Extreme assault?

[Jumbo]

Question for Matrix development team. If 1.02 assault seemed or proved to work just fine for so many years (though maybe not entirely realistic as to how easy defenders could be mopped up most if not all of the time). And Matrix development team then to took the time to provide more realism regarding assault results. That optional Extreme Assault setting now appears to many players, (plenty of those players being quite experienced with the game and WWII history in general) As not a move toward historical realism (with some exceptions of course) or for better and more enjoyable game play. Couldn't or wouldn't be possible to provide an assault setting that did not make assault results seem so obvious as they were with 1.02 or be as difficult as it appears with 1.04 extreme assault selected ? .. Providing something in between (not so easy and obvious and not to hard that it brings realism or feeling realistic in to question) May really help here.

[Scud]

. . .Couldn't or wouldn't be possible to provide an assault setting that did not make assault results seem so obvious as they were with 1.02 or be as difficult as it appears with 1.04 extreme assault selected ? .. Providing something in between (not so easy and obvious and not to hard that it brings realism or feeling realistic in to question) May really help here.

I doubt that would work for the simple reason that the new rules seem so subjective. I have a hunch that no matter what Matrix does there will always be some who won't like it. The obvious choice was to make the new rules optional, which Matrix neglected to do the first time around, but corrected, based on the feedback they received from the very same players who claim they're being ignored.

I've stopped trying to understand why those who dislike the EA rule don't simply turn it off, unless they feel the EA is a good idea but still in need of work, which Jason has already alluded to.

Now, if the new rule option, turned off, somehow changed the game engine, THAT I would understand. I just haven't seen it in the games I've played.

[Kool Kat]

The WF scenario was "Unexpected."

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/show...6&ladder=2

All Optional Rules = ON except Variable Visiblity and Armor Facing.

I looked at the scn file. It doesn't look to be a scn that is really much affected by EA. I'm not a big fan of bunkers or trenches in street hexes, but these are not positioned on top of objectives. More frustrating would seem the off map 25 pounders. To me these guns always seem rather ineffective at longer ranges.

But every victory point is located in town hexes surrounded by trenches and bunkers with nearly every approach avenue defended by troops in trenches and bunkers defending in woods and hill hexes?? !!

Wow! :chin:

Actually, your reply is rather scary and somewhat enlightening, especially coming from a scenario designer. It tells me that some scenario designers do not understand the impacts of EA on either game design, flow, or victory conditions. It also tells me that these same individuals (with just a cursory glance at scenarios they have never played), readily dismiss other players' (who actually PLAYED and COMPLETED scenarios using EA) comments on the impact of EA to scenarios. :chin:

[Huib Versloot]

The WF scenario was "Unexpected."

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/show...6&ladder=2

All Optional Rules = ON except Variable Visiblity and Armor Facing.

I looked at the scn file. It doesn't look to be a scn that is really much affected by EA. I'm not a big fan of bunkers or trenches in street hexes, but these are not positioned on top of objectives. More frustrating would seem the off map 25 pounders. To me these guns always seem rather ineffective at longer ranges.

But every victory point is located in town hexes surrounded by trenches and bunkers with nearly every approach avenue defended by troops in trenches and bunkers defending in woods and hill hexes?? !!

Wow! :chin:

Actually, your reply is rather scary and somewhat enlightening, especially coming from a scenario designer. It tells me that some scenario designers do not understand the impacts of EA on either game design, flow, or victory conditions. It also tells me that these same individuals (with just a cursory glance at scenarios they have never played), readily dismiss other players' (who actually PLAYED and COMPLETED scenarios using EA) comments on the impact of EA to scenarios. :chin:

By looking at the scn I think the Allies can win it. Is that so strange?
What else do you want me to say; That I buy your exaggerated comments on the scn and EA?

We can give it a go if you like. EA has not deterred me from playing any scn, nor would I ever blame a loss on it.
Below the player's comments on the scn. Now tell me who is right...

Hawk Kriegsman 4

Panther 4 The first steps for the Allies are very dangerous! The german MG platoons are very strong, their knockout isn´t easy. But a the middle of the game the Allied advantage will be larger.
Hawk Kriegsman 4
rsa 4
Hawk Kriegsman 4
Hawk Kriegsman 4
RADO 4
Smedley 3
Relayer 3
Fubar1 3 Many options for the Aliied player to choose.
Tiger 88 3
MrRoadrunner 3
XLVIII Pz. Korp 3
Digger 3 Plenty of options for both players, though the Allied mobility and strong artillery and air support is a distinct advantage

Sergent Bourgogne 3
K K Rossokolski 3 Might need a little tweaking of the victory points. Would be totally pro allied if Extreme Assault was OFF

Yossarian 3
MrRoadrunner 3 Should not be played with extreme assault rules turned on. MrRoadrunner 2
mwest 2
mwest 2

[Kool Kat]

By looking at the scn I think the Allies can win it. Is that so strange?
What else do you want me to say; That I buy your exaggerated comments on the scn and EA?

We can give it a go if you like. EA has not deterred me from playing any scn, nor would I ever blame a loss on it.
Below the player's comments on the scn. Now tell me who is right...

Hawk Kriegsman 4

Panther 4 The first steps for the Allies are very dangerous! The german MG platoons are very strong, their knockout isn´t easy. But a the middle of the game the Allied advantage will be larger.
Hawk Kriegsman 4
rsa 4
Hawk Kriegsman 4
Hawk Kriegsman 4
RADO 4
Smedley 3
Relayer 3
Fubar1 3 Many options for the Aliied player to choose.
Tiger 88 3
MrRoadrunner 3
XLVIII Pz. Korp 3
Digger 3 Plenty of options for both players, though the Allied mobility and strong artillery and air support is a distinct advantage

Sergent Bourgogne 3
K K Rossokolski 3 Might need a little tweaking of the victory points. Would be totally pro allied if Extreme Assault was OFF

Yossarian 3
MrRoadrunner 3 Should not be played with extreme assault rules turned on. MrRoadrunner 2
mwest 2
mwest 2

You win Alfons! :bow:

It's all a game anyway.

[Von Earlmann]

Actually the original aasualt rule that came with the original East Front.....was not broken and did not need to be fixed...........Talonsoft in it's wisdom did fix something that was not broken.............and we have been struggling and divided eversince........there is no road back to yesterday........but perhaps we could get the original assault rule put back in.........but don't pay no mind to me......I'm just an old man.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The WF scenario was "Unexpected."

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/show...6&ladder=2

All Optional Rules = ON except Variable Visiblity and Armor Facing.

I looked at the scn file. It doesn't look to be a scn that is really much affected by EA. I'm not a big fan of bunkers or trenches in street hexes, but these are not positioned on top of objectives. More frustrating would seem the off map 25 pounders. To me these guns always seem rather ineffective at longer ranges.

Your comment says it all?
I agree. You do not understand.
It is much effected by extreme assault.

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

By looking at the scn I think the Allies can win it. Is that so strange?
What else do you want me to say; That I buy your exaggerated comments on the scn and EA?

We can give it a go if you like. EA has not deterred me from playing any scn, nor would I ever blame a loss on it.
Below the player's comments on the scn. Now tell me who is right...

There were no exaggerated comments. I watched everything he commented on.
Your smug attack against mWest is more telling than anything you've said to this point?

The scenario, I might add, is not all that great. It is made much worse by extreme assault. I've played it both ways.
Not as bad as some I've played that were new for West Front in version 1.04. :smoke:

And, for the record, mWest does not seem to have an agenda or a tie to Matrix like some of those interested in keeping extreme assault, or version 1.02, the only options.

You can see that, I hope?

RR

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I have "no ax to grind," agenda, or ties to Matrix Games. I'm just a fair player (but learning! :) ) as I play better and more experienced opponents. So I'm more of a casual, then hard core guy.

I come to these forums to learn from others and to expound upon CS -a game system that I enjoy and spend hours playing.

I also believe that EA has fundamentally changed assault and not for the better. I kept an open mind when EA was first introduced and intially played all my games with that option = ON to see the effect.

Well, it was the WF scenario "Unexpected" that finally tipped the scale for me. What a miserable 18 turns of a game for me... and yes, for my opponent too. Frankly; for most of the game, after some initial tactics... I simply had to fire on my opponent's exposed troops - while secure in my trenches and bunkers, with no worries of suffering ill effects from multiple enemy assaults, artillery barrages or direct fire attacks - even when surrounded for several turns.

So; yes, I have an option (thank goodness!) to turn EA = OFF and I do.

But, I believe that CS players deserve more then the two 'flavors" of assault that are currently available... and that is why I posted in this thread. My belief is that ALL CS players should be able to voice their opinions and weigh in on subjects of interest here. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but I believe everyone should read and try to understand others' views.

I also try to maintain a fairly "thick skin" - especially after witnessing how some folks get treated by others who have agendas on these forums!

However, I will not allow others to either "imply" or out right call my a liar without a response from me. I don't lie. What I described in an earlier post concerning the WF scenario "Unexpected" was true and my opponent can verify these facts. I know what I experienced.

So, when can CS players expect that next assault option? :smoke:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

To all:

I have played Unexpected 5 times.

2 as the Brits (2 major wins) and 3 as the Germans (2 major wins and 1 major loss).

With respect to all, extreme assault has no effect on the outcome of this scenario....period.

If the Brit player knows how to play CS then he will win 90% of the time. His forces are superior to the Germans in ever shape manner and form. The Germans can't stop the Brits in the end.

If the Brit player does not know how to play CS well then he will get murdered.

I actually rated this one 4 different times and 4 of the times gave it a 5 for balance 3 of the times.

This one favors the Brits. Sorry guys but if is the scenario you are using to say EA is broken then you are a bit off.

You lose this as the Brits it is for other reasons.

Thanx!

Hawk