Extreme assault?

[Stryker]

@jason
I don't mind sending you the battle files when I see silly assault outcomes.. only problem is I don't assault very much any more because of it, and you will need my opponents password to see it (or can you get around that?). I'll try to remember. :)

Again, as Huib put it earlier, there should be a higher cost when assaulting, whether or not the assault is successful, to both sides. My complaint is about having a couple of totally surrounded / reduced / disrupted infantry platoons, assaulted by overwhelming combined arms attackers, even with leaders.. resulting in... no effect.... for either side, time and time again. I'm not saying the assault should succeed first time every time, but should have a high probability of success, and a higher cost to both sides.

I will say, that I do prefer the new rules as they have livened up the series, changed the way scenarios are played - which makes them worth playing again to see what effect the changes have made, and made everyone think more about tactics and ways to win.... BUT .... I think it could be even better :)

Next time it happens, i'll send the files.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

LOL!
Sending files is the only determinant of your making a change? :chin:

Ridiculous! Extreme assault is not the CS fix that you thought. :eek1:Something "in between" is what is requested by those who play the game. It would not be hard to make an in between option? Call it "regular assault" or "realistic assault"? Call it what you want to? Extreme Assault is far from real. It is more a joke and coupled with what you did to transports makes it more so. :mad:
But, it a revised or optional medium assault needs to be done. Extreme Assault is as stupid to some as the version 1.02, disrupt/surround/assault, was to you (or, whomever wanted it in your beta club/team).
Sending you files is like sending UFO reports to Project Blue Book. We all know it is not swamp gas or venus, O.K.? :rolleyes:

RR

<snip>
The overall tone of your post, especially the last sentence, is unjustified. Why the antagonism?

Because I knew that I would get this response:

Sending files is the only determinant of your making a change?

Yes.

Jason Petho

Extreme Assault has "damaged the game" or in the least has changed it to the worse. That is my opinion. I wanted a more mild version because I liked the concept, found that the version 1.02 d-s-overrun may be equally unrealistic, and E-A totally favors the defender when victory hexes are located in built up areas.
Since the beginning of version 1.03 (remember that debacle) we've had nothing but "justification", belittlement, personal attack, and silence from the Matrix team.
If you send a file you are told that extreme assault is working as intended. You are told that you are doing it wrong. Yet, when you state that it is slowing the game down, that is their intent.
How is Jason going to see that the problem is that it may work as intended but it is wrong as intended?

Therefore, the similarities between sending files to Jason to be told "nope looks like it works to me" and "Sir, that photo (with the alien's autograph) is merely swamp gas."

As to the comment about my tone? I type.
My tone would be in my voice?
I do only talk about it when outside so I can spit on the ground. :)

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Oh my GOD, here we go again.Who started this thread he should be court marshaled. I know that the xtreme assult isn't perfect but it is a far cry better than the old automatic surround, disrupt, capture. As someone earlier said I think that when you have one group rushing to assult another a lot more losses should be taken on both sides. If the losses were greater for the attacker win or lose it wouldn't be such a big offensive stratagy. I have a hard time seeing how the game takes longer, its still only X number of turns. I believe the exteme assult is closer to reality than the old assult rules were. Just my opinion on the subject.

Chuck

Cuck,

I am not saying that I want to remain with version 1.02 assault disrupt and overrun. And, some do find that just as realistic "within the scale and concept of the game" as others who see version 1.04 as "realistic".
I think 1.04 can balance an unbalanced scenario. But, that makes the point that the Extreme Assault rule changes the game dramatically.
If, like me, a player thinks that Extreme Assault slows the game down and is unrealistic, why do we have to accept it?
What about making a simple formula to create a "mild" option. Something inbetween?
I'm sure that the code exists and could be easily plugged into an update. Hell, it could even be offered as a "mod" if they wanted to.

Forcing the use of Extreme Assault is not the way to go. But, it seems that it is the way they want to go?

I'm glad someone brought this up and so many others are making their opinions public.

RR

[zeiss]

only problem is I don't assault very much any more because of it,

Exactly. Assaults become few and far between with Extreme Assault on. Instead there are a lot more lengthy short-range firefights. The attacker can seldom afford the extra time for this in the shorter scenarios.
It's also not unusual to actually kill or retreat all the enemy units before the assault because the assault hex needs so much prepping.

Extreme Assault is currently on 11 and almost removes assaults from the game, it would be nice to have it (or a new assault setting) toned down to 7 or 8..

Since the beginning of version 1.03 (remember that debacle) we've had nothing but "justification", belittlement, personal attack, and silence from the Matrix team.

You forgot the WMDs and the links to Nazi-Germany.. ;)

[Hawk Kriegsman]

So far, I have received two files since 1.04 came out.

Jason Petho

That's not entirely true. You and I played a sceanrio where I complained about the assaults regularly. I pointed out numerous times where the assault result was unrealistic.

as RH said most of us don't even bother assaulting very much as it is a waste of time.

If you go back and read Wyatt's comments we were supposed to go from a stack of disrupted units being defeated 99% of the time to that same stack being defeated 60 to 70% of the time.

This simply has not happened. I have played 183 games in the last year. I think I know what I am talking about when I tell you it does not work as Wyatt intended.

I and many others have asked for something between 1.02 and 1.04 assault rules.

Are you now saying you will not do it because you are not being sent files?

Is not the experiences of myself, Mr. RR, Alphonse, umbro, RH, etc, etc, not enough for a third assault option to be under taken?

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Hawk,

My point was to use the extreme assault rules in scenarios that HEAVILY favored the attackers (4-1, 5-1, 6-1 odds) in an effort to make that particular scenario more of a contest than a 1 sided turkey shoot.

Yes I understood your point perfectly.

I think we all understand that the extreme assault rules will give a great advantage to the defender in traditionally balanced scenarios.

No I do not think that we all understand that at all.

My point was directed at the unbalanced ones only.

And my point was directed at the balanced ones.

THANKS!

You are welcome.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Also i have notice sometimes i cant even kill transports with shots. Trucks should be dead meat almost everytime, but i am not finding that. This just adds to the littering affect.

I have to disagree with you here. You used to be able to wipe out a 6SP platoon of loaded trucks with a 1FP shot from a 1SP unit.

That is no longer the case, which is a good thing. The loaded transport being 100% destroyed when shot at went from 99% down about 70% with the other 30% being made up of retreats, a step loss (1 SP, 2SP, 3SP) or a no effect (lets face it your guys could miss)

I think the killing of unarmored transports is spot on!

Thanx!

Hawk

[Huib Versloot]

Let me clarify that I prefer EA much over the old version, but I just want to see more blood. At the moment so many times it seems you just trade all your action points for the "no effect" message. So called unsuccesful assaults should lead to some sort of loss of sp most of the times in my opinion. Loss of sp would also lead to reduction of morale if I'm correct, this way the EA would become somewhat less static and cumulative assault results could bring a greater chance of succes.
Not sure if it is technically programmable nor if I'm making sense to readers of this :)

Huib

[Chuck10mtn]

Oh my GOD, here we go again.Who started this thread he should be court marshaled. I know that the xtreme assult isn't perfect but it is a far cry better than the old automatic surround, disrupt, capture. As someone earlier said I think that when you have one group rushing to assult another a lot more losses should be taken on both sides. If the losses were greater for the attacker win or lose it wouldn't be such a big offensive stratagy. I have a hard time seeing how the game takes longer, its still only X number of turns. I believe the exteme assult is closer to reality than the old assult rules were. Just my opinion on the subject.

Chuck

Cuck,

I am not saying that I want to remain with version 1.02 assault disrupt and overrun. And, some do find that just as realistic "within the scale and concept of the game" as others who see version 1.04 as "realistic".
I think 1.04 can balance an unbalanced scenario. But, that makes the point that the Extreme Assault rule changes the game dramatically.
If, like me, a player thinks that Extreme Assault slows the game down and is unrealistic, why do we have to accept it?
What about making a simple formula to create a "mild" option. Something inbetween?
I'm sure that the code exists and could be easily plugged into an update. Hell, it could even be offered as a "mod" if they wanted to.

Forcing the use of Extreme Assault is not the way to go. But, it seems that it is the way they want to go?

I'm glad someone brought this up and so many others are making their opinions public.

RR

Ed,
xtreme assult, I would like to see maybe 3/4 of what it is now any easier would in my opinion make it too easy to become a way of battle. I think it was used as a last resort for taking a position of importance. People here have gotten use to the old tatic of S D C (Surround, Disrupt, and Capture )and are having a hard time adjusting how to play. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just changed the way you or people in general have to approach the battle now.I never got the hang of S D C so to me its not a big deal.With regards to the Issue of Xtreme assult, I would like to see how the different sides feel about their total strategy. How often they use assult when attacking.What percent of thier attacks are assult. How do they assult. Assult 1st, Use Arty then assult, Surround, Disrupt ,Assult. But more than that I have a hard time buying that 90 guys can rush a dug in infantry unit and after all is said and done everybody goes back to thier origional spot with no causalities.

Chuck

[Jason Petho]

That's not entirely true. You and I played a sceanrio where I complained about the assaults regularly. I pointed out numerous times where the assault result was unrealistic.

Yes, and I took the time to explain how to do them better, which you have been successful at doing.

Jason Petho