Extreme assault?

[Jason Petho]

@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. :)

I can get around it if necessary, but having it saves some time.

Jason Petho

[Big Dawg]

When the new rules came out & the debate was all over the MB, I suggested that the extreme assault formula be tweeked to offer a compromise between the 2 rules.

I still believe this additional assault rule would offer the customers (us) what we are asking for.

From these MB posts I am not alone.

Please consider adding this option.

Thanks!

[1925frank]

Am I to understand that the only type of criticism that will be considered are those articulated in the context and format of specific files sent to Jason?

There have been a number of constructive comments made by some of the game's most experienced players. That should count for something, even if those comments are not accompanied by game files.

What distinguished Campaign Series from other games, at least for me, was the assaults. Assaults played a prominent role in Campaign Series. Campaign Series was never about trading shots in an ongoing firefight.

Umbro's post and some of the others show that one of the results of extreme assault is the diminished role of assaults. I don't think this was an intended consequence. If that is true, Campaign Series starts to look far more like many of the other games where assault is there but does not figure prominently in the way the game is played.

There have been some comments about doing the assault incorrectly. This suggests that the designers have something in mind that many players are missing. If Matrix intended extreme assault to add something, and if that something can only be appreciated if the player uses a specific tactic, then something may be amiss. My impression is that gameplay is not naturally leading players to use that tactic and that use of that tactic and appreciation of that tactic has to be artificially coached into the game. The goal may be great, but it's not translating well into gameplay just yet.

I was never proficient at assaults. I played the AI for years, and assaults had their role but the role wasn't nearly as prominent as when playing against another person. I don't feel qualified to go into the merits of the dialogue to any depth. My impressions, though, are that one of the most distinguishing and exciting aspects of Campaign Series has been blurred or blunted.

My impression too is that everyone (or virtually everyone) thinks extreme assault is a step in the right direction. The debate is over whether it should be the final step. In my opinion, this thread has been the most constructive one I've seen.

[Scud]

I'm curious. What if there had been no Talonsoft version and the Matrix 1.04 was actually v1? Would your feelings regarding the extreme assault rules (especially as an option) be the same, pro or con?

And Jason, as part of the Matrix team, would you be more or less open to modifications if this had been a brand new v1 release? Also, I'm not sure anyone's asked this you directly or not, but are you considering modifying extreme assault rules in the future? Seems like everyone thinks you're not, but I don't remember ever seeing you actually say that.

[Jason Petho]

And Jason, as part of the Matrix team, would you be more or less open to modifications if this had been a brand new v1 release? Also, I'm not sure anyone's asked this you directly or not, but are you considering modifying extreme assault rules in the future? Seems like everyone thinks you're not, but I don't remember ever seeing you actually say that.

Tweaking the 1.04 Extreme Assault rules will more than likely happen in the future, they have been tweaked already from 1.03 to 1.04. (they are "easier" in 1.04 than they were in 1.03). Whether that tweaking happens for 1.05 or 1.06 or beyond, I do not know.

Will there be Light Assault, Medium Assault, Kinda Extreme Assault, Super Extreme Assault options available? No, not in the foreseeable future.

Having files from players to see and interpret what the issues are, seeing specific examples of the assault failing or not working as expected are essential for noting what the issues are, or if they are issues at all. The last set of files I received showed the situation to be something else than what was explained on the board.

Having files allows me to go through them and see what the results are, what factors are being attributed to those results, what results are reoccuring (in different games) allowing me to understand what tweaking should take place, if any.

"It doesn't work" or "I can't assault any more" or "I tried assaulting 10 times and nothing happened" doesn't help.

If one stops playing with the rules, how can one provide constructive criticism to help tweak them?

It is like living next to train tracks. After awhile you become accustom to the sounds of the trains.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Will there be Light Assault, Medium Assault, Kinda Extreme Assault, Super Extreme Assault options available? No, not in the foreseeable future.
Having files allows me to go through them and see what the results are, what factors are being attributed to those results, what results are reoccuring (in different games) allowing me to understand what tweaking should take place, if any.

"It doesn't work" or "I can't assault any more" or "I tried assaulting 10 times and nothing happened" doesn't help.

If one stops playing with the rules, how can one provide constructive criticism to help tweak them?

It is like living next to train tracks. After awhile you become accustom to the sounds of the trains.

If you live by the train tacks and the train derails and crashes into your house what would you do?
That's more than Venus or swamp gas. O.K.?

Extreme assault itself is the problem. That is how contructive I can put it. Others also state it?
You think it is a matter of waving a wand over the brew, reciting a few lines from a spell in Latin, spin around three times backwards, and hope that Lucifer comes to kill the defenders work for you? It does not work for me. I don't play D&D. I play a tactical wargame. At least I hope it is still a tactical wargame?

Frank wrote:

There have been some comments about doing the assault incorrectly. This suggests that the designers have something in mind that many players are missing. If Matrix intended extreme assault to add something, and if that something can only be appreciated if the player uses a specific tactic, then something may be amiss. My impression is that gameplay is not naturally leading players to use that tactic and that use of that tactic and appreciation of that tactic has to be artificially coached into the game. The goal may be great, but it's not translating well into gameplay just yet.

Between reducing the effectiveness of armor, taking away "assault", making transports more valuable but harder to kill. And impossible for some units to assault - even with a lone vehicle in the hex - because now the hex and the die roll become more important than what a unit could realistically do? In that, you have radically changed the game.
Extreme assault sucks. Learning how to do something that sucks is not fixing anything, IMO.
Telling players that they are not doing it right does not fix the game? It only fixes the player who did not have a problem in the first place?
Sending files to you that you will explain away that way will not fix the problem.

In light of Scuds comment, I have given some thought. I do not think that I would have stuck with the game for as long as I did if the current extreme assault rule was the norm. The game is not as fun to play (which strangely is a common comment from other players).
Maybe you will wish that I never saw the Talonsoft version?

Hell, I never wished I would have seen version 1.03 (the horrible abomination) and version 1.04's Extreme Assault which changes the game for the worse.
That's my opinion. It has always been my opinion. It will always be my opinion.

You've diminished the game by allowing the game engine, and a die roll, take over for "skill of the playing of the game" by the gamers.
If you want to leave Extreme Assault in, why not do so for those who play the AI? It is the AI that needs the help?

RR

[Jason Petho]

That's my opinion. It has always been my opinion. It will always be my opinion.

Yep.

Jason Petho

[Hawk Kriegsman]

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

Jason Petho

I will have to give you your due there.

And for the record I went from prefering 1.02 over 1.04 (I was a big disrupt, surround and assault guy) to now prefering 1.04 over 1.02.

That however being said 1.04 does not work as advertised.

This is what you have said:

Assaulting with the 1.04 UPDATE
August 18, 2008 by Jason Petho
The previous system had relied heavily on there being a 99% chance of defeating disrupted units. That is no longer the case. Disrupted units now have a fair chance of defending themselves and although it is still relatively easy to defeat them, the chance of doing so has slipped to between 60% and 70% of the time.

This is simply not true. It is nowhere near 60% It is closer to 20%.

And you know that.

It is not relatively easy either.

If you actually gave us the 60 to 70% as advertised I would say that this issue would be done.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Jason Petho]

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

I will have to give you your due there.

Thanks!

If you actually gave us the 60 to 70% as advertised I would say that this issue would be done.

With the right force mix, yes, it is functioning 60% to 70%, IMHO.

There is still a learning curve required to figure out what that is, but it does work. It takes time, of course.

Surround, Disrupt and Capture required a learning curve as well. Some got it straight off the mark and mastered it, other never got the hang of it at all.

Jason Petho

[Huib Versloot]

You've diminished the game by allowing the game engine, and a die roll, take over for "skill of the playing of the game" by the gamers.
RR

Saying the new rules reduce the game (at least the assault part) to just a dice roll is not fair obviously. Right now with EA there is far more skill needed in the game to be succesful than previously. This new skill however you have to demonstrate over the whole map and connected over a series of turns. There is far more planning and tactical vision involved with EA than without EA. In other words you have to be more creative and use more coherent plans now to be succesful. On a smaller level: if you want assaults to be succesful, you need to take more into account than just making sure the enemy is disrupted. So this also requires more skill than without EA.
With the old rules it was more a matter of doing the Surround, disrupt etc trick wherever you could. For this, just some unit handling skills and very short term planning are needed, I would hardly call these tactical skills.
I don't say EA doesn't need improvement but your criticism is too shortsighted to do anything with.

Huib