Extreme assault?

[Hawk Kriegsman]

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.

No it does not. I dare say I play just a few more turns per day/week/month etc than you do.

Did you need to have the right force mix in 1.02 to achieve a 99% success rate.......no you did not.

Your 1.04 update notes do not state that you need the right force mix.

They clearly state the % drops from 99% to 60 to 70% nothing more nothing less.

By your own statement you show that one cannot get to a 60 to 70% number. As you have added another variable....the right force mix.

Now what you are saying is that you can only get to 60 to 70% if you have the right force mix.

Many of the most experienced players in the game are telling you it isn't right.

Basically you ignore us.

Many ask for something a little lighter than 1.04 assault.

You ignore us.

Many tell you that you have taken assaults from the game.

You ignore us.

Also I forgot earlier to throw in early. Alphonse is 100% right when he states that most assaults should result in casualties to the attacker / defender or both.

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.

No it did not. If you were even maginally competent at the game you know how to do this.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Saying the new rules reduce the game (at least the assault part) to just a dice roll is not fair obviously.

Actually it is. While your other points in this post are quite valid the mere fact that there is always a 10% that you fail no matter what you do does in fact reduce an assault to a dice roll.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Jason Petho]

No it does not. I dare say I play just a few more turns per day/week/month etc than you do.

Did you need to have the right force mix in 1.02 to achieve a 99% success rate.......no you did not.

It wasn't required?

Your 1.04 update notes do not state that you need the right force mix.

They clearly state the % drops from 99% to 60 to 70% nothing more nothing less.

By your own statement you show that one cannot get to a 60 to 70% number. As you have added another variable....the right force mix.

Now what you are saying is that you can only get to 60 to 70% if you have the right force mix.

Based on the listed factors from the document on how it works, I figured common sense would make an appearance.

Many of the most experienced players in the game are telling you it isn't right.

Basically you ignore us.

I offer my time to explain how they are fine but require some thought to actually perform.

You ignore me.

Many ask for something a little lighter than 1.04 assault.

You ignore us.

I ask for files and situations that explain what your issues are which I explained the benefits above.

You ignore me.

Many tell you that you have taken assaults from the game.

You ignore us.

It's optional.

You ignore me.

Also I forgot earlier to throw in early. Alphonse is 100% right when he states that most assaults should result in casualties to the attacker / defender or both.

As they should.

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.

No it did not. If you were even maginally competent at the game you know how to do this.

Explain that to those that never got the hang of it?

Jason Petho

[Hawk Kriegsman]

It wasn't required?

Nope, as long as you had a couple of SPs you would succeed 99% no matter what you were assaulting.

Based on the listed factors from the document on how it works, I figured common sense would make an appearance.

Where have I lacked common sense in this?

I offer my time to explain how they are fine but require some thought to actually perform.

You ignore me.

For which you have not been ignored (by me at least) and have been thanked for.

I ask for files and situations that explain what your issues are which I explained the benefits above.

You ignore me.

Again not I. I have sent you files and you tell me. You don't have the right force mix.

It's optional.

You ignore me.

Again not I. I have stated that I prefer it 1.04 to 1.02. That does not mean that 1.04 is good or perfect.

Are you saying 1.04 assault is perfect?

As they should.

Well at least we have agreement here.

Explain that to those that never got the hang of it?

That's not hard to explain at all.

They were not marginally competent at the game.

The only people who I have ever seen complain about surround, disrupt assault had rather poor win / loss ratios and from my experiece with some of them directly were not very good at the game in any phase of it.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Jason Petho]

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.

That sums up Extreme Assault pretty well.

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

It wasn't required?

Nope, as long as you had a couple of SPs you would succeed 99% no matter what you were assaulting.

That is the point.

Based on the listed factors from the document on how it works, I figured common sense would make an appearance.

Where have I lacked common sense in this?

Huibs post sums it up nicely.

Expecting old tactics to work, then being upset when they don't.

For which you have not been ignored (by me at least) and have been thanked for.

And I appreciated and thank you again. It is a broad "You".

Again not I. I have sent you files and you tell me. You don't have the right force mix.

And after I offered advice, you found excellent force mixes and succeeded exceptionally with 1.04 rules.

Are you saying 1.04 assault is perfect?

Hardly. I'm saying it is not nearly as horrible as it is being made out to be.

As they should.

Well at least we have agreement here.

Amen!

Explain that to those that never got the hang of it?

That's not hard to explain at all.

They were not marginally competent at the game.

The only people who I have ever seen complain about surround, disrupt assault had rather poor win / loss ratios and from my experiece with some of them directly were not very good at the game in any phase of it.

Maybe the same can be said for the 1.04 Extreme Assault rules?

Jason Petho

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Huibs post sums it up nicely.

Agreed.

Expecting old tactics to work, then being upset when they don't.

Agreed.

It is a broad "You".

I figured as much.

And after I offered advice, you found excellent force mixes and succeeded exceptionally with 1.04 rules.

I have succeeded better. Not exceptionally. I am not at the claimed 60 to 70% with the right force mix. I am not at the 20% either.

If I had to guess I would say I am around 30 to 40% with proper forces.

Hardly. I'm saying it is not nearly as horrible as it is being made out to be.

Again the majority are not saying its horrible. What is being said it is too hard and not as good as it could be.

IMHO it needs to be brought up to a legitimate 75 to 85% with the right force mix without the 10% auto fail and with a 90% likelyhood of losses to one or both sides (irrespective of the defender being dislodged).

I think this will have the effect of actually having an over all 60 to 70% success rate for all assaults (whether or not you have the right force mix) with some sort of tangible result (meaning SP loses) 90% of the time.

Maybe the same can be said for the 1.04 Extreme Assault rules?

In many cases yes sure.

But in my case and many others...no.

I get how they work, I understand how they work and do as you have suggested in all assaults.

I do not get the 60 to 70% advertised result.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Jason Petho]

IMHO it needs to be brought up to a legitimate 75 to 85% with the right force mix without the 10% auto fail and with a 90% likelyhood of losses to one or both sides (irrespective of the defender being dislodged).

I think this will have the effect of actually having an over all 60 to 70% success rate for all assaults (whether or not you have the right force mix) with some sort of tangible result (meaning SP loses) 90% of the time.

This is productive.

Thank you.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

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

I absolutely disagree with you.
You are right about the game being slow. And, the "trick" in the game has just changed with the new Extreme Assault rule.

I've won my fair share of games using extreme assault. I know how it works. I've seen some gamey use of it.
Your reference to needing long term plans in a tactical game just "rings" wrong to me.
There were problems with the original d-s-a but, far less than in the e-a rule this game uses. Planning and execution go by the wayside when a defending unit passes it's morale roll. Regardless of any of the advanced planning for which you speak?

I still have not had the empty transport sitting in a city hex not being able to be overrun by a scout car, ever explained as adding realism or making the game better. But, neither do I expect it to be.

And, I cannot even hope for "to each his own". Obviously some of the "each" are going to be iced of out "Jason's own"?

RR

[Hawk Kriegsman]

This is productive.

Thank you.

Jason Petho

I really do want to see the game be as good as it can really.

Now where is my turn?!! :kill:

Thanx!

Hawk