Extreme assault?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

OMG

Not that God has anything to do with this?
At first I was just going to let this go with my original comment. But, upon further reflection I felt the need to address it.

As he is fairly new here; maybe he should just stop playing you, and he'll have a less negative attitude... just a thought.

mWest seems to have made himself a casualty of Extreme Assault and remove himself from the game?
He did not get his negative attitude from me.

I wonder what you've everything told him while you guys were playing 'unexpected'.

Your "strawman" needs to be addressed? Somehow I know you, and any others, do not have access to my e-mail comments. They went essentially like this:

Mike wrote; "Ed, does extreme assault slow the game down?"
Ed wrote; "Yes, it does."
Mike wrote; "Ed, is playing without extreme assault a more fun game?"
Ed Wrote; "Yes, in my opinion it is."
Mike wrote; "Ed, I cannot stand the way extreme assault has changed the game."
Ed wrote; "Yes, it has changed every scenario. It plays as an entirely different game."
Mike wrote; "Can we end it now and not go through the torture?"
Ed wrote; "I think I can change the outcome and show you how to battle against extreme assault along the way. Can we try?"
Mike wrote; "Sure, but I do not like the game with extreme assault on."
Ed wrote; "O.K., we can try our next one without extreme assault. I'll let you pick scenario and side."

That, my dear Herr Huib is the gist of the e-mail exchanges that you believe are so negative and "poisoned" a new player's mind?
We played two scenarios with extreme assault on and one with extreme assault off.
He terminated play as he wanted to get "seasoned" through learning from other players before resuming a match against me. Mike strongly disliked the way extreme assault made the game feel. he told me he did not enjoy it and expected more fun from playing with rule version 1.02.
Mike got his bitterness from somewhere or someone who is not me?

Having made the comments from memory, Mike can correct me if I made glaring statements that are not true?

On top of that Gavin, who has been playing the game and a member of the club longer than me, has left the game over extreme assault. I do not think that either were from being poisoned by me.

Your statement that the scn should not be played with extreme assault because of the GERMAN chances was rather unconvincing, especially where the initial complaints were about Germans holding out too long.

Here you are mixing apples and oranges?
I said one unit was holding out for too long through the miracle game engine die roll that comes with extreme assault. I did not say that it effected the scenario's outcome.
Both mWest and I felt that we saw "unrealistic" results over the course of nine game turns.

Now, that being said, I do not mind when my written words are in dispute. I do mind when words are put in my mouth to make a point to refute something I had no issue with. Especially from someone who, months ago, said he would not read my posts nor comment upon them?

Now, to all the "complaining non-combatants". Let me know where and what I have said above that warrants a complaint? I see none.

RR

_________________________________
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But, the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." Luke 23:39-40

[Dan Caviness]

Hello to all:

I'd like to reiterate a valid point made by at least two others that I hope isn't getting lost in the shuffle. There are really well balanced existing scenarios where the new assault rules will make a big difference. I'm OK with the extreme assault as stated earlier.
But...some of the real "bunker buster" close up rugby scenarios from the old game (Dickens' I / II-Monte Cassino...and the Fight for the Tractor Factory or whatever it's called in Stalingrad for two good examples) are really going to play a lot harder and differently with the new rule. In those you simply have to disrupt...assault....and push, because everyone's bunker to bunker or pillbox to pillbox. The old rule works very well in those because just getting all the enemy units disrupted is an accomplishment...much less doing damage.

I've enjoyed those scenarios every time I played them and I certainly wouldn't want to see them change. Monte defines the disrupt/surround/assault philosophy and it's what makes it work.

You miss a couple of those chances in those scenarios....your game is in trouble.
Any of those bunker to bunker close assault fights are going to change radically with the new rule.
As long as the old option is available I'm going to keep playing those without EA.

As a scenario designer I am taking a look at my scenarios and I believe I'll start recommending whether or not I feel they are suitable for extreme assault. Of course players can choose to ignore that recommendation....and often will.

Not trying to stir a thread that got a bit heated...only trying to salvage the valid points that were made by some.

We can agree to disagree....and will...but thanks to the game designers....we can play it which ever way suits us or the scenario at hand.

Try asking EA Games to do that with Battlefield or whoever publishes World of Warcraft they need to adjust their orcs...ain't gonna happen guys and we have a good thing going with this game and the serious competitors who enjoy it.

In my current game with Von Luck I had a turn where I failed to capture a bunker with two shot up and disrupted German units in it. I assaulted it three times with multiple units and tried to mix armor/infantry/and the available commanders each time.

Strike one....two...three....

Now I'm just a wee bit steamed....but I have this one 1 SP MG unit that had such a low assault value I never commited it....and you guessed it....the 4th try where I was outnumbered....whammo....I'm owning Von Luck's bunker with a lowly single strength MG...

I figure the first three assaults were all guys getting out in a couple weeks, too short to see over their shoetops....and the MG unit....well...he was obviously Sgt. York with a heart full of hate and a fist full of viagra...

Metaphor was never my strong point.

Regards,

Dan

[Huib Versloot]

That, my dear Herr Huib is the gist of the e-mail exchanges that you believe are so negative and "poisoned" a new player's mind?
We played two scenarios with extreme assault on and one with extreme assault off.
He terminated play as he wanted to get "seasoned" through learning from other players before resuming a match against me. Mike strongly disliked the way extreme assault made the game feel. he told me he did not enjoy it and expected more fun from playing with rule version 1.02.
Mike got his bitterness from somewhere or someone who is not me?

Point taken. I apologize.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

That, my dear Herr Huib is the gist of the e-mail exchanges that you believe are so negative and "poisoned" a new player's mind?
We played two scenarios with extreme assault on and one with extreme assault off.
He terminated play as he wanted to get "seasoned" through learning from other players before resuming a match against me. Mike strongly disliked the way extreme assault made the game feel. he told me he did not enjoy it and expected more fun from playing with rule version 1.02.
Mike got his bitterness from somewhere or someone who is not me?

Point taken. I apologize.

Thanks! I appreciate that. :)
I hope you know that our main problem is that we both love the game and our views on the new changes are diametrically opposed.
And, we are both forceful speakers that defend our positions?

I believe EA is something that changed the game for the worse. Whereas you believe that it needs to be tweaked to make the game even better? I hope that will lead to a "something in between" assault rule.
I also hope that our future discussions will contain all the passion but will deal only with the facts from our individual perspectives?

And, we can both share a laugh when other members faint from the few agreements we may have along the way? :smoke:



Respectfully,

RR

[Kool Kat]

He terminated play as he wanted to get "seasoned" through learning from other players before resuming a match against me. Mike strongly disliked the way extreme assault made the game feel. he told me he did not enjoy it and expected more fun from playing with rule version 1.02.

Both mWest and I felt that we saw "unrealistic" results over the course of nine game turns.

Hi Ed... and thanks! :cool:

The above snippet that I lifted from Ed's post is the point I was "attempting" to express in my postings.

And one other item...

My "bitterness" stems from specific individuals and the manner in which they "debate" contrary views and opinions in this thread and on these forums. Again, I apologize for any explicit or implied comment that I made that may have offended others. It is not my intent and I will strive to do better in the future. I am passionate about CS and sometimes that passion spills over in my postings? My intent; specifically in this thread, was to share my recent experience using EA and how it impacted both game flow and my enjoyment of a WF scenario. Period.

Other posters chose to imply that what both Ed and I experienced playing "Unexpected" was either "exaggerated" or "out right" lies? One poster accused Ed of "tainting" my views towards CS. Another person felt the need to dissect every sentence of every post of mine... in an attempt to prove me wrong?

So, yes I am "bitter" when these sorts of "debates" erupt on these forums. I also resent the fact that Ed needed to both elaborate and provide details on our conversations to others... in order to prove what we were stating earlier about EA was true?

And, yep, I'll continue to work at "thickening my skin" and I'll continue to join in and contribute to CS threads as appropriate... but know this about me, I will NOT accept any individuals who either imply or outright call me a liar. Expect an enthusiastic and vigorous response from me! :smoke:

Update - I have resigned from my PBeM CS matches... and going to take a break from them. But will return to PBeM when the time is right for me.

Enjoy your games guys! :cool:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Another person felt the need to dissect every sentence of every post of mine... in an attempt to prove me wrong?

If you are going to accuse me of something please have the decency to use my name. I was not dissecting every sentence of every post of yours. I have better things to do with my time. Nor was I trying to prove you wrong.

So, yes I am "bitter" when these sorts of "debates" erupt on these forums.

That's a shame as it is a game.

I also resent the fact that Ed needed to both elaborate and provide details on our conversations to others... in order to prove what we were stating earlier about EA was true?

But it is only in your opinion what you say about EA is true. Your perception, you reality is your truth. I get that. But that does not make it a universal truth.

And, yep, I'll continue to work at "thickening my skin" and I'll continue to join in and contribute to CS threads as appropriate...

Good to hear!

but know this about me, I will NOT accept any individuals who either imply or outright call me a liar. Expect an enthusiastic and vigorous response from me! :smoke:

I do not believe anyone called /implied you are a liar. If you want us to expect lively debate/ defense, etc. from you then please understand you will get it from others.

Update - I have resigned from my PBeM CS matches... and going to take a break from them.

Wrong move IMHO.

But will return to PBeM when the time is right for me.

We'll play when you come back!

Enjoy your games guys! :cool:

Enjoy your quiet time.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Cheers to mwest for a quality PM exchange that he initiated.

Any perceived issues between the two of us are all resolved.



Let's move to something more productive.

Like halftrack usage! :whis:

Thanx!

Hawk

[Kool Kat]

Cheers to Hawk!

Thank you sir.

[1925frank]

I've read other posts were someone tries multiple assaults with good odds and fails, and then the person tries an assault with exceptionally low probabilitities just for giggles and takes the hex. That might reflect the lowering of the morale of the defenders from the previous assaults. Still, it doesn't seem to ring true. Then again, maybe after three failed assaults with favorable odds, a machine gun section could literally walk in.

If the defender wins 10 percent of the time regardless of odds, and if the assaulter wins 15 percent of the time regardless of odds, and if the assaulter has 7 units in position to assault, the assaulter might try 7 independent assaults at bad odds and, if the percentages are correct, he should be able to take the hex -- preferably sooner rather than later. If the assaulter does this, presumably on those occasions where the actual odds matter, the assaulter would take a beating in SP losses. It's that beating that would discourage the assaulter from taking this approach. On the other hand, if the assaulter is not in a position to have good odds but has seven units that can assault at bad odds, the assaulter might try it for lack of a better alternative and still come out taking the hex.

I've read some posts (I'm not quite sure where) that you should put all your eggs in one basket for one assault with exceptionally good odds. I'm not sure I agree with that when 25 percent of the time the odds are irrelevant to the result. I would think you'd want multiple assaults with good odds (2 to 1 odds). You wouldn't want to squander AP when 25 percent of the time the extra AP don't contribute to the result one way or the other.

One of Umbro's earlier posts suggested, at least to me, that statistically, in the context of the game, the smart move is not to assault but to engage in a firefight. If, in real life, the smart move is to assault, then the game parameters are out of order with reality. If the response is that in real life, you should assault in these circumstances, the problem is that, for game purposes, assaulting is the wrong choice. I have no military training, so I'm clueless on when assaulting is the right choice in real life. For game purposes, everyone, regardless of military training, will learn when an assault seems to be the right choice.

Under the regular assault rules, the player was apparently better off assaulting for game purposes than he would have been in real life. In real life, an assault under given circumstances may have been a risky or expensive proposition, but for purposes of the game, the assault was risk free.

If I'm misreading how the odds are irrelevant 25 percent of the time, please correct me. I'm a little confused on why the odds should be irrelevant 25 percent of the time.

I always thought assaults were expensive in casaulties for the assaulting force. Under the regular assault, it was usually risk free for the assaulter. I've read posts where there should be more bad results, in terms of disruptions or casualties, for both the assaulter and the defender. Again, I've no military training, but that seems right to me. I think assaulting requires getting out of your protected area and running in the open where presumably the defender is waiting to shoot you.

Edit: I thought one of the explanations for the 10 percent defense-wins-regardless-of-the-odds was that the assault was effectively called off or aborted. If that's the thinking, then perhaps the result should be "Assault aborted" instead of "No result" or "No effect," both of which imply the assault took place and failed without any adverse consequences to either side. We already see something like that with starshells, where not every attempt to file a starshell succeeds. With an "Assault aborted," I think players wouldn't balk at the result quite as much. I don't how difficult it is to launch an assault, but it might be that launching one is never a sure thing.

[Jumbo]

Some nice points Frank. I mentioned earlier when this thread started up. I am fine with both 1.02 and Extreme assault since players have the option to select one or the other. Assaults did fail from time to time in real life even when the odds were dramatically in favor of the attacker. With 1.02 that would almost never happen. With Extreme assault it appears from threads that it's happening more often than seems historically accurate or realistic. It's very conceivable in real life that high quality troops with good morale that have even taken some serious blows would or could hold out against a much larger force of poor/fair quality troops with average or below average morale that are attacking fresh. There are numerous historical accounts of stuff like that happening in the past. On the other side of that, It wouldn't be so incredible or unusual for poor/fair quality troops that have average or below average moral and even fresh on top of it getting assaulted by higher quality troops who are tired and even fewer in number and losing. Assaulting successfully is very dependent on the quality and moral of the troops involved. Numbers of course are important along with weapons mix. In CS games I feel it should be somewhat unusual for disrupted troops of fair to poor quality and moral holding on against good quality forces with good moral and with decent assault values. That even with the defenders out numbering the attackers. Now if the defenders have been disrupted but are of good quality/moral and decent defense value, I don't see any problem with them holding on for a bit if being assaulted by troops of less quality/moral and a not so special assault value. If I recall with version 1.02 this would almost never happen if defender was disrupted regardless of quality/moral of defender versus attacker (not entirely realistic at all). And if fair/poor quality forces with average moral that are all ready disrupted are holding on against superior quality forces with better moral and even numbers in their favor. Well that's not to realistic either IMO. Has that been happening a lot with extreme assault?. If so, Some on should really take a serious look into that one. I have not played enough games as late to know that. I'm only commenting on other players observations and my few experiences with EA