based on win/loss but you want "the stronger player" to play the "weaker" side, where is the balance? How could balance then be judged?

Maybe it is semantics all along?

RR

Yes it favors the Allies when 2 players are of exactly the same ability and have exactly the same stronger and weaker points and bad/ good days at exactly the same time. If I played against a clone of myself I think the Americans would win two thirds of the time. But 1 third the Germans would win. Fortunately not all players ARE the same.
Now what is your point?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Yes it favors the Allies when 2 players are of exactly the same ability and have exactly the same stronger and weaker points and bad/ good days at exactly the same time. If I played against a clone of myself I think the Americans would win two thirds of the time. But 1 third the Germans would win. Fortunately not all players ARE the same.
Now what is your point?

First off, you stated that it was not balanced, not me. :rolleyes:
Secondly, if you made a clone of yourself you both would like the scenario? ;)
Third, you and the team said that you ignore whatever I say? :chin:
Lastly, my point is that you made an unbalanced scenario? And, seem to enjoy admitting it?

RR

[Huib Versloot]

Yes it favors the Allies when 2 players are of exactly the same ability and have exactly the same stronger and weaker points and bad/ good days at exactly the same time. If I played against a clone of myself I think the Americans would win two thirds of the time. But 1 third the Germans would win. Fortunately not all players ARE the same.
Now what is your point?

First off, you stated that it was not balanced, not me. :rolleyes:
Secondly, if you made a clone of yourself you both would like the scenario? ;)
Third, you and the team said that you ignore whatever I say? :chin:
Lastly, my point is that you made an unbalanced scenario? And, seem to enjoy admitting it?

RR

Nicely played with words Ed. Thanks for your positive contribution to the discussion. You have again bored a thread to death.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Yes it favors the Allies when 2 players are of exactly the same ability and have exactly the same stronger and weaker points and bad/ good days at exactly the same time. If I played against a clone of myself I think the Americans would win two thirds of the time. But 1 third the Germans would win. Fortunately not all players ARE the same.
Now what is your point?

First off, you stated that it was not balanced, not me. :rolleyes:
Secondly, if you made a clone of yourself you both would like the scenario? ;)
Third, you and the team said that you ignore whatever I say? :chin:
Lastly, my point is that you made an unbalanced scenario? And, seem to enjoy admitting it?

RR

Nicely played with words Ed. Thanks for your positive contribution to the discussion. You have again bored a thread to death.

I think you need to take a step back and review your words.
You said you made "a scenario that needs the stronger player to take the German side" to have "balance". That was the point.

Throw in extreme assault and it throws off the balance of every scenario for the attacker. Which was a point that is continually ingnored?
You have become the "front fell off" man.

On a personal note; why don't you address a post instead of attacking a poster? Especially after you claimed to be bored and would not post here again?
If you are bored, don't respond?

RR

[Jumbo]

Hello All,

Having been out of the picture for some while due to family and health issues it may seem not right to some for me voicing a firm opinion on the new 1.04 rules. With that aside and having followed the post's regarding them at both the Blitz and Matrix forum sites. And presently have a few games going on. With the Rising Sun Scenario "Philippine Scouts Stand and Fight" the 1.04 extreme assault option has been selected. I'm the Japanese player who must attack and assault successfully in order to just achieve a draw or victory. The West Front scenario I'm playing, I'm the German attacker with the extreme assault option turned off. Both players I'm playing are quite experienced. With the West Front scenario, It's in it's early stages and no assaults have happened as yet. But if they had, It really wouldn't be that important IMO to mention them. As I have pretty much all ways been of the opinion that the old 1.02 assault rules made assaults far to predictable and unrealistic IMO. When I heard there was a new assault option available with the Matrix 1.04, I was quite pleased and felt it was an absolutely great idea on the part of the players and Matrix team involved.

What the CS game gives us, Is a huge selection of both troops and equipment. The values given to those troops and equipment (infantry/tanks ect.) should IMO be derived by using such sources as technical data and known historical info on those units in order to best provide those values in the scale in which the CS game is played. IMO the original CS designers did a fantastic job for the most part. The results are outcomes that appear to be fairly historically correct given the circumstances and units involved. This IMO with the exception of the old 1.02 assault rules (to predictable IMO). Now we have here the 1.04 extreme assault version which players can either to play with or not. And that's pretty nice. However after watching assault after assault of mine fail over and over again regardless of the point that I had reduced and disrupted all the allied troops within those hexes. Having anywhere from 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 advantage in numbers using 1st line Japanese infantry with moral of 8 upped to a 9 with leaders participating in all those assaults against disrupted troops with only a moral of 5 to start with. Now it's just my opinion that aside from all the advantage of numbers a quality of troops I using those assaults. Their moral was a 9 versus the defenders who only had a 5. The moral value is I guess to model the fighting spirit to some degree of those troops. Taking the numbers/quality/moral and disruption factor involved in those assaults. I can tell you at face value the results of those assaults were IMO quite unrealistic. Historically were anyone of the results possible? .. YES. However IMO they were not historically likely given all the historical history data that's floating out there. Would I have excepted one of those assaults failing? .. Yes I would. But all?. This is where a toned down version of this new 1.04 assault might and should be in order IMO. And yes I do know players can either to select to play with it on or off. But why have the two extremes only available to players?. 1.02 far to predictable and unrealistic. And the 1.04 now appearing far to predictable as to what overwhelming numbers the attacker will need and also making itself to predicable and unrealistic in it's own fashion. A fantastic job by the fellas involved with this. But it's gone to much to the actual extreme IMO.

[Huib Versloot]

Hello Jumbo,

Perhaps a test is in order because my experience with the Japanese is quite different from yours. In an RS scenario against Erik I conducted quite a few succesful assaults with morale 8 Japanese (that was even in 1.03, so twice as hard as 1.04). As long as I limited myself to asaulting his morale 5 (at the start) Australian or Dutch rifle platoons, carrier platoons and MG platoons I nearly always succeeded, even if they were in trenches or IPs. I was far less succesful against his morale 7 engineers, so I avoided assaulting these. That seemed normal to me.

My fear is that those who wish a toned down version will not be satisfied until it's toned down enough so they can continue the tactics that were succesful for them hundreds of games before. Personally I wouldn't mind if it was toned down a little, nor if it was made as hard as in 1.03 again, just as long it stays hard enough to make a return to those gamey tactics impossible.

Huib

[K K Rossokolski]

Hello All,

What the CS game gives us, Is a huge selection of both troops and equipment. The values given to those troops and equipment (infantry/tanks ect.) should IMO be derived by using such sources as technical data and known historical info on those units in order to best provide those values in the scale in which the CS game is played. IMO the original CS designers did a fantastic job for the most part.

Good to hear you again, Jumbo, I hope the issues you allude to are on the mend. I agree with you that the original designers did a fantastic job, which their successors have ably duplicated, simulating the characteristics, performance, power and appearance of a huge multitude of units.
EXCEPT FOR TWO AREAS The ridiculous bathtub "navy," the units of which bear only the vaguest resemblance to that which they claim to portray, and the nonflying "bombers" which can attack without leaving the ground....a capability seemingly unique to the new Campaign Series. These recent "improvements" add an unfortunate element of farce to an otherwise deeply and seriously considered creation.